In August 2013, I asked a question of this newsgroup: did you think
that games were going to get significantly better in the future? My
thesis was that - despite radical advancements in visuals and
quality-of-life features - actual gameplay of a lot of the games of
the time didn't feel fundamentally different from games of ten or even
twenty years ago. Sure, "Elder Scrolls: Oblivion" looked far better
than 1995's "Elder Scrolls: Arena", but was it really that different
an experience to play? Had the games matured to the point where we
just weren't going to see any significant changes in the hobby?

That question sparked a lively discussion (mostly revolving around
what 'better' meant ;-). So - with ten years under our belt - why not
ask it again, with an added caveat. Not only do I ask, 'Do you think
that games are going to get significantly better', but also, 'Do you
also think we've seen significant improvement - in gameplay, not
visuals - to modern games over the ones we were playing back in 2013?'

In other words, are modern games better? More advanced? More fun? Do
you think games will be better or different in the future? Or are we
perpetually stuck in the doldrums?

(And finally, do you think we'll all be around to revive this topic in
2035? ;-)

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> In August 2013, I asked a question of this newsgroup: did you think
> that games were going to get significantly better in the future? My
> thesis was that - despite radical advancements in visuals and
> quality-of-life features - actual gameplay of a lot of the games of
> the time didn't feel fundamentally different from games of ten or even
> twenty years ago. Sure, "Elder Scrolls: Oblivion" looked far better
> than 1995's "Elder Scrolls: Arena", but was it really that different
> an experience to play? Had the games matured to the point where we
> just weren't going to see any significant changes in the hobby?
>
> That question sparked a lively discussion (mostly revolving around
> what 'better' meant ;-). So - with ten years under our belt - why not
> ask it again, with an added caveat. Not only do I ask, 'Do you think
> that games are going to get significantly better', but also, 'Do you
> also think we've seen significant improvement - in gameplay, not
> visuals - to modern games over the ones we were playing back in 2013?'
>
> In other words, are modern games better? More advanced? More fun? Do
> you think games will be better or different in the future? Or are we
> perpetually stuck in the doldrums?
>
> (And finally, do you think we'll all be around to revive this topic in
> 2035? ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
We all be around in 2035, but I hope we will not drive electric cars :(

On 3/22/2024 9:54 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> In August 2013, I asked a question of this newsgroup: did you think
> that games were going to get significantly better in the future? My
> thesis was that - despite radical advancements in visuals and
> quality-of-life features - actual gameplay of a lot of the games of
> the time didn't feel fundamentally different from games of ten or even
> twenty years ago. Sure, "Elder Scrolls: Oblivion" looked far better
> than 1995's "Elder Scrolls: Arena", but was it really that different
> an experience to play? Had the games matured to the point where we
> just weren't going to see any significant changes in the hobby?
>
> That question sparked a lively discussion (mostly revolving around
> what 'better' meant ;-). So - with ten years under our belt - why not
> ask it again, with an added caveat. Not only do I ask, 'Do you think
> that games are going to get significantly better', but also, 'Do you
> also think we've seen significant improvement - in gameplay, not
> visuals - to modern games over the ones we were playing back in 2013?'
>
> In other words, are modern games better? More advanced? More fun? Do
> you think games will be better or different in the future? Or are we
> perpetually stuck in the doldrums?
>
> (And finally, do you think we'll all be around to revive this topic in
> 2035? ;-)

Same as always. There will be good games and bad games. There's been
some significantly better games IMHO than there were. Witcher 3 feels
much better than 1 or 2 to me. CP2077 is finally a good game. Elden
Ring brought souls play to the masses (even I think it's a worse game
than my favorites.) I liked Skyrim better than Oblivion, and Oblivion
better than Morrowind, but Starfield sounded so bad I wouldn't even buy
it on steep discount. Larian came out of left field with BG3 which may
even be cleaned up and modded enough to let me play it to the end.

Meanwhile AC and FC games are cranked out mostly the same as always, and
my kids still play Roblox.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:54:54 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>In August 2013, I asked a question of this newsgroup: did you think
>that games were going to get significantly better in the future? My
>thesis was that - despite radical advancements in visuals and
>quality-of-life features - actual gameplay of a lot of the games of
>the time didn't feel fundamentally different from games of ten or even
>twenty years ago. Sure, "Elder Scrolls: Oblivion" looked far better
>than 1995's "Elder Scrolls: Arena", but was it really that different
>an experience to play? Had the games matured to the point where we
>just weren't going to see any significant changes in the hobby?
>
>That question sparked a lively discussion (mostly revolving around
>what 'better' meant ;-). So - with ten years under our belt - why not
>ask it again, with an added caveat. Not only do I ask, 'Do you think
>that games are going to get significantly better', but also, 'Do you
>also think we've seen significant improvement - in gameplay, not
>visuals - to modern games over the ones we were playing back in 2013?'
>
>In other words, are modern games better? More advanced? More fun? Do
>you think games will be better or different in the future? Or are we
>perpetually stuck in the doldrums?

What I'm curious to know is whether most here....

(and granted, the demographic of this newsgroup is probably NOT the
demographic that most game studio marketing directors are targeting)

.... believe that gaming is better or worst than 10, or 15 years ago?

My opinions have sparsely peppered this newsgroup over various
threads, so I won't repeat what's been said in any level of detail
unless you really want it :)

Personally I think consolitis and politics have taken their toll on
the industry. Console sales resulted in a lot of bad PC ports, where
controls and the overall feel of the game and mechanics became slapped
together in haste for the PC and/or only worthwhile using a
controller. Politics interfered with individual artistic vision,
resulted in design-by-committee and messed up the content, direction
and overall development decisions.

It seems like most good forms of entertainment "jump the shark"
eventually. A gem will emerge here and there occasionally, and some
of the old mainstays still provide the same level of entertainment
they used to even if there is a been-there-done-that-vibe.

But genuinely curious what the rest of the folks here think.. Clearly
"good" gaming means different things to different people.

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:00:18 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:

>But genuinely curious what the rest of the folks here think.. Clearly
>"good" gaming means different things to different people.

I do NOT think games are better or worse now then they were in the
past. I prefer older games but I always believed this was just because
of my own personal preferences and not because games themselves have
gotten worse. There have always been good games and bad games. I don't
think that is ever going to change.

The biggest change I have noticed these days I think is that big
developers no longer take chances. This is not necessarily a bad thing
though, because the more innovative titles have just moved over to
smaller indie devs. This is just a switch to me, not a decline. From
what I can see, there are so many types of games to choose from, you
should be able to find something that appeals to you. At least on the
PC side of things.

On 3/23/2024 11:00 AM, Mike S. wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:00:18 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
> <rstowleigh@x-nospam-x.com> wrote:
>
>> But genuinely curious what the rest of the folks here think.. Clearly
>> "good" gaming means different things to different people.
>
> I do NOT think games are better or worse now then they were in the
> past. I prefer older games but I always believed this was just because
> of my own personal preferences and not because games themselves have
> gotten worse. There have always been good games and bad games. I don't
> think that is ever going to change.
>
> The biggest change I have noticed these days I think is that big
> developers no longer take chances. This is not necessarily a bad thing
> though, because the more innovative titles have just moved over to
> smaller indie devs. This is just a switch to me, not a decline. From
> what I can see, there are so many types of games to choose from, you
> should be able to find something that appeals to you. At least on the
> PC side of things.
yea alot of back catalog and with emulators like dosbox old games will
still be around as long as people still work on the emulators. its
preservation combined with free software (dosbox, virtualbox, openmpt,vlc).

On 3/22/2024 5:42 PM, Justisaur wrote:
> On 3/22/2024 9:54 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>> In August 2013, I asked a question of this newsgroup: did you think
>> that games were going to get significantly better in the future? My
>> thesis was that - despite radical advancements in visuals and
>> quality-of-life features - actual gameplay of a lot of the games of
>> the time didn't feel fundamentally different from games of ten or even
>> twenty years ago. Sure, "Elder Scrolls: Oblivion" looked far better
>> than 1995's "Elder Scrolls: Arena", but was it really that different
>> an experience to play? Had the games matured to the point where we
>> just weren't going to see any significant changes in the hobby?
>>
>> That question sparked a lively discussion (mostly revolving around
>> what 'better' meant ;-). So - with ten years under our belt - why not
>> ask it again, with an added caveat. Not only do I ask, 'Do you think
>> that games are going to get significantly better', but also, 'Do you
>> also think we've seen significant improvement - in gameplay, not
>> visuals - to modern games over the ones we were playing back in 2013?'
>>
>> In other words, are modern games better? More advanced? More fun? Do
>> you think games will be better or different in the future? Or are we
>> perpetually stuck in the doldrums?
>>
>> (And finally, do you think we'll all be around to revive this topic in
>> 2035? ;-)
>
> Same as always.  There will be good games and bad games.  There's been
> some significantly better games IMHO than there were.  Witcher 3 feels
> much better than 1 or 2 to me.  CP2077 is finally a good game.  Elden
> Ring brought souls play to the masses (even I think it's a worse game
> than my favorites.) I liked Skyrim better than Oblivion, and Oblivion
> better than Morrowind, but Starfield sounded so bad I wouldn't even buy
> it on steep discount. Larian came out of left field with BG3 which may
> even be cleaned up and modded enough to let me play it to the end.
>
> Meanwhile AC and FC games are cranked out mostly the same as always, and
> my kids still play Roblox.
>
minecraft too but im at the end of my rope with many modern games being
remakes or remasters, ive played em before why should i play em again
maybe with deleted scenes or extra stuff

On 23/03/2024 15:00, Mike S. wrote:
> I do NOT think games are better or worse now then they were in the
> past. I prefer older games but I always believed this was just because
> of my own personal preferences and not because games themselves have
> gotten worse. There have always been good games and bad games. I don't
> think that is ever going to change.
>
> The biggest change I have noticed these days I think is that big
> developers no longer take chances. This is not necessarily a bad thing
> though, because the more innovative titles have just moved over to
> smaller indie devs. This is just a switch to me, not a decline. From
> what I can see, there are so many types of games to choose from, you
> should be able to find something that appeals to you. At least on the
> PC side of things.

I think that in some ways they are better and in some worse. The big
budget space seems to have very much stagnated in terms of gameplay and
gone backwards in terms of innovative overall. As you say innovative and
risk adverse don't really go together. I'd also add that part of gaming
in this space that I think has got significantly worse is the wide scale
introduction of MTX. You want me to pay £60 for a game and then expect
me pay even more money if I want an enjoyable game experience, I think
I'll pass on that. I do remember thinking many years ago that one day we
might move from where gameplay was the core and a finical model was
attached to it (we think you'll enjoy this game so give us some money
for it) to a finical model which the gameplay was just there to support.
To me, that's now happened.

The part I very much agree with is that the innovation has just moved,
or was always there, to medium/small studios and in many ways I think
there it has improved with the range of games easily available to play.
Indeed it's possible that they tripe-A developers have done me a favour
by 'encouraging' me to explore new types of games. Is that something I
should thank Bobby 'I may look like a potato with a face draw on it but
I'm rich' Kotick?

On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:05:35 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>On 23/03/2024 15:00, Mike S. wrote:
>> I do NOT think games are better or worse now then they were in the
>> past. I prefer older games but I always believed this was just because
>> of my own personal preferences and not because games themselves have
>> gotten worse. There have always been good games and bad games. I don't
>> think that is ever going to change.
>>
>> The biggest change I have noticed these days I think is that big
>> developers no longer take chances. This is not necessarily a bad thing
>> though, because the more innovative titles have just moved over to
>> smaller indie devs. This is just a switch to me, not a decline. From
>> what I can see, there are so many types of games to choose from, you
>> should be able to find something that appeals to you. At least on the
>> PC side of things.
>
>I think that in some ways they are better and in some worse. The big
>budget space seems to have very much stagnated in terms of gameplay and
>gone backwards in terms of innovative overall. As you say innovative and
>risk adverse don't really go together. I'd also add that part of gaming
>in this space that I think has got significantly worse is the wide scale
>introduction of MTX. You want me to pay £60 for a game and then expect
>me pay even more money if I want an enjoyable game experience, I think
>I'll pass on that. I do remember thinking many years ago that one day we
>might move from where gameplay was the core and a finical model was
>attached to it (we think you'll enjoy this game so give us some money
>for it) to a finical model which the gameplay was just there to support.
>To me, that's now happened.
>
>The part I very much agree with is that the innovation has just moved,
>or was always there, to medium/small studios and in many ways I think
>there it has improved with the range of games easily available to play.
>Indeed it's possible that they tripe-A developers have done me a favour
>by 'encouraging' me to explore new types of games. Is that something I
>should thank Bobby 'I may look like a potato with a face draw on it but
>I'm rich' Kotick?
>

This more or less coincides with my own thoughts.

Overall, I think that there /has/ been improvement in the industry.
Yes, the triple-A publishers are absolutely stuck in a rut; they never
take chances, prefering sequels and remakes over anything even
slightly resembling something new and unproven. And yes, the low
cost-of-entry for Indies means that we are seeing a lot of clones of
existing games.

But I am nonetheless hopeful overall, because we are also seeing
entirely new genres being created. Survival games, visual-novels,
dating sims, workplace sims, walking sims, deckbuilders, retro
games...these are just a few of the new ideas that are becoming ever
more prevalent. And new tech is revitalizing the industry too: VR,
handheld PCs (Steamdeck), AI... none of these themselves will (IMHO)
transform the industry, but they are all helpfully shoving the hobby
into new modes and ideas.

It's not quite the wild days of the early 80s (when every idea was
new), or even the 90s (when all the ideas were being reworked) but it
feels like there is a very subtle change going on, of the sort that I
feel was largely missing throughout the early part of this century.

Even the big-name publishers aren't immune. Sure, they'll be last to
the party, but gradually even they must give up on their old-school
ideas and start embracing the newer styles.

Of course, a lot of the trends and changes aren't necessarily to my
liking (retro-style games, for instance, or survival games like ARK or
Raft that seem purpose built for twitch streaming) but placating my
likes and desires shouldn't be the end-all goal of the industry
anyway. I'm just happy that new ideas are finally filtering out, and
with all this innovation I expect that some of those many ideas /will/
appeal to me.

So - unlike when I asked this question back in 2013 - I am
(cautiously) optimistic.

On 24/03/2024 18:15, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> It's not quite the wild days of the early 80s (when every idea was
> new), or even the 90s (when all the ideas were being reworked) but it
> feels like there is a very subtle change going on, of the sort that I
> feel was largely missing throughout the early part of this century.

I think the 80's were a period in gaming that can probably never be
replicated as it's the time when home computers came into the reach of a
mass market (within a year pretty much most of my school friends had
either a Spectrum* or a C64) and the games market boomed with the first
wave of arcade type games before you started getting developers
realising that you can do something else as you didn't need the draw of
just one more 10p for another game.

You also had quite a rapid development of what a home computer could do
and it wasn't that many years before all of a sudden we had Atari ST's
and Amigas in the shops.

As for what's going to happen in the future, difficult to say but I can
see the PC games market** as a whole becoming more fractured into
sub-groups. That's always existed to an extent but it does feel as
though it's a shift away from what we had twenty years ago.

*I did just check on Spectrum sales figures and it's a grand total of
around 5 million units of which I presume most were sold in the UK.

**As a side note it's one of the things that annoys me about a certain
section of gamers. The seem to think that they somehow own all of PC
games and if you don't agree with them then your opinion doesn't matter
as you're not a 'real gamer'.

On 3/24/2024 11:15 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:05:35 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> On 23/03/2024 15:00, Mike S. wrote:
>>> I do NOT think games are better or worse now then they were in the
>>> past. I prefer older games but I always believed this was just because
>>> of my own personal preferences and not because games themselves have
>>> gotten worse. There have always been good games and bad games. I don't
>>> think that is ever going to change.
>>>
>>> The biggest change I have noticed these days I think is that big
>>> developers no longer take chances. This is not necessarily a bad thing
>>> though, because the more innovative titles have just moved over to
>>> smaller indie devs. This is just a switch to me, not a decline. From
>>> what I can see, there are so many types of games to choose from, you
>>> should be able to find something that appeals to you. At least on the
>>> PC side of things.
>>
>> I think that in some ways they are better and in some worse. The big
>> budget space seems to have very much stagnated in terms of gameplay and
>> gone backwards in terms of innovative overall. As you say innovative and
>> risk adverse don't really go together. I'd also add that part of gaming
>> in this space that I think has got significantly worse is the wide scale
>> introduction of MTX. You want me to pay £60 for a game and then expect
>> me pay even more money if I want an enjoyable game experience, I think
>> I'll pass on that. I do remember thinking many years ago that one day we
>> might move from where gameplay was the core and a finical model was
>> attached to it (we think you'll enjoy this game so give us some money
>> for it) to a finical model which the gameplay was just there to support.
>> To me, that's now happened.
>>
>> The part I very much agree with is that the innovation has just moved,
>> or was always there, to medium/small studios and in many ways I think
>> there it has improved with the range of games easily available to play.
>> Indeed it's possible that they tripe-A developers have done me a favour
>> by 'encouraging' me to explore new types of games. Is that something I
>> should thank Bobby 'I may look like a potato with a face draw on it but
>> I'm rich' Kotick?
>>
>
> This more or less coincides with my own thoughts.
>
> Overall, I think that there /has/ been improvement in the industry.
> Yes, the triple-A publishers are absolutely stuck in a rut; they never
> take chances, prefering sequels and remakes over anything even
> slightly resembling something new and unproven. And yes, the low
> cost-of-entry for Indies means that we are seeing a lot of clones of
> existing games.

Sequels that are online only, often mobile, and filled with MTX. In
that regard worse. Diablo IV, Fallout '76, and others.

-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:19:43 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>**As a side note it's one of the things that annoys me about a certain
>section of gamers. The seem to think that they somehow own all of PC
>games and if you don't agree with them then your opinion doesn't matter
>as you're not a 'real gamer'.

But... but... I /do/ own all* PC games!

I'll graciously allow you your own opinion, however. ;-)

* well, a fairly significant fraction thereof... and I'm working on
the rest ;-)

Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote at 14:23 this Monday (GMT):
> On 3/24/2024 11:15 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 09:05:35 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23/03/2024 15:00, Mike S. wrote:
>>>> I do NOT think games are better or worse now then they were in the
>>>> past. I prefer older games but I always believed this was just because
>>>> of my own personal preferences and not because games themselves have
>>>> gotten worse. There have always been good games and bad games. I don't
>>>> think that is ever going to change.
>>>>
>>>> The biggest change I have noticed these days I think is that big
>>>> developers no longer take chances. This is not necessarily a bad thing
>>>> though, because the more innovative titles have just moved over to
>>>> smaller indie devs. This is just a switch to me, not a decline. From
>>>> what I can see, there are so many types of games to choose from, you
>>>> should be able to find something that appeals to you. At least on the
>>>> PC side of things.
>>>
>>> I think that in some ways they are better and in some worse. The big
>>> budget space seems to have very much stagnated in terms of gameplay and
>>> gone backwards in terms of innovative overall. As you say innovative and
>>> risk adverse don't really go together. I'd also add that part of gaming
>>> in this space that I think has got significantly worse is the wide scale
>>> introduction of MTX. You want me to pay £60 for a game and then expect
>>> me pay even more money if I want an enjoyable game experience, I think
>>> I'll pass on that. I do remember thinking many years ago that one day we
>>> might move from where gameplay was the core and a finical model was
>>> attached to it (we think you'll enjoy this game so give us some money
>>> for it) to a finical model which the gameplay was just there to support.
>>> To me, that's now happened.
>>>
>>> The part I very much agree with is that the innovation has just moved,
>>> or was always there, to medium/small studios and in many ways I think
>>> there it has improved with the range of games easily available to play.
>>> Indeed it's possible that they tripe-A developers have done me a favour
>>> by 'encouraging' me to explore new types of games. Is that something I
>>> should thank Bobby 'I may look like a potato with a face draw on it but
>>> I'm rich' Kotick?
>>>
>>
>> This more or less coincides with my own thoughts.
>>
>> Overall, I think that there /has/ been improvement in the industry.
>> Yes, the triple-A publishers are absolutely stuck in a rut; they never
>> take chances, prefering sequels and remakes over anything even
>> slightly resembling something new and unproven. And yes, the low
>> cost-of-entry for Indies means that we are seeing a lot of clones of
>> existing games.
>
> Sequels that are online only, often mobile, and filled with MTX. In
> that regard worse. Diablo IV, Fallout '76, and others.
>
> -Justisaur
>
> ø-ø
> (\_/)\
> `-'\ `--.___,
> ¶¬'\( ,_.-'
> \\
> ^'
>

Always online sequels to SP games are the WORST.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

On 3/25/2024 7:48 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:19:43 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>
>> **As a side note it's one of the things that annoys me about a certain
>> section of gamers. The seem to think that they somehow own all of PC
>> games and if you don't agree with them then your opinion doesn't matter
>> as you're not a 'real gamer'.
>
>
> But... but... I /do/ own all* PC games!
>
> I'll graciously allow you your own opinion, however. ;-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * well, a fairly significant fraction thereof... and I'm working on
> the rest ;-)
>
>
I want to see a definitive list of ALL PC games released to date....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:35:53 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>On 3/25/2024 7:48 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:19:43 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> **As a side note it's one of the things that annoys me about a certain
>>> section of gamers. The seem to think that they somehow own all of PC
>>> games and if you don't agree with them then your opinion doesn't matter
>>> as you're not a 'real gamer'.
>>
>>
>> But... but... I /do/ own all* PC games!
>>
>> I'll graciously allow you your own opinion, however. ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> * well, a fairly significant fraction thereof... and I'm working on
>> the rest ;-)
>>
>>
>I want to see a definitive list of ALL PC games released to date....

https://www.mobygames.com/

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:54:54 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>
>In August 2013, I asked a question of this newsgroup: did you think
>that games were going to get significantly better in the future? My
>thesis was that - despite radical advancements in visuals and
>quality-of-life features - actual gameplay of a lot of the games of
>the time didn't feel fundamentally different from games of ten or even
>twenty years ago. Sure, "Elder Scrolls: Oblivion" looked far better
>than 1995's "Elder Scrolls: Arena", but was it really that different
>an experience to play? Had the games matured to the point where we
>just weren't going to see any significant changes in the hobby?
>
>That question sparked a lively discussion (mostly revolving around
>what 'better' meant ;-). So - with ten years under our belt - why not
>ask it again, with an added caveat. Not only do I ask, 'Do you think
>that games are going to get significantly better', but also, 'Do you
>also think we've seen significant improvement - in gameplay, not
>visuals - to modern games over the ones we were playing back in 2013?'
>
>In other words, are modern games better? More advanced? More fun? Do
>you think games will be better or different in the future? Or are we
>perpetually stuck in the doldrums?
>
What I like is that graphics have gotten good enough that games are now
choosing an art-style rather than reaching for ever more photorealism.
This affects gameplay as well as eye candy.

The way it affects play is that sometimes the point of games is now to
look around and appreciate the aesthetic. The "walking simulator" could
never have been a thing back in 2013, and now it's really coming into its
own. Photo mode is justified in some games. This is because we've stopped
dashing for more photorealism, taken stock of what can actually be done,
and made worlds that are very much different from what we know.

Exo One does an excellent job of this; I just got an achievement for
breaking the speed of sound in my titular spacecraft. That's not
something you'd see in 2013. It oozes style, and it has a Zen-like play
mechanic. You have to feel the ship. I want more of this niche gaming.

Another change since 2013 that I really like is the maturing of co-op MP.
Competitive MP just tends to lead to trash talking, toxic communities
rife with cheating, and the kernel mode drivers that fail to prevent it.
But co-op, or PvE, has become more nuanced and prevalent and it's fun to
be working on a team *with* friends. Quality of life improvements abound.

On the downside of gameplay, most games are hybrid experiences now.
There's CRPG elements. There's crafting. There's minigames. In depth
story. In everything, no matter how much it doesn't fit. Even Mortal
Combat 10 has a "story" mode and a "campaign" mode. Once something is
deemed to be a feature, it never seems to go away. I imagine this
development strategy is meant to broaden appeal, but what it does for me
is make it hard to find a game that doesn't have *some* half-assed play
element that doesn't annoy me or seem out of place. It's hard to find a
game that does one thing really well, too. The diversity comes at an
expense, either in compromises to make it integrate, or just because
there is less time spent on each element.

I don't see much more innovation coming in the future though, or I'm not
smart enough to see it. It seems we've made every kind of game there is.
Gaming is lively, but my imagination doesn't inform me of what it'll be
like in 2035.

So gaming is good, but we've done everything we can with the classical
period, moved through the baroque, arrived at the romantic, and that's
just about where music imploded. I don't know what the gaming equivalent
of 12-tone, tone poems, and prepared piano will be, but I'll bet it feels
like a gimmick.

But it won't be the doldrums. It will grow, flourish, and capture our
interest. It just won't be through play mechanics. I think we're done
there.

How's that for a "640KB should be enough for anyone" statement?

(I have notably left VR out of this, because I think the "year of VR" is
getting to be like the "year of the Linux desktop." Vendors keep trotting
it out, but no one really knows what to do with it so it goes back in the
box until someone thinks it should come out again. Maybe someone will
figure out how to use it. I could it making a major change by 2035. I
predict it will go back in the box again once, however.)

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 25/03/2024 14:48, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:19:43 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>
>> **As a side note it's one of the things that annoys me about a certain
>> section of gamers. The seem to think that they somehow own all of PC
>> games and if you don't agree with them then your opinion doesn't matter
>> as you're not a 'real gamer'.
>
>
> But... but... I /do/ own all* PC games!
>
> I'll graciously allow you your own opinion, however. ;-)
>

As I say, it's just one of the things that annoys me. Those they seem to
think that PC gamers are some sort of homogenous group so when someone
says this is what gamers want what they really mean is this is what me
and some of mates want. I have very little idea of what gamers want
beyond games they enjoy playing, of which there's lots to choose from,
but there also seems to be a small section of people who view games as
an opportunity to get worked up about whatever they've been 'told' they
need to get worked up about today.

On 25/03/2024 21:52, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:54:54 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> What I like is that graphics have gotten good enough that games are now
> choosing an art-style rather than reaching for ever more photorealism.
> This affects gameplay as well as eye candy.
>
> The way it affects play is that sometimes the point of games is now to
> look around and appreciate the aesthetic. The "walking simulator" could
> never have been a thing back in 2013, and now it's really coming into its
> own. Photo mode is justified in some games. This is because we've stopped
> dashing for more photorealism, taken stock of what can actually be done,
> and made worlds that are very much different from what we know.
>

Very much my view. I want the style of graphics to fit in with the game
overall and I think Firewatch does this well. It captures that feeling
of being in the 'great outdoors' by combining a sense of realism with a
certain atheistic. Borderlands is another one when the cartoon style
graphics fit with the over-the-top world.

For photorealism itself, to me all I want is graphics that look
realistic enough I'm not constantly reminded that I'm play a computer
game. As an aside, it one of the reasons I don't like horribly cluttered
UI's withe quest markers and other information littering the screen.

> On the downside of gameplay, most games are hybrid experiences now.
> There's CRPG elements. There's crafting. There's minigames. In depth
> story. In everything, no matter how much it doesn't fit. Even Mortal
> Combat 10 has a "story" mode and a "campaign" mode. Once something is
> deemed to be a feature, it never seems to go away. I imagine this
> development strategy is meant to broaden appeal, but what it does for me
> is make it hard to find a game that doesn't have *some* half-assed play
> element that doesn't annoy me or seem out of place. It's hard to find a
> game that does one thing really well, too. The diversity comes at an
> expense, either in compromises to make it integrate, or just because
> there is less time spent on each element.
>

And agreed, I very much in the camp of I want a game to do one thing and
do it well and not try and cram in as many different elements as
possible. FO:4 is one the springs to mind here - I'm supposed to be
wandering the wasteland find stories to uncover and shooting things. Why
have a base building aspect tacked on?

> I don't see much more innovation coming in the future though, or I'm not
> smart enough to see it. It seems we've made every kind of game there is.
> Gaming is lively, but my imagination doesn't inform me of what it'll be
> like in 2035.
>
> So gaming is good, but we've done everything we can with the classical
> period, moved through the baroque, arrived at the romantic, and that's
> just about where music imploded. I don't know what the gaming equivalent
> of 12-tone, tone poems, and prepared piano will be, but I'll bet it feels
> like a gimmick.
>
> But it won't be the doldrums. It will grow, flourish, and capture our
> interest. It just won't be through play mechanics. I think we're done
> there.
>
> How's that for a "640KB should be enough for anyone" statement?
>

Yes indeed, the thing about innovation is you never realised it's
happened until it's already with us!

> (I have notably left VR out of this, because I think the "year of VR" is
> getting to be like the "year of the Linux desktop." Vendors keep trotting
> it out, but no one really knows what to do with it so it goes back in the
> box until someone thinks it should come out again. Maybe someone will
> figure out how to use it. I could it making a major change by 2035. I
> predict it will go back in the box again once, however.)
>

I don't see it ever happening until at least a few other things are in
place. So maybe a killer app that becomes an almost must have. Other
problems the price point really isn't at the impulse buy just to try it
out level. The last, and probably the biggest for me, the headset are
just too big and not they comfortable to wear for extended periods of time.

As you say though it still comes across as a technology looking for a
need and the current trend seems to be towards augmented reality and
away from games. I did watch a couple of reviews of Apple VR and all I
could think was it all looks very interesting but not £3,000 interesting.

Am 22.03.24 um 17:54 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
> In other words, are modern games better? More advanced? More fun? Do
> you think games will be better or different in the future? Or are we
> perpetually stuck in the doldrums?
>
> (And finally, do you think we'll all be around to revive this topic in
> 2035? 😉

well many games like movies have become formulaic spreadsheet todo lists
in game design, the bigger a game the more likely this is to be the case.
Add on top that we are in phase agewise where we literally have seen
everything in this area just with less sophisticated graphics.

So yes the games industry has gone the way of the movie industry,
formulaic games, indie games which try to do something new or are just
junk and from time to time a really good title which tries to break new
ground or at least does not feel formulaic, like BG3 for instance.

Am 26.03.24 um 12:47 schrieb Werner P.:
> Am 22.03.24 um 17:54 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>> In other words, are modern games better? More advanced? More fun? Do
>> you think games will be better or different in the future? Or are we
>> perpetually stuck in the doldrums?
>>
>> (And finally, do you think we'll all be around to revive this topic in
>> 2035? 😉
>
> well many games like movies have become formulaic spreadsheet todo lists
> in game design, the bigger a game the more likely this is to be the case.
> Add on top that we are in phase agewise where we literally have seen
> everything in this area just with less sophisticated graphics.
>
> So yes the games industry has gone the way of the movie industry,
> formulaic games, indie games which try to do something new or are just
> junk and from time to time a really good title which tries to break new
> ground or at least does not feel formulaic, like BG3 for instance.
>
PS I am slowly phasing out gaming as my hobby, i frankly do not have
time for it anymore, and the have seen everything effect is big on me.
So expect to hear and read from me less and less unless I got rid of my
gaming fatique!

On 3/26/2024 4:47 AM, Werner P. wrote:
> Am 26.03.24 um 12:47 schrieb Werner P.:
>> Am 22.03.24 um 17:54 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>>> In other words, are modern games better? More advanced? More fun? Do
>>> you think games will be better or different in the future? Or are we
>>> perpetually stuck in the doldrums?
>>>
>>> (And finally, do you think we'll all be around to revive this topic in
>>> 2035? 😉
>>
>> well many games like movies have become formulaic spreadsheet todo
>> lists in game design, the bigger a game the more likely this is to be
>> the case.
>> Add on top that we are in phase agewise where we literally have seen
>> everything in this area just with less sophisticated graphics.
>>
>> So yes the games industry has gone the way of the movie industry,
>> formulaic games, indie games which try to do something new or are just
>> junk and from time to time a really good title which tries to break
>> new ground or at least does not feel formulaic, like BG3 for instance.
>>
> PS I am slowly phasing out gaming as my hobby, i frankly do not have
> time for it anymore, and the have seen everything effect is big on me.
> So expect to hear and read from me less and less unless I got rid of my
> gaming fatique!

I feel like that to some extent, but physical limitations keep me from
doing too much else so I go back to it. However I'm also at the point I
get fatigued much quicker than I used to and can't play as much, and
faster twitch games while I can keep up with them a little typically
leave me in a state that feels like it's getting close to death's door.

My other hobby has mostly moved past me. D&D I don't like the new
rules, I can't find a group that's like the old ones, kids make it
difficult to schedule, and our last move left me with nowhere to play it
at my place.

Unfortunately that leaves me with two habits I'd really like to stop, or
at least curb considerably watching youtube and reading reddit which
just feels like waiting to die.

--
-Justisaur

ø-ø
(\_/)\
`-'\ `--.___,
¶¬'\( ,_.-'
\\
^'

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:26:30 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:35:53 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Dimensional Traveler wrote:

>>I want to see a definitive list of ALL PC games released to date....
>
>https://www.mobygames.com/

Ninja'd by Zaghadka.

Wikipedia also has some lists:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_PC_games
but - because they are broken up into subcategories - they're far less
accessible. It's a useful reference for those weirdos trying to
complete their DOS-game collection, though. It does list "Gorilla"
though, the QBasic game that came with MS-DOS which most other
compilations miss.

Less legitimately, https://www.myabandonware.com/ (and yes, it is a
naughty site, but it is a good reference too, as I've found it lists
some games - usually obscure shareware titles - that are missed
elsewhere.

But no list, I think, will ever be complete just because there was
such a wide-ranging community of shareware and freeware developers in
the 80s and 90s pumping out so many titles. Most only had the tiniest
distribution though - some never even making it out onto bulletin
boards, but only shared by passing floppies - and have since been lost
to time. So there will always be a few games missing from any list.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 10:41:13 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:26:30 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:35:53 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>>Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>>>I want to see a definitive list of ALL PC games released to date....
>>
>>https://www.mobygames.com/
>
>Ninja'd by Zaghadka.
>
>Wikipedia also has some lists:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_PC_games
>but - because they are broken up into subcategories - they're far less
>accessible. It's a useful reference for those weirdos trying to
>complete their DOS-game collection, though. It does list "Gorilla"
>though, the QBasic game that came with MS-DOS which most other
>compilations miss.
>
>Less legitimately, https://www.myabandonware.com/ (and yes, it is a
>naughty site, but it is a good reference too, as I've found it lists
>some games - usually obscure shareware titles - that are missed
>elsewhere.
>
>But no list, I think, will ever be complete just because there was
>such a wide-ranging community of shareware and freeware developers in
>the 80s and 90s pumping out so many titles. Most only had the tiniest
>distribution though - some never even making it out onto bulletin
>boards, but only shared by passing floppies - and have since been lost
>to time. So there will always be a few games missing from any list.
>
This project has the most complete collection of DOS and Windows 3.1
games available (but also naughty):

https://www.retro-exo.com

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:52:37 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>What I like is that graphics have gotten good enough that games are now
>choosing an art-style rather than reaching for ever more photorealism.
>This affects gameplay as well as eye candy.

(Not to dismiss the rest of your post, which is quite interesting, but
I'm going to just focus on this little bit ;-)

It really is quite amazing how far video games graphics have come,
that even the cheapest of games can have amazing visuals. With tools
like Unity, Unreal and GoDot, even the most amateur developer can
create games that can match some of the best games from 10 years ago.
Nowadays, it's far less about the technology and instead about the
skill and vision of the artist, and the resources available to them.

I think I can honestly say I haven't played a modern game with BAD
visuals in years, at least when regarded from the technical aspects.
Yes, you have things like asset-flip games, which are artistically
challenged, but despite this they aren't eyesores thanks to the
impressive technology powering them. Even modern retro-style games
look good, because - despite claiming to be throwbacks to an earlier,
simple time, they still use a lot of modern techniques to make their
visuals better than we ever had in the 80s and 90s. They've a
legibility and framerate that would have been impossible back when we
were limited to 20MHz processors and 16-color 160x200 screens.

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:09:16 -0700, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Justisaur wrote:

>On 3/26/2024 4:47 AM, Werner P. wrote:
>> Am 26.03.24 um 12:47 schrieb Werner P.:
>>> Am 22.03.24 um 17:54 schrieb Spalls Hurgenson:
>>>> In other words, are modern games better? More advanced? More fun? Do
>>>> you think games will be better or different in the future? Or are we
>>>> perpetually stuck in the doldrums?
>>>>
>>>> (And finally, do you think we'll all be around to revive this topic in
>>>> 2035? ?
>>>
>>> well many games like movies have become formulaic spreadsheet todo
>>> lists in game design, the bigger a game the more likely this is to be
>>> the case.
>>> Add on top that we are in phase agewise where we literally have seen
>>> everything in this area just with less sophisticated graphics.
>>>
>>> So yes the games industry has gone the way of the movie industry,
>>> formulaic games, indie games which try to do something new or are just
>>> junk and from time to time a really good title which tries to break
>>> new ground or at least does not feel formulaic, like BG3 for instance.
>>>
>> PS I am slowly phasing out gaming as my hobby, i frankly do not have
>> time for it anymore, and the have seen everything effect is big on me.
>> So expect to hear and read from me less and less unless I got rid of my
>> gaming fatique!
>
>I feel like that to some extent, but physical limitations keep me from
>doing too much else so I go back to it. However I'm also at the point I
>get fatigued much quicker than I used to and can't play as much, and
>faster twitch games while I can keep up with them a little typically
>leave me in a state that feels like it's getting close to death's door.
>
>My other hobby has mostly moved past me. D&D I don't like the new
>rules, I can't find a group that's like the old ones, kids make it
>difficult to schedule, and our last move left me with nowhere to play it
>at my place.
>
>Unfortunately that leaves me with two habits I'd really like to stop, or
>at least curb considerably watching youtube and reading reddit which
>just feels like waiting to die.

You interested in a paid game? $25 a session, Pathfinder 1e with 3.5e
supplementation. Basically OP 3.5 with PF skills. Played over Roll20 and
Discord. Sessions meet every other Wednesday at UTC 18:00. Next session
is April 3rd. Traditional dungeon crawl.

A good friend of mine went pro-GM a couple of years ago. He's put a lot
of work into it. Email me at my header address if you'd like to try it
out or join.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten