Is gaming really boring now.

[76561198276521134]

I've been on steam for a while now.

I've used to play lot of cs 1.6 cs nexo zombies tf2 and other crap.

Then i made this account. I've did bought some games they seemed fun at first but now it's just boring. I open garry's mod,people playground,css, Im even trying random half life 2 mods or overall random crap. But it dosne't hit the same as it did before.

[D. Flame]

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Messaggio originale di D. Flame:

Wrong. Graphics were ALWAYS "a" focus, but they were NOT "the" focus until recent memory.

Nio they were pretty much the focus. Because graphics are the only thing you could present in a MAgazine. And then it was the FMVs, and so on. Gameplay is what people noticed AFTER they bought your game.

I mean Strider fior the NES is a great example of a game that looks fantastic in screen shots but the game play is kinda ass.

Nowadays Graphics are still a focus but in a different sense. it's not about uber photo 4K realism with map level surface phong shaded textures.. Now its about having a distinct and eye catching aesthetic. Which is why you're seeing such a lean dowads retro pixel art again.

I think you are misunderstanding something. They were definitely leaning on it marketing. We are all aware of bullshots. The thing is, we aren't talking about marketing here; we are talking about the devs actually designing the games.

[76561199502155650]

it might be time to step away from the games for a while and to try differnt hobbies, i just put together a model gundam it was pretty fun, it was kinda annoying cause it was so small but it was a nice little break from pc gaming, do other things like build a deck on your house, wash your car, cook some dinner, exercise more , any of those things are actually more enjoyable then pc gaming.

i just watched someone repave a concrete drive way, talk about hours of work laying rebar and leveling and foruming the pad for the concrete, the world is yours, unplug from the games an go enjoy life my friends.

[crunchyfrog]

Messaggio originale di D. Flame:

Messaggio originale di crunchyfrog:

Games have ALWAYS pursued graphics to that same degree. ALWAYS.

Wrong. Graphics were ALWAYS "a" focus, but they were NOT "the" focus until recent memory.

Cool, demonstrate your evidence for that because as I've said - it always has been because I have adverts to prove it from back in the day.

It's ALWAYS be one of the primary merits.

Please explain as to why on box art on old computer cassettes they'd often use the screenshots of the BEST computer to show off, rather disahonestly.

That couldn't possibly happen if graphics weren't a primary could it?

But that evidence please....

[crunchyfrog]

Messaggio originale di D. Flame:

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Nio they were pretty much the focus. Because graphics are the only thing you could present in a MAgazine. And then it was the FMVs, and so on. Gameplay is what people noticed AFTER they bought your game.

I mean Strider fior the NES is a great example of a game that looks fantastic in screen shots but the game play is kinda ass.

Nowadays Graphics are still a focus but in a different sense. it's not about uber photo 4K realism with map level surface phong shaded textures.. Now its about having a distinct and eye catching aesthetic. Which is why you're seeing such a lean dowads retro pixel art again.

I think you are misunderstanding something. They were definitely leaning on it marketing. We are all aware of bullshots. The thing is, we aren't talking about marketing here; we are talking about the devs actually designing the games.

Oh cool then you're still wrong.

They've always gone for the best looking they can and had to do late stage operations to get games optimized.

You have no idea how development works by the sound of it.

But you still offer no evidence to support your claim.

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di D. Flame:

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Nio they were pretty much the focus. Because graphics are the only thing you could present in a MAgazine. And then it was the FMVs, and so on. Gameplay is what people noticed AFTER they bought your game.

I mean Strider fior the NES is a great example of a game that looks fantastic in screen shots but the game play is kinda ass.

Nowadays Graphics are still a focus but in a different sense. it's not about uber photo 4K realism with map level surface phong shaded textures.. Now its about having a distinct and eye catching aesthetic. Which is why you're seeing such a lean dowads retro pixel art again.

