Why do I hate everything?

[Unknown_K]

We have too much variety these days. When I was young in the late 70's and early 80's I could play a few games on my Atari 2600 (and they all pretty much were alike), play a few original games on the C64, or hit the local arcade and play some early shooters like pacman, battlezone, defender, etc.

These days you have multiple consoles, MAME for every game ever sold in an arcade, access to every game and platform ever made via ebay so there is no real need to make do with what you have and like it (because you had few options then).

Reminds me of people into warez, they have everything and use none of it compared with people who have to buy their games and replay the hell out of them.

As some people have said, when you are young all the games are new to you, when you get older you tend to see the same patterns and types of gameplay and it is not the same (even with better graphics). I recall some crappy games back in the day people used to love becuase of the graphics were cool, that doesn't change. Every generation had a few great standout games you can replay even today while most of the rest is junk.

Some of the games you once loved are almost unplayable because the newer versions added so much to the genre the original game feels half finished. For example when Dune 2 first came out I played it from start to end a few times, but once you played all the other games that followed you get annoyed by not being able to select a group of units to attack something at the same time, or not being able to click a building and have it make multiple units, the AI of the enemy was pretty stupid as well let alone not being able to play it online with real people.

Gaming itself has moved away from a one man operation (guy did the game, graphics, and coding by himself) to major software teams that eat up millions just to get a game on the store shelves. So you drift away from originality and try to get past winning combinations to get your investment back and make some money. You see the same thing in movies and music (remakes of comic books into movies and people singing the same songs over and over).

[Sensi]

Originally Posted by mk1

The question that comes to my mind is that did the people who had played with their early 80s and late 70s computers/consoles think the same way when the 16bit systems arrived? Any clue?

I disagree. Its not boring complaining about good old times. I grew up on speccy (1988-1991), six years later a I loved latest Amiga games (1996) and in 1998/99 I loved many PC games. The games had gameplay, I enjoyed playing them for pure joy. I dont play old games for getting back in time and for the so called nostalgia feeling, I play many speccy, Amiga, Saturn or PS1 games which I have never played before so they are completely new for me. I tried few PC and Xbox 360 games released in last couple of years. They look all the same. They have different graphics, different story, but they are the same. I rather play Worm in Paradise, Tir Na Nog or Elite. Games with bad graphics and poor sound, but so great. Its like comparing those blockbuster action shitty movies (they bore me to death) with Woody Allen's movies.

Originally Posted by Ironclaw

One of the things I hate, is today's people. All they care about is good graphics. I know several of them, and when I introduce "retro" games too them, they just laugh and don't even wanna try them because they don't look good enough.

I don't give a SHIT about graphics... for me the game itself (playstyle, music, sounds, mechanics etc) is what I go for.

I agree.

Originally Posted by TheCyberDruid

Still hate sneaking/stealth games.

I dont understand why people like it, they are so complicated and boring, nothing beats classic doomlike games

[Ironclaw]

Originally Posted by Sensi

I agree.

OMG, someone agreed with me


http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/1356/halleberryi.jpg

I would like to thank my parents for their support and belief in me. Even when I was acting like Zod, Superman, Skeletor and other crazy characters, they where there to support me.

I would also like to thank some members of this forum, but I'm so overwhelmed with joy so all your names slips my mind at the moment.

Thank you !

[Anakirob]

Face it. Most video games are shite, it has always been this way and probably always will be. Same goes for film, music, books, etc.

There's just a lot more video games released each year than there were when you were a kid.

I'd be willing to wager (although I don't know the stats) that there were more games released for Windows last year than there were for Amiga EVER.

For arguments sake, lets say 90%, although it's probably more like 99%, of video games are crap.

So if there's 10 games released in a month then you've got a handful(9) of poor titles. But if there's 100 games released you've got a mountain(90) of manure.

While it's easy to overlook a handful, it's kinda hard to ignore a mountain.

So with the Amiga it's easier to see past the crap, to the few good titles.
But with Windows, finding the gems among the garbage is quite difficult.

[mr_a500]

Originally Posted by Ironclaw

One of the things I hate, is today's people.

Yeah, modern people suck. Lousy bastards.

Originally Posted by Adropac2

I personally will always like the Atari2600, C64 and of course Amiga days because they were an altogether more charming time - and really that's just down to how much our imaginations took over what were fairly sparse and under realised worlds back

Yes, imagination definitely - and also the fact that computers themselves were new. In the beginning it was so fascinating seeing a glowing dot on the screen that YOU could control. It sure beat the hell out of playing with a Slinky. Actually the only real alternative was the Lite Brite set, which, although it had glowing dots, didn't offer much challenge. Now kids grow up surrounded by glowing flashing interactive things. The thrill seems to be in the content, rather than the novelty.

Originally Posted by Freakyweakywoo

Serious question. I and many of my peers it seems hate everything these days, but why is this?

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and not just about games. I hate much more than I like. Everything new sucks. I considered that maybe everything does suck, but noticed lots of young people don't seem to feel this way. If you look at a baby, he looks around with a sense of wonder (...as long as it's not a dull, stupid baby, of course) because everything he sees is new and fascinating to him. As you get older, you've "seen it all before" and you become cynical and critical. If you see a new game, you might say, "Oh, man... fuck! Look at the crap sub-pixel rendering! And my fucking guy doesn't jump right!" while a kid might say, "Oh cool! I just killed 3 elves for 1000 points!" (...or something like that... I don't follow modern gaming... it SUCKS!)

