I know it might be hard for some people to believe, what with my often
simplistic arguments and views and sophomoric humor, but I'm not
actually that young anymore. I've been gaming a long, long time and,
generally, I've found the hobby to have been incredibly rewarding.
From the earliest days of Pong to the modern era of Indie-gaming,
video games have been endlessly engaging, and watching the industry -
and the games - evolve over the decades has been an exciting journey.

But it makes me wonder; now that the industry has stabilized, are
younger gamers missing out?

Because, as fun as the games of yore were, it was also the
anticipation of the new advances - in visuals, in gameplay, in
ever-increasing size - that made getting the newest game such a
thrill. Even the most modest games were noteworthy; jumping to color
graphics from the black-n-white of "Pong? Wow! The five-second long
vignettes expanding "Ms. Pac-Man's" lore? Amazing! Being able to talk
to NPCs in Infocom's "Enchanter"? Surely we'd never top that!

But, with every new generation of computers - heck, with almost every
game - there was some fantastic and novel addition to the genre. And
it kept going; year after year, game after game. The single-screen
arenas of the first arcades expanding into scrolling levels and then
into expansive worlds. We jumped from 2 to 8 to 256 to millions of
colors. Primitive beeps and boops begat realistic orchestral scores.
Controls became streamlined; the most annoying gameplay mechanics were
polished to a diamondlike sheen. Heck, these days you don't even have
to PAY for games anymore if you don't want to.

But that seemingly endless era of progress started to dry up; in the
last decade, the veritable flood of novel and exciting ideas became
glacial. Games of 2013 are - minus a few lighting effects and some
lower-resolution textures - pretty much the same as the games of 2023.
It's not that the games have become worse... but they don't seem to
have gotten any better. What innovations are being made are largely
confined towards helping the publisher better monetize their
customers, even if those changes are often to the detriment of the
gameplay itself. Is it any surprise that my sense of wonder and joy
has diminished over the years?

And sure, there's a part of me that says, hey; this is just what
happens when you start getting up there in years. You become jaded and
cynical. But I've other hobbies where I still feel that old pleasure
and anticipation over the newest and latest that contrasts with the
increasing ennui I feel over video games. Sure, I still have fun with
games; I still add to my library regularly. But ask me what new game I
am eagerly anticipating and more likely than not I'll draw a blank.

So I wonder how the newest generation will relate to video games; will
they ever feel the excitement we used to? Sure, youngsters - by the
very nature of their youth - will always be more open to the hype than
us wearied oldsters - but will they relate to it with the same
almost-frantic way we did? What with the slower pace of advancement
and with video games being an expected part of everyday life (as
opposed to an entirely new form of entertainment), it's hard to
imagine. Sure, they'll wax nostalgic for a few notable titles but -
barring some revolution in the industry - I wouldn't be surprised if
many of them tag out of the hobby entirely when they turn twenty or
thirty.

Might video games one day become the "old people's hobby"? Something
only the sadly nostalgic or aged engage with, like philately or
knitting. Barring a massive change, can video games keep the attention
of the next generation when all it does is repeat the same banal
formulas year after year? I'm not sure it can.

And that saddens me, because there really was a real thrill in those
early years, as we watched the hobby blossom out in a thousand ways,
literally creating new ways to play and helping to push forward the
technologies - graphics, AI, etc. - that now enmesh our lives. Playing
a video game in the 80s and 90s made you feel like you were on the
cusp of a science-fictional future; not quite up to the standards of
Star Trek's holodeck, but on the path to that fantasy. Now, it seems
like that path has become a treadmill, and nobody likes being stuck on
a treadmill for very long.

I see it as similar to the music industry. I see a lot of kids on
Youtube gushing about how good the music of the 70s and 80s was... how
they feel connected to it, connected to an era that existed before
they were even born.

And although as a hobby I don't follow gaming nearly as closely as I
do music, I sometimes see reactions from younger gamers about how good
old games were (the gameplay and design at least, not as true when it
comes to visuals).

