Is gaming dead?

[SinisterGehe]

No-
Since if I have a good idea and the resilience to make it come true I can make a game, make stupid amount of dosh and get huge name.
I don't need publishers, I can just get my own website 4.99? /month website and put .Torrent link there and that sharing done.
Hell if demo scene is still alive... Why would gaming die?

True. The corporation based, stock companies who's main goal is profit might be dying to people like Notch. If you want to get the shovel out from your shed and start digging around the indie/mod/beta scene you will find gems that will waste hundreds of hours of your life - for FREE!

You just need to know where to look. And hint, it ain't Steam or Desura (well desura has a good stand still) But there is a lot to be found around the unknown indies games.

 

[NiPah]

To your first question, no gaming isn't dead, you can make the argument that we're seeing less innovation and risk taking but you didn't ask that you simply made a blatantly wrong statement to drive more people to your topic. 1998 was a hell of a year for video games, hell I still pick up the original Starcraft to this day for a few fun games, but I'm playing Minecraft with a group of friends over highspeed internet and I'm playing a game on my iPhone, two things not even conceived of back in 1998.

The future is changing, and for the better, give it a few years to wade through the shit and you'll see that we don't have it so bad. While the little changes are so minute they are hardly noticed, go back and play some of those hayday games and you'll see how far we've moved in playability and game experience.

 

[Chris Tian]

This is a fact: most acclaimed games today are just shittier versions of games that came before them

Internet debating rule number 1. opinion equals fact.
All kidding aside, are you sure you know what the term "fact" means? Because you are using it very wrong.

Basically all your posts just say: "I liked gaming better fifteen years ago". You rephrase that as if it were facts, and to prove those "facts" you state your personal opinion of some games over the years, again as if they were facts.

There is just no way good or interessting discussion can come from that, especially because you do not once give examples why you think all those games of old were better than they are now

 

[PBMcNair]

Pokemon Red/Blue < Pokemon Black/White.

Wowowowowow....
Ok, opinions and everything, but if I was going to argue the case of something better than Red/Blue that was released later it would be Ruby and Sapphire. Black and White struck me as the worst pokemon games to date really.
A couple of interesting concepts, but designed around what I can describe as nothing more than gimmicks that really make me hate the game.
As an example, that city that is a circle. WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. Its a pain to navigate, poorly laid out, the perspective is slightly confusing, all to say "We can do circles". And the bridge. That freaking massive bridge that in Red/Blue would have had some battles on it, some interesting things to do, some team Plasma plot or something [Or more likely been a large cave filled with Zubats that, whilst annoying, was fun to explore], but instead its a large, empty bridge that exists to say "We can do pseudo 3D, and curvy walking paths". So much that could have been interesting, could have been fun, could have made me like the game... but no. And another fire fighting starter but lets not go there...
Really, I want to like it, but I honestly can't. It does some things right but... God, the things it gets wrong just piss me off to no end, and are a big part of IMO one of the most important parts in a Pokemon game - the world you explore.
And that I'd say hit its peak in Ruby/Sapphire with not only a good looking world with varied environments that were well designed and interesting, but also with a variety of different things to explore with - like diving as well as surfing - and a couple of fun minigames that made it a joy to play.

I had more fun with it. The end.

Frankly, I'm surprised no one's attacked me for declaring Splinter Cell to be superior to Thief.

Didn't the original Splinter Cell have some arbitrary alarm limit on missions ? Never actually played it though, only the sequels.
The worst thing Thief 1 had was some levels that focused too much on making you fight zombies. (Although I havn't gone through it recently, it is possible I forgot something.)

Still, different stealth styles for different people, and I have had fun with the Splinter Cell games I have played. Even Conviction, you just have to squint at the screen and pretend you're a sneakier Jack Bauer instead of Fisher with all his subtlety removed.

(I sense this comment may come back on me if the Thief reboot sucks.)
On an unrelated note: OH GOD THE AVATAR'S BACK ! So much for sleeping tonight.

 

[Robot Number V]

Short Answer: No. Definitely changing but dying? No. Dead? FUCK no.

Long Answer: The Walking Dead Game, Journey, The Orange Box, Portal 2, Bioshock, Bioshock Infinite, Mass Effect 1,2, and 3, Oblivion, Skyrim, Dishonored, Assassin's Creed 1 and (or) 2, Uncharted 2 &3, Infamous 2, Borderlands 2, Call of Duty 4, Civilization 5, Spec Ops: The Line, Halo 3, Arkham City, Bastion, Limbo, Thomas Was Alone, Dead Space, Super Mario Galaxy, Little Big Planet 1&2, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, Red Dead Redemption, Fallout 3 & New Vegas, God of War III, Dark Souls, The Unfinished Swan, FTL, Far Cry 3, and many, many, many more. So...no.

DISCLAIMER: I don't actually like every game on that list, I just tried to cover the entire spectrum of preference. No, I'm sure as fuck not telling you which ones I like and which I don't. I can see where this thread is going, and my involvement ends here. If you see a game on there you disagree with, just assume that I hated it just as much as you do.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Didn't the original Splinter Cell have some arbitrary alarm limit on missions ? Never actually played it though, only the sequels.
The worst thing Thief 1 had was some levels that focused too much on making you fight zombies. (Although I havn't gone through it recently, it is possible I forgot something.)

Still, different stealth styles for different people, and I have had fun with the Splinter Cell games I have played. Even Conviction, you just have to squint at the screen and pretend you're a sneakier Jack Bauer instead of Fisher with all his subtlety removed.

(I sense this comment may come back on me if the Thief reboot sucks.)
On an unrelated note: OH GOD THE AVATAR'S BACK ! So much for sleeping tonight.

Yup, the first two Splinter Cell's had a three alarms limit before giving you a game over screen. I can agree with your different stealth styles for different people comment, I like both Thief and Splinter Cell (up until Conviction anyway) in about equal measure, but they are two very different types of stealth games. One's about manipulating your surroundings and exploration, the other is focused on gadgeteering and neutralization of guards.

Is gaming dead or dying? Obviously not. The fact that all of us are discussing games means it isn't. What we might be seeing is that some of us are not finding as many games catering to our tastes anymore. It is only natural that not all of us (if any of us) will remain gamers forever and move on to other hobbies. Personally, I am thinking 2013 might just be a great year for games, but I totally accept that not everyone will share my idea of what good games are.

 

[Playful Pony]

Absolutely not.

I would seem like the power to make and control games are slipping between the major publishers collective fingers. With digital distribution, Kickstarter and the ease of spreading information (with services such as Facebook) anyone with talent and a good idea can get a game going! All the Kickstarter projects I have backed so far have ended up going miles beyond it's original goal, which indicates to me that gaming is far from dead. Even niche titles aquire sizable followings and are capable of drawing loads of support.

Meanwhile the major publishers and developers are still doing "their thing", some with more success than others. Games wont just die, it's far too big an industry for that, too many gamers are hungrily waiting for the next great experience.

 

[kailus13]

I had more fun with it. The end.

Frankly, I'm surprised no one's attacked me for declaring Splinter Cell to be superior to Thief.

I find them too different to compare. Different aesthetic, different mood, different mechanics, etc etc. To me it would be like comparing either series to Metal Gear Solid.

 

[Rblade]

If you are thinking to yourself "Man, those games were the best I've ever played." always deduct a bunch of nostalgia points from the score you are giving it in your head. And if you were in the 12-16 range at the time that deduction becomes more severe. Seriously, you are simply not remembering all the terrible sludge that came out in the 90's and I'm pretty sure this era will also just be remembered for it's bioshocks, minecrafts, portals and total wars. And let us not forget WoW, love it or hate it, it's impact is undeniable.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Opinions construed as facts?

Great ¬_¬



I played Walking Dead, so no, gaming isn't dying.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

So long as you have access to the games that you do or, did enjoy then gaming can never truly die. This are far different now than they were in the early 2000's but it's not all bad and things are generally open enough for you to pursue your nostalgic titles of choice so long as you know where to look or, have the required things (ie: Steam, GOG or, an independent game's retailer in your town)

 

[sethisjimmy]

Never has an image before been so exactly appropriate.

But yeah, I think you just might have a case of extreme nostalgia goggles, that don't allow you to see the huge amount of unique, creative, quality games that are succeeding today.

 

[Chris Tian]

snip

Hahaha, you sir, just made my day.

P.S.:Thats so spot on, you drew this just now, admit it.

 

[Zipa]

Ask Bobby Kotick, I am sure he would think not since he just got a $64 million pay packet. There are plenty of excellent games out there just often people need to take the rose tinted glasses of nostalgia off first so they can see and enjoy them.

Plus the absolutely massive success of games on Kickstarter like Star Citizen and project infinity to name a couple seems to say not as people are clearly willing to throw money at good games.

 

[savageoblivi0n]

I have an idea...if you like the games of yesteryear so much better, find a group of retro gamers to hang out with and have a blast. Those of us who feel that gaming continues to improve won't have to read "gaming is dying" thread #932603077, and you won't have to sit here and argue against everyone's counterpoints to your opinions (yes opinions, not facts)

oh and also, speaking as someone whose first gaming system was a Commodore 64, and who's been a gamer ever since, a lot of that "creativity" and "originality" in past generation's gaming, which you hold in such esteem, while it did create some awesome titles, it also created about 300 metric tons of unfettered shit. There's a reason a lot of entertainment falls into derivative lines, because a lot of the time creativity and randomness strictly for the sake of "being different" can lead to disaster.

 

[latiasracer]

Yep, it quite clearly is dead.


Which is why everyone here still plays games, And Developers continue to make them.


Gaming is definitely dead, Without a doubt.


Seriously though, It's not dead in the slightest. It's better than ever before, there are countless titles (Well, 4) coming out this year alone that i am incredibly excited for.

 

[Arkynomicon]

It's not dead. It's just at an all time decadent high because it's full with scene people and sensationalist rubbish. Not to mention that pretentious people feel the need to wasting their time defending their hobby as an art from old people who don't get it.

I love playing video games but I certainly don't want to get labeled as a gamer because the culture is kinda childish and obsessive.

 

[bjj hero]

To summarise: oldgames>new games

Im over 30 now and have been gaming all my life. I love old games and have a soft spot for lords of midnight, buckrodgers, moonstone, shining force, phantasy star, target renegade, barbarian, highlander...

But a lot of this is nostalgia. If any of them were released now by anything other than a small indie developer they would bomb. I can play them and remember the good times but someone new to the title would be seriously disappointed having played a more poliched version, Things have moved on.

Interface, visuals, tutorials are so much better now. Dune II battle for Arakis was awesome as it was new and inovative. Id argue that most mediocre strategy games release recently would probably be better games (if you remove the nostalgia) as things have evolved.

There have been some awesome recent titles; Borderlands, Spec ops: the line, X-com, Dishonoured, Mass effect, Batman Arkham whichever. In previous decades there have been good titles too but you time filters out the dross. There have always been bad and mediocre games, you just hang on to the great ones.

Yes companies are closing and merging but this has always happened and will continue to do so but its not a reflection of the quality of games available.

Ill take your point, Ive not played an exciting starwars game since battlefront II/KOTOR but there are other places to look.