[Anakirob]

MrA500

I think everything sucks, I used to think everything sucked when I was younger, and I'll probably carry on being mildly discontent with everything for some years to come. I'm pretty sure that I've been of the opinion that everything sucks since I took my first gulp of air.

For example: When I first played Civilization, it sucked, the graphics were bad the gameplay was clunky and the plot inconsistent. It still sucks just as much.

But I played it anyway, and still do because it does not suck as much as almost every other turn-based strategy game for the Amiga. And playing a game on my Amiga does not suck as much as scratching my arse.

Don't give me any of this getting jaded with age crap. That's just nostalgia.

That kid saying "Oh cool! I just killed 3 elves for 1000 points!" knows the game sucks, (s)he's probably more critical than you when it comes to environment detail, gameplay, etc. But boredom sucks more, so (s)he'll play whatever games are available, as would I, even if I do think they suck.

[DH]

You guys are killing me!

[gilgamesh]

I do not agree. I still like playing Lucas Arts Adventures. I still like playing MDK. There are lots of good old games.
The novelty factor is even less acute than when I played them for the first time.

Of course, you remember the good games, and forget about the bad ones...

[gimbal]

Originally Posted by gilgamesh

Of course, you remember the good games, and forget about the bad ones...

Actually, we are all such retro retards that we ALSO play the stinkers of ye olde days

Must agree with a lot which is said here after my last post. Given me a lot of food for thought.

[Anakirob]

There are lots of good old games.

And there are lots of good new games too.

There are more games in general now, both good and bad. Than there was then. It's much easier to find the better titles on platforms which have fewer titles. Every platform has (a handful of) playable games and (a mountain of) unplayable games.

Every year we see the release of a handful of playable games and a mountain of unplayable games. Do you get where I'm going here?

You must be looking through rose-tinted glasses if you can't remember just how much everything sucked when you were a kid, especially a teen.

Oh and back to this hypothetical 'kid' (or 'kids' I guess), they'll play whatever you put in front of them. A playable game will get played, an unplayable game will get sneered at and tossed aside. Cannon Fodder is certainly more fun than a kick in the pants. It looks, sounds and plays no worse now than it did then. And they'll probably get pretty much the same feelings you got when they first play it too.

[s2325]

Unless it's Atari Lynx.

[killergorilla]

Originally Posted by s2325

Unless it's Atari Lynx.

Bwahahaahah.

[Moroder]

very interesting thread, I enjoyed reading it!

[gleng]

Originally Posted by Anakirob

So if there's 10 games released in a month then you've got a handful(9) of poor titles. But if there's 100 games released you've got a mountain(90) of manure.

That's Sturgeon's Law. “Ninety percent of everything is crud.”

[PWLM]

Originally Posted by Maren

One wonders what would happen if companies started developing games for the classic systems again. The C64 online community alone is said to be like 6+ million fans big, now add the miggy, speccy, cpc, st, etc...boy are they completely overlooking a potential market or what?

I have commented previously, but who will pay for games (old or new) when they are so readily available online from sites, torrents etc? There is no potential market in my opinion because of brilliant programs like UAE, CCS64 etc where (1) you don't get software failures due to shitty old floppy disks, and (2) no hardware failures like power packs overheating, misaligned floppy drive read heads etc. If there truly was a market people on ebay etc could ask and get a lot more for their wares than they do.

[Anakirob]

That's Sturgeon's Law. “Ninety percent of everything is crud.”

Why yes it is. And Mr Sturgeon did make a good point.
However the next part of my argument is a different concept based on the assumption that Sturgeon's Law is true (actually the Pareto Principle is more accurate, but more or less consistent with Sturgeon's Law.)

Which is: It is easier to find one good [whatever] from a selection of ten [whatevers]. Than it is to find ten(or even one) good [whatever] from a hundred [whatevers].

Imagine you are standing before a rack of DVD's and there are ten titles available for you to choose from.

Now imagine you are standing before a rack of DVD's and there are a hundred titles available for you to choose from.

[john4p]

Originally Posted by Anakirob

Which is: It is easier to find one good [whatever] from a selection of ten [whatevers]. Than it is to find ten(or even one) good [whatever] from a hundred [whatevers].

That's like asking "What's bigger: 10/100 or 1/10?" (0.1 or 0.1?)

[killergorilla]

Yeah but when your sample is bigger, it's harder to pick out that same 0.1%

That was the point

[Moroder]

Originally Posted by killergorilla

Yeah but when your sample is bigger, it's harder to pick out that same 0.1%

That was the point

That's true, and a good point. Also, back in the days there was the word of mouth to help you pick out the good ones, today there is the internet hype machine, which makes everything even more confusing. You don't really know who to trust anymore...

[john4p]

Originally Posted by killergorilla

Yeah but when your sample is bigger, it's harder to pick out that same 0.1%

That was the point

Yes, it's harder to find the exact 10 out of 100.

But Anakirob wrote "Than it is to find ten (or even one) good [whatever] from a hundred [whatevers]".
This "or even one" is incorrect.
That shouldn't be harder because it's as hard:

to find 1 good out of 10 if there is 1 good in those 10

as it is

to find 1 good out of 100 if there are 10 good in those 100...


But now it's clear what he meant - thanks.


P.S. Some really good posts in this thread. I hate ~everything, too.