I think it's because creative industries see their golden age early on
in their lifespan. The first ones in tend to be the most talented...
the ones who seek out that career path long before anyone else
realizes there is a career path there.

But then over time, corporate greed inserts itself between the artist
and the consumer, and the creative act (music, games, etc.) suffers as
a result of the soul being sucked out of it.

Gaming peaked a long time ago and has been on a downward spiral,
especially with AAA games. Indie developers are still doing some
interesting things, and there is occasional innovation that happens
there, but nothing is really "next level" anymore it seems.

Mostly very mediocre games coming out, their sales fueled by social
media hype rather than the substance of the product itself.

It's a shame but it appears to be the circle of life. Greedy industry
douchebags certainly left their scar on it, but a lot of other factors
really led to the downfall... but that wasn't the only factor, some of
it was just technology naturally evolving (napster and alternatives,
etc.) the end result being it's really hard for talented musicians to
make a living...

Gaming seems to be following the same fate. There is the occasional
gem out there, but it's certainly not what it used to be.

So yeah, I pity the young gamer. They missed out the golden era of
gaming.

On 19/10/2023 23:01, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> I know it might be hard for some people to believe, what with my often
> simplistic arguments and views and sophomoric humor, but I'm not
> actually that young anymore. I've been gaming a long, long time and,
> generally, I've found the hobby to have been incredibly rewarding.
> From the earliest days of Pong to the modern era of Indie-gaming,
> video games have been endlessly engaging, and watching the industry -
> and the games - evolve over the decades has been an exciting journey.
>
> But it makes me wonder; now that the industry has stabilized, are
> younger gamers missing out?
>

I generally agree but with the caveat that rose tinted spectacles do
play a part. So it's easy to look at the games industry now as a whole
while when we think back to say the 90's it's easy to fall into remember
all the good parts and forget about the absolute dross that was also
released.

I would say it was kinda inevitable though as, as the technology
developed the innovation of what you could do with a game would become
less and less. That's then compounded by as the industry becomes
mainstream companies are going to stick with what sells and a side slice
of you can't just knock up a game in a couple of months on a small budget.

For me the golden era is still the early to mid-eighties where
everything and everything was tried. A great example is a game I really
enjoyed, Starion. So you're in a space ship (wireframe graphics and
all), shoot down enemy space ships and collect the letters they drop.
The you use them to solve an anagram. How bonkers is that.

Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> But it makes me wonder; now that the industry has stabilized, are
> younger gamers missing out?
They are. but that's mostly because most parents just give them a tablet
or phone and have them playing mobile crap. Unless the parents are gamer
or they have a friend that introduces to non mobile gaming, they will
miss a lot.

> Because, as fun as the games of yore were, it was also the
> anticipation of the new advances - in visuals, in gameplay, in
> ever-increasing size - that made getting the newest game such a
> thrill. Even the most modest games were noteworthy; jumping to color
> graphics from the black-n-white of "Pong? Wow! The five-second long
> vignettes expanding "Ms. Pac-Man's" lore? Amazing! Being able to talk
> to NPCs in Infocom's "Enchanter"? Surely we'd never top that!
My brain got into "I won't be graphically surprised ever" since
Dreamcast. Nowadays, art direction and style has replace cutting edge
graphics for me. I have been drooling over Snufkin: Melody of
Moominvalley for the last 3 days. That sigur ros soundtrack... (* ^ ω ^)

>there was some fantastic and novel addition to the genre.
Until every addition was the same across all games due to "follow the
leader", so if you did not like one mechanic, you were out of luck
because every game from now on would be open world, have crafting,
unnecessary multiplayer, no single player campaign, loot... And I hope
all of you like AI, because it's going to be everywhere soon.

> The single-screen arenas of the first arcades expanding into scrolling levels and then into expansive worlds.
...That were empty and devoid of life because they just wanted to sell
the map size. That has not been a good thing for games.

> But that seemingly endless era of progress started to dry up; in the
> last decade, the veritable flood of novel and exciting ideas became
> glacial. Games of 2013 are - minus a few lighting effects and some
> lower-resolution textures - pretty much the same as the games of 2023.
> It's not that the games have become worse... but they don't seem to
> have gotten any better. What innovations are being made are largely
> confined towards helping the publisher better monetize their
> customers, even if those changes are often to the detriment of the
> gameplay itself. Is it any surprise that my sense of wonder and joy
> has diminished over the years?

That sounds like AAA game syndrome. The best surprises are the ones that
don't make it to the frontpage and no one pays for the algorythm to give
it the spotlight. Examples that are not AAA and are not well known
(except Kentucky):
- Hypnospace Outlaw
- Dread X collection (I recommend 2, with the Squirrel Stapler segment)
- Iron Lung
- Kentucky Route Zero
- Pony Island
- Carrion
- And a long etc.

AAA games, and GAAS are stagnant. There are still games with novel
approaches, great stories, and great art direction.

> And sure, there's a part of me that says, hey; this is just what
> happens when you start getting up there in years. You become jaded and
> cynical. But I've other hobbies where I still feel that old pleasure
> and anticipation over the newest and latest that contrasts with the
> increasing ennui I feel over video games. Sure, I still have fun with
> games; I still add to my library regularly. But ask me what new game I
> am eagerly anticipating and more likely than not I'll draw a blank.

> So I wonder how the newest generation will relate to video games; will
> they ever feel the excitement we used to? Sure, youngsters - by the
> very nature of their youth - will always be more open to the hype than
> us wearied oldsters - but will they relate to it with the same
> almost-frantic way we did? What with the slower pace of advancement
> and with video games being an expected part of everyday life (as
> opposed to an entirely new form of entertainment), it's hard to
> imagine. Sure, they'll wax nostalgic for a few notable titles but -
> barring some revolution in the industry - I wouldn't be surprised if
> many of them tag out of the hobby entirely when they turn twenty or
> thirty.

Trust me, kids keep losing their shit over every next mario game.
Pokémon could replace football (the one with feet, not american handegg)
as the most mainstream popular thing.
I would recommend the Nextlander podcast for a lot of discussion about
how their children are starting to experience videogames (the staff sure
have grown families since 2008).

> Might video games one day become the "old people's hobby"? Something
> only the sadly nostalgic or aged engage with, like philately or
> knitting. Barring a massive change, can video games keep the attention
> of the next generation when all it does is repeat the same banal
> formulas year after year? I'm not sure it can.

I think it's more like a certain way of gaming will become "old people's
hobby". I don't see games away as long as there's money to be made for
it. The real danger is ruining the genre until we end with another "1983
videogame bubble crash". The situation since 2015 or 2016 has been
reminiscent, with games copying popular games, until players don't trust
another moba or hero team shooter and the costs of running the service
and paying the devs are more thanwhatever money the game makes. Instead
of bursting the bubble, everything seems to be concentrate in a few big
surviving games, similar to the Big Tech companies that keep surviving.

Right now kids play Games As A Service (GAAS). From Roblox to Fortnite
and everything else, it's a kind of game that is more about the loop of
gameplay, constantly feeding new stuff to the player that is not very
related to the game (in-game concerts?)
Unless you go for indies, it's getting harders to find a single player
game that is not a service, it's incredibly complex and has bring back a
feel not seen in years. Yes, I'm thinking about Baldur's Gate III, which
seems to finally have updated an incredibly ancient genre and sell it to
the newer generations.

On 10/20/23 07:15, H1M3M wrote:
> That sounds like AAA game syndrome. The best surprises are the ones that
> don't make it to the frontpage and no one pays for the algorythm to give
> it the spotlight. Examples that are not AAA and are not well known
> (except Kentucky):
> - Hypnospace Outlaw

Hypnospace has the honor of being on the list of games that made me cry
a bit (my god the last act), really amazing game.

