Here's an interesting article.

This ought to be worth some discussion:

read it

I quickly read it, he has valid points if he is talking about "Serious Sam" or "Will Rock", but if he's taking about games that include skill like some of the tomb raiders, or adventure games or maybe some FPS's like half life - he is undoubtably a retro fan boy.

I agree, this is one of those people who who are 100% sure about their view, like saying that most of today's gamers are young boys. That's actually far from the truth, since the average age is getting way up in the twenties, also with an increasing load of women joining in on the fun.

And saying that trying to achieve photo-realism is a bad thing is also wrong, because immersing yourself in a good shooter is fun, and more realistic graphics makes a scary game really scary. The whole idea is to suspend a player's disbelief, so you can't leave out realistic graphics from the equation. I agree that 3d isnt always needed, and that gameplay should get more of a focus, but there are limits to how much of a retro fanboy you can be.

:blow:

Agree'd interman, and if you notice he is talking about Pre-internet games or non-internet as it may seem, as he mentions nothing abut team-work or stratagie, only how stupud the AI is in most games

i only browsed the article a little bit, but i agree. there are very few games these days that actually test you, and make you think about what youve got to do.

Well i think hes stupid!!!! :bangin:

I honestly didn't even read the whole thing after he managed to embarass himself in the introduction... Let me quote:

But what happens in them? Well, most of the time you have a view from behind the hero. You follow the hero as he travels down one passageway, looks around a corner, travels down another passageway, then shoots at something. And that’s it! That’s all that happens! Over and over again! Of course, it’s very realistically drawn and you feel like you are almost there. But so what!

And exactly after that he says:

What’s really depressing about video games is they used to be pretty good. I hope there are those of you who remember the games of the 1970s and 1980s—games like Berserk, Q-Bert, Pac Man, Donkey Kong, Tetris, and the brilliant Chip’s Challenge.

So basically he complains about today's games being repetitive, right? Did ANY of you guys ever see much variety in different levels of Pacman, Q-Bert or Donkey Kong? Didn't you have to do the same actions over and over again AND the levels looked pretty much all the same? Yes, we all (at least the people that played those games in the past) did it over and over again, took it like men (or women if there's any reading this - which i highly doubt) and yet managed to have loads of fun with it. So I don't know how "past repetitive gameplay with minimalisyic graphics" is better than "new repetitive gameplay with realistic graphics", I think he lost me right away... One bad argument can often invalidate overall well balanced ten pages of writing.

All i can say after that is, atleast we have Multiplay , beats any non-multiplayer retro game..

its true nothing can beat a multiplayer game,but one thing i would like to point out is some great games dont have mp i.e. red faction 2,big one here doom 3 doesnt have mp i was so lookin foward to taht game ahving a mulitplayer but i was let down.Now tah i have covered my 2cents worth on mp its now time for sp while alot of the games are very well made,there to damn short,it makes me wanna go back to console ie final fantasy, xenosaga,if teh gamining industry dont start puting out games taht invole atleast 70hrs worth of play,i dont know what im gonna do put its gonna hurt the image i place on games today

the types of games we need are d3,hl2 graphics,bug free invorment,lengthen sp and tons of replay potential,if games dont start meet my standards all hope is lost

Stalker=Co-Op MP=Awsomeness

Also if anyone says that stalker will be repetitive with no skill or thought involved I will um........ Cry in a corner or someting! SO THERE!