I think you are misunderstanding something. They were definitely leaning on it marketing. We are all aware of bullshots. The thing is, we aren't talking about marketing here; we are talking about the devs actually designing the games.

YOu make it sound like the two are seperate things. Look devs knew and have known for decades that the bettwer the graphgics look the more likely someon eis to actually buy the game. And so they always tried to make the graphics as eye catching as possible.

Heck there are games that have literally been nothing more than tech deomos for engines. Unreal, and Hl2 are great examples of these :P

As said. Graphics will get people to pick up the game. Gameplay is only something they notice after they buy the game. It's not unlike snazzy boxart.

[crunchyfrog]

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Messaggio originale di D. Flame:

I think you are misunderstanding something. They were definitely leaning on it marketing. We are all aware of bullshots. The thing is, we aren't talking about marketing here; we are talking about the devs actually designing the games.

YOu make it sound like the two are seperate things. Look devs knew and have known for decades that the bettwer the graphgics look the more likely someon eis to actually buy the game. And so they always tried to make the graphics as eye catching as possible.

Heck there are games that have literally been nothing more than tech deomos for engines. Unreal, and Hl2 are great examples of these :P

As said. Graphics will get people to pick up the game. Gameplay is only something they notice after they buy the game. It's not unlike snazzy boxart.

Yup and as I pointed out before, it's been there since the dawn of gaming.

As I'm someone who's not only been around since the dawn but still has these games, I can look at them right now and see the evidence of this.

They seem to be either naive to how it has always worked or they weren't around then. Either way they're wrong.

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di crunchyfrog:

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

YOu make it sound like the two are seperate things. Look devs knew and have known for decades that the bettwer the graphgics look the more likely someon eis to actually buy the game. And so they always tried to make the graphics as eye catching as possible.

Heck there are games that have literally been nothing more than tech deomos for engines. Unreal, and Hl2 are great examples of these :P

As said. Graphics will get people to pick up the game. Gameplay is only something they notice after they buy the game. It's not unlike snazzy boxart.

Yup and as I pointed out before, it's been there since the dawn of gaming.

As I'm someone who's not only been around since the dawn but still has these games, I can look at them right now and see the evidence of this.

They seem to be either naive to how it has always worked or they weren't around then. Either way they're wrong.

I mean it's not hard. SNazzy box art for the front of the box and eye catching graphics for the back of the boxx and the magazine adverts are what make sales. Particularly in the West.

WHich is why RPGs had such a hard, hard time gaining traction in the west for so long.

Graphics get them to buy. Gameplay is what they expoerience later and honestly if you get the graphics flashy enough, the 8-12 year olds probably won't notice the bad gameplay or at least will stockholm themselves into believing they have a great game.

[D. Flame]

Gameplay is why RPGs didn't catch on in the West for a long time, and it is also why turn-based RPGs are once again disappearing in favor of action RPGs.

[ありす [Busy/Away]]

I'm similar: the older I get, the less I find games fun.

I think it's because the older I get, the more it sinks in that life is finite.

[Lunar Fang]

Messaggio originale di Alice:

I'm similar: the older I get, the less I find games fun.

I think it's because the older I get, the more it sinks in that life is finite.

I'm sitting next to the Titanic this was so deep.

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di Alice:

I'm similar: the older I get, the less I find games fun.

I think it's because the older I get, the more it sinks in that life is finite.

Life is finite. All the more reason to get as much happy out of it as possible. Maybe you need a new hobby, or maybe you need to expand your interests within gaming, Try genre's you've never tried or enjoyed much before, t maybe dig back in the pas for the older games released around the time when your interest was at its peak, etc

[crunchyfrog]

Messaggio originale di Alice:

I'm similar: the older I get, the less I find games fun.

I think it's because the older I get, the more it sinks in that life is finite.

It's a good reason to do MORE and enjoy more as every moment is precious and you on;y get it once.

When I became disabled (around 25) I was told how I'd get worse and what to expect. I was told I could no longer work. Bit of a downer and I had to completeyl change everything.