> - Pony Island

Alright game, but it's so short I refunded it after beating it. It was
alright.

>> So I wonder how the newest generation will relate to video games; will
>> they ever feel the excitement we used to? Sure, youngsters - by the
>> very nature of their youth - will always be more open to the hype than
>> us wearied oldsters - but will they relate to it with the same
>> almost-frantic way we did? What with the slower pace of advancement
>> and with video games being an expected part of everyday life (as
>> opposed to an entirely new form of entertainment), it's hard to
>> imagine. Sure, they'll wax nostalgic for a few notable titles but -
>> barring some revolution in the industry - I wouldn't be surprised if
>> many of them tag out of the hobby entirely when they turn twenty or
>> thirty.

I agree

> Right now kids play Games As A Service (GAAS). From Roblox to Fortnite
> and everything else, it's a kind of game that is more about the loop of
> gameplay, constantly feeding new stuff to the player that is not very
> related to the game (in-game concerts?)
> Unless you go for indies, it's getting harders to find a single player
> game that is not a service, it's incredibly complex and has bring back a
> feel not seen in years. Yes, I'm thinking about Baldur's Gate III, which
> seems to finally have updated an incredibly ancient genre and sell it to
> the newer generations.

Playtime (and money) are earned by abusing psychology now.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 wrote:

> Hypnospace has the honor of being on the list of games that made me
> cry a bit (my god the last act), really amazing game.

Same. I still hope to find time for a replay. Can't way for the sequel.

>> - Pony Island
>
> Alright game, but it's so short I refunded it after beating it. It
> was alright.

It took me more than 2 hours so i could not refund it, but I like to
take it easy and see as much as possible. Good thing the guy made
Inscryption a lot longer.

> Playtime (and money) are earned by abusing psychology now.

I'm a 3rd year psychology student. Whoever tells you "x game (that I'm
not totally addicted to) is a NOT skinner box"... We have more subtle
systems. But it's why I stay like hell away from those games. No one is
a invulnerable to gambling / reinforcement mechanics as they believe
themselves.

Vampire Survivors may have the worst reputation as "digital heroin", but
after 20 hours, once you beat the true final boss you feel happy and
accomplished that you can stop, close it and move to something else. I
wish that could be said of certain "most played online games".

On 10/20/23 10:40, H1M3M wrote:
> candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Hypnospace has the honor of being on the list of games that made me
>> cry a bit (my god the last act), really amazing game.
>
> Same. I still hope to find time for a replay. Can't way for the sequel.

Wait, there's a sequel coming? Wishlist time

>>> - Pony Island
>>
>> Alright game, but it's so short I refunded it after beating it. It
>> was alright.
>
> It took me more than 2 hours so i could not refund it, but I like to
> take it easy and see as much as possible. Good thing the guy made
> Inscryption a lot longer.

Yeah, Inscryption also has more gameplay so there's that.

>> Playtime (and money) are earned by abusing psychology now.
>
> I'm a 3rd year psychology student. Whoever tells you "x game (that I'm
> not totally addicted to) is a NOT skinner box"... We have more subtle
> systems. But it's why I stay like hell away from those games. No one is
> a invulnerable to gambling / reinforcement mechanics as they believe
> themselves.
>
> Vampire Survivors may have the worst reputation as "digital heroin", but
> after 20 hours, once you beat the true final boss you feel happy and
> accomplished that you can stop, close it and move to something else. I
> wish that could be said of certain "most played online games".

From what I've heard, the worst one is Diablo Immortal.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 wrote:

> Wait, there's a sequel coming? Wishlist time

Yup. Dream Settler. This time looks like it will be around 2003, which
resonates even more with me since that's the time I finally had
broadband at home.

So far there are two more or less related tie-in games, although I'm not
entirely sure how they relate.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1931020/Slayers_X_Terminal_Aftermath_Vengance_of_the_Slayer/?curator_clanid=29728776

It seems related Zane, that edgy dipshit teen you have to chase and ban,
then have conflicting thoughts once you find more about him.

That third act of the game and the finale, shit. I want to cry every
damn time I remember it

On 10/21/23 12:04, H1MEM wrote:
> candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Wait, there's a sequel coming? Wishlist time
>
> Yup. Dream Settler. This time looks like it will be around 2003, which
> resonates even more with me since that's the time I finally had
> broadband at home.

Hell yea. I wasn't really on the internet much until like 2010, but it's
sure to be a good time.

> So far there are two more or less related tie-in games, although I'm not
> entirely sure how they relate.
>
> https://store.steampowered.com/app/1931020/Slayers_X_Terminal_Aftermath_Vengance_of_the_Slayer/?curator_clanid=29728776
>
>
> It seems related Zane, that edgy dipshit teen you have to chase and ban,
> then have conflicting thoughts once you find more about him.

I played the demo. Definitely love the cheese of it, but classic
doom-like games aren't really something I enjoy.

> That third act of the game and the finale, shit. I want to cry every
> damn time I remember it

Same, they knocked it straight out of the park.
Even if I did have to use a walkthrough to figure out what the heck I
was supposed to do.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

> candycanearter07 wrote:

> I played the demo. Definitely love the cheese of it, but classic
> doom-like games aren't really something I enjoy.

it's actually closer to a Build engine game, more in line with the
edginess of the character as a teen. The best thing is how deliberately
the weapons are lifted from Blood and even Hexen II, while the poor map
design and some enemies are closer to Redneck Rampage.

It's an interesting recreationg of what kids liked about gaming in the
nineties, although the trailer implies one thing: the player banned
Zane, saving him from the big game event. So he could be a character in
Dream Settler. I'm even more hyped now.

Going back to the young gamer, this is where I see another issue: They
are influenced by what to play rather than making their own choices.
Sure, paper magazines influenced us too, but at least we had a magazine,
rather than an algorythm recommending us games. Hypnospace demonstrates
that there are still good games, but I find it hard to see kids and
teens of today being enthralled by a story driven, narrative heavy game.
They could be interested if they see a famous streamer playing it (same
way Vampire Survivors became popular), but most only seem to care about
playing crap like Fortnite, CS Source, or whatever free to play crap
like Poppy Playtime.

In general yes, we can pity them. I was remembering how in the original
Dead or Alive game (the psx version) new costumes would be unlocked non
stop just by beating the arcade mode. Nowadays... You have to buy the
costumes, you have to buy the DLC characters, and you have to buy the
season pass. And I hope you played for that subscription to enable
online. I pity the people who have only know this current monetised garbage.

On 10/23/23 02:08, H1M3M wrote:
>
>> candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> I played the demo. Definitely love the cheese of it, but classic
>> doom-like games aren't really something I enjoy.
>
> it's actually closer to a Build engine game, more in line with the
> edginess of the character as a teen. The best thing is how deliberately
> the weapons are lifted from Blood and even Hexen II, while the poor map
> design and some enemies are closer to Redneck Rampage.
>
> It's an interesting recreationg of what kids liked about gaming in the
> nineties, although the trailer implies one thing: the player banned
> Zane, saving him from the big game event. So he could be a character in
> Dream Settler. I'm even more hyped now.

Well, I always assumed the existence of Slayers X implied that the
Player gets the best ending..

Also man I can NOT wait to find out how the HSOL world evolved in the 3
years since 2000. I hope they bring back all the custom music genre stuff.

> Going back to the young gamer, this is where I see another issue: They
> are influenced by what to play rather than making their own choices.
> Sure, paper magazines influenced us too, but at least we had a magazine,
> rather than an algorythm recommending us games. Hypnospace demonstrates
> that there are still good games, but I find it hard to see kids and
> teens of today being enthralled by a story driven, narrative heavy game.
> They could be interested if they see a famous streamer playing it (same
> way Vampire Survivors became popular), but most only seem to care about
> playing crap like Fortnite, CS Source, or whatever free to play crap
> like Poppy Playtime.

