SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic - What age did gaming start to lose it's magic for you?

Posted: Aug 07 2008 03:27 pm

It looked that way with Betamax and VHS for awhile too. Then Sony lost. Fatality.

Posted: Aug 07 2008 03:29 pm

ged1928 wrote:

In about 1997, when SNES titles were phased out and it had become obvious that the N64 was going to be very underwhelming.

Indeed.

Posted: Aug 07 2008 05:04 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

It looked that way with Betamax and VHS for awhile too. Then Sony lost. Fatality.

But then they won with Bluray so it cancels out. Neutrality.

Docinsano's Channel 63 · Posted: Aug 07 2008 05:41 pm

ROOOOOAAAR!!! ANIMALITY!!!

Posted: Aug 07 2008 05:48 pm

When you take into account that DVD has been around for ten years, it's easy to see it getting beaten out by a new format. However, I still can't get over the fact though that DVDs aren't big enough for movies? I mean it has alot of space on it for the movie itself, and you could easily make another disk with the special features on it. I don't get why you would need to waste money on even more space that most likely won't be used, and the quality in picture and sound is plenty good enough for me....I guess that's big business for you, forcing us to adapt to changes so they can gain more money.

Windows Vista and HD-TV all over again.

Posted: Aug 07 2008 05:57 pm

I dunno if Bluray has won yet, persay. Virtually everyone I know still buys DVDs.

Posted: Aug 07 2008 06:02 pm

blu-ray has won over HD-DVD. thats for sure since every company jumped on the blu ray bandwagon, but it will be a while before people jump from DVD to BR. kind of how it took a while for people to jump from VHS to DVD.

Posted: Aug 07 2008 07:47 pm

2003, I think. The last "classic" games (at least to me) came out then, and after that it just wasn't the same.

Posted: Aug 07 2008 08:44 pm

From until about 1999, the only console I owned was a NES. Back around 1997 when I really started getting into video games, NES games were incredibly cheap (there was a video rental store that sold my dad 70 NES games for 70 bucks) and my parents would basically get me any NES game I wanted for less than five bucks. Then I got a Game Boy color, and games were still on the cheap. In 2002 I got a Sega Genesis, a SNES, and a PS2; SG and SNES games were incredibly cheap and there were plenty of Greatest Hits games for the PS2. So basically for my entire life, video games have been cheap and accessible. Now I have an Xbox 360 and a DS, and since games cost 60 and 40 dollars, respectively, I don't exactly have the cash to get every game I want. Sixty bucks may not be a whole lot to some people, but for me, it could be twenty NES games or twelve Game Boy games. Since I can count the number of upcoming games to be released that I'd want to spend 60 on with one hand, I've become much less interested in video games than I used to be. I guess that's when I started to lose interest.

Posted: Aug 07 2008 10:32 pm

Wish I had a game store with SNES carts for cheap, I'd go down there with at least thirty bucks in hand right now.

Posted: Aug 08 2008 12:52 am

Blu-Ray will catch on much more come this holiday season.

$60 isn't that bad compared to what prices were with the SNES era. $70 a pop? Really?! I've always been into Gaming. Never really lost interest, I can always find something that will keep me content until the next big thing/game.

Posted: Aug 08 2008 12:58 am

Imagine Atari 2600 games at those prices.

Posted: Aug 08 2008 01:03 am

Gantrithor wrote:

Imagine Atari 2600 games at those prices.

How much did they cost back then?

Posted: Aug 08 2008 01:10 am

Gantrithor wrote:

Wish I had a game store with SNES carts for cheap, I'd go down there with at least thirty bucks in hand right now.

Seriously the SNES has like the highest market value right now of the retro systems from the early 90's. Ive seen SNES games at 35 bucks a pop and the system at 80 bucks. I mean yeah it was a damn good system but why the high price, I can get a Gamecube and like 2 solid games for 80 bucks.

My friend came into a local game store with me wanting to get a SNES for like 20 or 30 bucks and the dude wants 79.99 for a SNES. I told the owner would he consider 50 bucks cash and he acted like it was the biggest insult ever.

Posted: Aug 08 2008 01:45 am

supply and demand ermac. simple rules of supply and demand

2010 SLF Tag Champ Joined: Jun 07 2006 Posts: 12294

I love spending forty bucks on a game and finding out that it sucks.

I also like buying said game just because it wasnt the same cookie cutter WWII FPS bullshit that I'm used to seeing.

Posted: Aug 08 2008 07:58 am

Cam-win wrote:

Now I have an Xbox 360 and a DS, and since games cost 60 and 40 dollars, respectively, I don't exactly have the cash to get every game I want. Sixty bucks may not be a whole lot to some people, but for me, it could be twenty NES games or twelve Game Boy games. Since I can count the number of upcoming games to be released that I'd want to spend 60 on with one hand, I've become much less interested in video games than I used to be. I guess that's when I started to lose interest.

You know, you could trade-in your games. Just sayin'.

Posted: Aug 08 2008 04:20 pm

Some people actually like keeping their games around, though.

Posted: Aug 08 2008 04:58 pm

Nekkoru wrote:

Cam-win wrote:

Now I have an Xbox 360 and a DS, and since games cost 60 and 40 dollars, respectively, I don't exactly have the cash to get every game I want. Sixty bucks may not be a whole lot to some people, but for me, it could be twenty NES games or twelve Game Boy games. Since I can count the number of upcoming games to be released that I'd want to spend 60 on with one hand, I've become much less interested in video games than I used to be. I guess that's when I started to lose interest.

You know, you could trade-in your games. Just sayin'.

Trade in games, get like 15 dollars back. Nice idea douchy.

I just collect PS2 games. You know how many games came out on that system? I get good games for like 20 dollars.

Posted: Aug 08 2008 07:29 pm

Char Aznable wrote:

Some people actually like keeping their games around, though.

Like me. I have never once traded a game in. The $0-15 dollars they'd give me for it just isn't worth it. If I was gonna get rid of games, I'd sell them on eBay, Amazon, or Craigslist.

Posted: Aug 08 2008 09:50 pm

I've actually considered trading games in/selling them on eBay. It just isn't worth trading them in to Gamestop for $15 when I bought them for fifty. And I can't sell them on eBay; take, for example, Splinter Cell on the PS2. I got it for twenty bucks, and only played it once because it just isn't my kind of game. I almost put it up on eBay, but then I decided not to after I noticed all the two and three-dollar PS2 copies of Splinter Cell on there that haven't been sold yet. I really don't feel like getting rid of a game just for maybe a couple dollars (if I'm lucky). The only games I have that I'd want to sell are either on the PS2 or the NES games, and you have to sell NES games in sets of 30 or more to make a decent amount of money.

Posted: Sep 02 2008 03:30 am

The day i lost my copy of harry potter for gba. jk probably the ps2, I play pre ps2 games more than i play my ps3 or my 360 when i had it, actually ive been on a nes kick recently, HEY did you know that EB was offerering a buy 1 360 and get your first fire extinguisher free deal i guess buying a fire extinguisher is cheaper than the fans they sell.

Posted: Sep 02 2008 03:39 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

I will say that the three-way console wars that started in the late 90s have really hurt gaming. In a two-way console war, when you have one console, you get slightly fucked sometimes because not every game you want is going to come out on your system, but it's bearable. In a three way console war, you get super-fucked if you have one console because DOZENS and DOZENS of games you want aren't going to come out on your system.

Yeah, except if the only gaming system I own is a Gameboy Advance and I'm mad that PS2 games and X-Box games aren't coming out for it, I'd be like a Wii owner Smile

Posted: Sep 02 2008 03:55 am

I've never been a die hard gamer. I knew what I liked and it's always been a small niche. From NES to the Genesis. The N64 was okay for me because I wasn't yet ready to jump into the world of CD gaming. The Playstation and its sequel opened a new world of options for me which led to some of my happiest obsessions (Metal Gear, Silent Hill).

If anything gaming is sort of losing its magic now. I see a market targeting people like my parents to buy video games. My mother has a DS and plays games on it... I feel shamed. But more importantly, I see less of an emphasis on story telling in gaming. Music games, puzzle games, and other random virtual experiences are taking the lead, not just because they appeal to a broader market, but because they are faster and cheaper to make. And I don't like that. I prefer games to be masterpieces of story like Ocarina and Metal Gear Solid were for me. Those were complete games with no bullshit reserved for sequels. MGS could've flopped and never had three more core games and I would've been fine.

Now, I see games turning out like Condemned which was utterly unsatisfactory.

Maybe my expectations got too high for where I thought the future of gaming was going. I think that is a major part of it. Whenever we do get decent people on the creative team of a game it's rushed (24 the Game, brilliant script, not enough development time to make it the optimal kick ass level it could've been) or they pull a Spielberg and they don't even try. Even Final Fantasy feels like their TOO LARGE scope has gone down hill. Remember when FFVII was so epic they had to cut significant chunks from the original plan out? I assumed a day would come when we didn't have to do that. Instead, FF decides to simplify their stories instead.

Hmmm, maybe I am jaded. But I still have hope. MGS4 for instance was a triumph because it had a perfect creative team, a perfect development team, but most of all a long ass development time where shit actually got done. A lot of games like MGS4 would've been over after Act II. I wish that was the standard that all games met, but like The Dark Knight, that bar is so insanely high it is insane to expect that same quality from no name developers (although I wish I could for name ones). Though it is the no names to watch out for, they have the most ambition and dedication... like Rocky.

Posted: Sep 02 2008 06:42 am

It's a balancing act. It's expensive to develop a game at the level you're talking about and it can be unprofitable. Plus, people don't want to wait. I want Mario Galaxy 2 and Twilight Princess 2 NOW. I want Order of Ecclesia NOW. I want Dragon Quest IX NOW. The development cycle from major game franchises these days seems to be 3-6 years, which is a little much. I'd like to see it at 2-3.