And I realised that although I'm likely going to die earlier than average, that meant every moment I get is a bonus and therfore I make as much of each day as I can. Glass half full and all that.

Because here's the kicker - otherwise you spend that same time either worrying or feeling bad about things you can't do.

And what's the point in that when you could be doing things you like?

[crunchyfrog]

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Messaggio originale di crunchyfrog:

Yup and as I pointed out before, it's been there since the dawn of gaming.

As I'm someone who's not only been around since the dawn but still has these games, I can look at them right now and see the evidence of this.

They seem to be either naive to how it has always worked or they weren't around then. Either way they're wrong.

I mean it's not hard. SNazzy box art for the front of the box and eye catching graphics for the back of the boxx and the magazine adverts are what make sales. Particularly in the West.

WHich is why RPGs had such a hard, hard time gaining traction in the west for so long.

Graphics get them to buy. Gameplay is what they expoerience later and honestly if you get the graphics flashy enough, the 8-12 year olds probably won't notice the bad gameplay or at least will stockholm themselves into believing they have a great game.

To add to this, I was going through some old papers and magazines last night. I found some of my old stuff from when I was at school.

And one of my closest friends of the time was a developer who worte for a few computers. His name was Gary Howland, and while he certainly didn't reach any glitzy heights he did do a number of games and made a packet out of it. The old computer the Lynx (NOT the Atari Lynx but before that) he wrote and had a few games published, and I found some of the design documents for those games.

And guess what's in the remit?

An emphasis on graphics to sell the game. That's early 1980s.

[Start_Running]

Messaggio originale di crunchyfrog:

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

I mean it's not hard. SNazzy box art for the front of the box and eye catching graphics for the back of the boxx and the magazine adverts are what make sales. Particularly in the West.

WHich is why RPGs had such a hard, hard time gaining traction in the west for so long.

Graphics get them to buy. Gameplay is what they expoerience later and honestly if you get the graphics flashy enough, the 8-12 year olds probably won't notice the bad gameplay or at least will stockholm themselves into believing they have a great game.

To add to this, I was going through some old papers and magazines last night. I found some of my old stuff from when I was at school.

And one of my closest friends of the time was a developer who worte for a few computers. His name was Gary Howland, and while he certainly didn't reach any glitzy heights he did do a number of games and made a packet out of it. The old computer the Lynx (NOT the Atari Lynx but before that) he wrote and had a few games published, and I found some of the design documents for those games.

And guess what's in the remit?

An emphasis on graphics to sell the game. That's early 1980s.

Graphics were especially important iun the early days because well, it was a lot more important for your game to be visually distinct from the other games and that took a lot more work on teh older systems

[crunchyfrog]

Messaggio originale di Start_Running:

Messaggio originale di crunchyfrog:

To add to this, I was going through some old papers and magazines last night. I found some of my old stuff from when I was at school.

And one of my closest friends of the time was a developer who worte for a few computers. His name was Gary Howland, and while he certainly didn't reach any glitzy heights he did do a number of games and made a packet out of it. The old computer the Lynx (NOT the Atari Lynx but before that) he wrote and had a few games published, and I found some of the design documents for those games.

And guess what's in the remit?

An emphasis on graphics to sell the game. That's early 1980s.

Graphics were especially important iun the early days because well, it was a lot more important for your game to be visually distinct from the other games and that took a lot more work on teh older systems

Yup, it's the old thing I bang on about a bit - when you have limited resources available to you, you not only get to do ANYTHING if presented with better stuff, but it means you got to make things pop on what you do have.

It's why when we had various computers back in the 1980s in Britain, the BBC Micro, the C64, Dragon, VIC20, and so on, of all these the Spectrum was the most popular and worst looking.

Guess what systems they used for the boxshots on an awful lot of Spectrum games? NOT Spectrum ;)

Usually BBC or C64 as they were the best looking.