Kids play CS? I always assumed it was played by older folk like TF2 and
HL. If so, wow was Valve good at making good games.

> In general yes, we can pity them. I was remembering how in the original
> Dead or Alive game (the psx version) new costumes would be unlocked non
> stop just by beating the arcade mode. Nowadays... You have to buy the
> costumes, you have to buy the DLC characters, and you have to buy the
> season pass. And I hope you played for that subscription to enable
> online. I pity the people who have only know this current monetised
> garbage.

Yeah, that always bothered me how everything is online and
micro-transaction filled. Nintendo is the only big company I can think
of that hasn't tried to hyper monetize their games yet, even if their
online service is garbage and their ethics are questionable.

Oh, and indie games are amazing at including everything.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 wrote:

> Kids play CS? I always assumed it was played by older folk like TF2
> and HL. If so, wow was Valve good at making good games.

Surveys for demographics don't seem to include minors, but looking at
tournaments and rankings, you have a lot of <18 players, specially
since the game went free to pay. It's even more expected since it's
closer to being a twitch shooter where quick reflexes matter and the
older you get, the less you enjoy multiplayer with randos. but CS:GO
has been making the news due to the Skin / lootbox gambling addiction
issue, which deliberately affected minors.

TF2 before going free to play had a reputation of being a game for older
cranky players cranky people who needed a game with less kids and a
quieter pace. But that was the era with all the jokes about the average
Halo player, before minors became full Call Of Duty MW/BO junkies). I
used to work retail on the videogames department of a store between 2006
and 2007, and the kind of games they wanted was heartbreaking.

Going earlier in time to pre-Source CS, I remember my younger brother
being annoyed at kids in town being so addicted to CS that they had
memorised every weapon and talked IRL as if they were in the game
(brother was mostly into Starcraft and Diablo II)

> Yeah, that always bothered me how everything is online and
> micro-transaction filled. Nintendo is the only big company I can
> think of that hasn't tried to hyper monetize their games yet, even
> if their online service is garbage and their ethics are
> questionable.
I remember some talk about the Nintendo mobile gacha games like Fire
Emblem Heroes. It is rumored that one of the devs said: "We could milk
the players even harder if we wanted, but Nintendo made us set limits".

And I won't talk about Nintendo ethics because it's going to be a
extreme offtopic, but.., Yuo, another case of "Pity the young gamer".
The generation that lived through 3DS and WiiU got a lot more love from
Nintendo than with Switch.

> Oh, and indie games are amazing at including everything.
Yup. They are suffering a bit from Sturgeon's Law, but thankfully we
have curators

On 10/23/23 06:22, H1M3M wrote:
> candycanearter07 wrote:
>
>> Kids play CS? I always assumed it was played by older folk like TF2
>> and HL. If so, wow was Valve good at making good games.
>
> Surveys for demographics don't seem to include minors, but looking at
> tournaments and rankings, you have a lot of <18 players, specially
> since the game went free to pay. It's even more expected since it's
> closer to being a twitch shooter where quick reflexes matter and the
> older you get, the less you enjoy multiplayer with randos. but CS:GO
> has been making the news due to the Skin / lootbox gambling addiction
> issue, which deliberately affected minors.

Oh true, I didn't consider the FTP aspect of it. Too bad Valve is
currently screwing over the FTP.

> And I won't talk about Nintendo ethics because it's going to be a
> extreme offtopic, but.., Yuo, another case of "Pity the young gamer".
> The generation that lived through 3DS and WiiU got a lot more love from
> Nintendo than with Switch.

Arguable in the case of the Wii U.

>> Oh, and indie games are amazing at including everything.
> Yup. They are suffering a bit from Sturgeon's Law, but thankfully we
> have curators

Stuff like itch.io is also great for finding good indies.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom