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

Posted: Sep 02 2008 08:49 am

I thought video games were losing their magic when I was around 20. I have since realized, however, that games will really lose their magic and it was the combination of 1. not having as much time as I did in high school and younger to play games and 2. like 90% of games that come out now are total shit. What gave me the realization? Part of it was Wii Sports. The fact that I could log so many hours playing what is, essentially, just a tech demo is incredible. A developer was actually more concerned with gameplay than graphics because they were trying to show off the new hardware, and it worked incredibly for me. Guitar Hero is another game I don't see myself getting bored with anytime soon.

I think the real problem isn't that we're outgrowing games, it's really that most games are awful, and the ones that aren't awful are too easy. The Wii Paper Mario game was a ton of fun, but I found it to be far too easy. You can only get so many hours of play out of a really easy platformer.

APLETHORAOFPINATAS told me recently, however, that Diablo3 was officially coming out, and I basically shit myself and said I need to buy a new computer. Not the best game to bring up after complaining that games aren't challenging anymore, but nonetheless I'm more excited about this game than I could possibly be if gaming had lost its magic.

Joined: Sep 17 2007 Location: The Opium Trail Posts: 3474

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

I think the real problem isn't that we're outgrowing games, it's really that most games are awful, and the ones that aren't awful are too easy. The Wii Paper Mario game was a ton of fun, but I found it to be far too easy. You can only get so many hours of play out of a really easy platformer.

Flopside Pit of Trials is pretty hard, especially when you consider that you have to do it twice.

While gaming itself hasn't lost its magic, I find myself unable to get into the stories of classic RPG's. I don't know whether its bad translation, or Nintendo just doesn't get lovey-dovey enough for me with couples, but everytime there's a cutscene I'm like "next battle or get the fuck out."

Posted: Sep 02 2008 03:15 pm

Syd Lexia wrote:

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.

I totally understand the money and time issue, but I hadn't considered the fan variable. My solution for that would be: Don't announce the game too early. Look at that Dark Knight game that may or may not exist or may only exist in Gary Oldman's head. Keep it speculative, but unannounced until it's maybe a year and a half away.

Time and money is always a factor, but like a Hollywood movie or a James Cameron flick, give it what it needs to avoid pulling an "X-Men". I know MGS4 cost more money to make than a ton of Hollywood films, but to me its almost like Pixar. Those movies are equally expensive and time consuming. They really don't announce the films until they're a year away. But they always make back money, because they're quality. If a game comes out and it's "Waterworld"... well, just merge and carry on. FOX had a terrible year at the box office this year, but I don't see the studio going bankrupt anytime soon. Same with Joel Silver's company after The Invasion and Speed Racer. Duds will happen, but it doesn't always mean the end of the world. Besides, the game industry is so incestuous anyway, if you lose your job chances are someone will hire you.

Posted: Sep 02 2008 04:53 pm

The difference between a movie and a video game is that with a major motion picture, it's hard to lose money. If you don't make a profit in the theaters, you'll make it by licensing the fuck out of it and making Nabisco, Pepsi, McDonald's and Electronic Arts pay for the right to use your intellectual property on their products. And if you don't make it there, you'll make it on DVD sales.

The problem with video games is that the game itself is the only thing you really have to sell. If you spend $200 million making a video game, you have to sell 3.3 million copies at 59.99 just to break even. That's a big risk. It's also why MGS4 has product placement in it; Konami needed to play it safe.

Posted: Sep 02 2008 05:30 pm

Thankfully, games don't cost $200 million to make. And if they did, I'd be much more upset with them. Like how upset I am The Dark Knight cost $185 million to make. What the fuck was that? Did they spend $2,000 on a toilet seat? Granted that's not as bad as how much it cost to make Superman Returns.

Posted: Sep 02 2008 06:54 pm

The cost of making Superman Returns is VERY misleading however, as that includes their previous, failed attempts to make the movie. I think we can ignore the $20 million paid to Nicholas Cage to play Clark Kent when considering how much that movie legitimately made.

Posted: Sep 02 2008 06:55 pm

JRA wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

I think the real problem isn't that we're outgrowing games, it's really that most games are awful, and the ones that aren't awful are too easy. The Wii Paper Mario game was a ton of fun, but I found it to be far too easy. You can only get so many hours of play out of a really easy platformer.

Flopside Pit of Trials is pretty hard, especially when you consider that you have to do it twice.

While gaming itself hasn't lost its magic, I find myself unable to get into the stories of classic RPG's. I don't know whether its bad translation, or Nintendo just doesn't get lovey-dovey enough for me with couples, but everytime there's a cutscene I'm like "next battle or get the fuck out."

I didn't find either Pit of Trials particularly challenging. I think the one in The Thousand Year Door was actually harder.

Posted: Sep 02 2008 07:04 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

The cost of making Superman Returns is VERY misleading however, as that includes their previous, failed attempts to make the movie. I think we can ignore the $20 million paid to Nicholas Cage to play Clark Kent when considering how much that movie legitimately made.

I tend to ignore the $270 million price tag, but a lot of that was used to pay for the flick that is and that looks like an $80 million flick.

Joined: Sep 17 2007 Location: The Opium Trail Posts: 3474

Tebor wrote:

Thankfully, games don't cost $200 million to make. And if they did, I'd be much more upset with them. Like how upset I am The Dark Knight cost $185 million to make. What the fuck was that? Did they spend $2,000 on a toilet seat? Granted that's not as bad as how much it cost to make Superman Returns.

They did blow up a lot shit in that movie. And I don't think they used CGI either.

Posted: Sep 02 2008 09:15 pm

JRA wrote:

Tebor wrote:

Thankfully, games don't cost $200 million to make. And if they did, I'd be much more upset with them. Like how upset I am The Dark Knight cost $185 million to make. What the fuck was that? Did they spend $2,000 on a toilet seat? Granted that's not as bad as how much it cost to make Superman Returns.

They did blow up a lot shit in that movie. And I don't think they used CGI either.

As Joker kinda says, explosions are relatively cheap.

Case in point, no budget crap-tastic-piece Skeleton Man:

Yes, he did just shoot down a helicopter with a bow and arrow.

Posted: Sep 02 2008 11:29 pm

After FFvii and FF Tactics I really began to decline in my purchase of games. I, so pathetically speaking, moved to the... urg.... PC for my gaming.

The last console game that I loved and worshiped: FFvi. Has anyone found the Ribbon relic hidden in South Figaro right after you rescue Celes as Locke? DKC1 also has a place in my heart as one of the last TRUE games that came out. Afterwards, it was keeping up with the Jonses.

Posted: Sep 03 2008 01:54 am

The age console gaming lost its magic for me was when I got a PC that was worth a shit. I never cared about Mario 64, I was too busy playing Quake multiplayer.

Gaming died for me when Final Fantasy 7 came out.

Posted: Jan 17 2009 04:19 am

Would love to hear some new opinions from the group of new posters

Posted: Jan 17 2009 04:26 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.

We really need a two console industry again, but it'll never happen. Last gen, Microsoft was the odd man out, but they refused to back down and now they're arguably the top game in town, though I believe the Wii has higher market penetration. This gen, Sony is odd man out, but they won't back down either because like Microsoft, Sony is a multifaceted corporation, and they can afford to take huge losses in their VG department. Nintendo won't back down either, because this VGs are what they do. They continue to dominate the shit out of the handheld market and despite making huge business and marketing mistakes over the last 10-14 years, they are back in the console game.

In a healthy console industry, people should be able to own a single console and play at least 80% of the games that look interesting to them. In the current market, that number is closer to 60% and that's not good. Something's gotta give. I nominate Sony. That, or there has to be more serious attempts at cross-platforming.

This is exactly my problem with gaming right now. That doesn't stop me from buying games, or playing games, and enjoying them...but I can't afford to buy a next gen console, or the kind of machine it takes to run a state of the art game like Mass Effect, Bioshock or even Oblivion without really shitty settings. So for now I play my trusty old PS2, or emulators.

If the price of systems and their games came down, I'd consider getting a new console. But again, which one? So many games I want are exclusive to one console or another, its honestly easier to just say screw it and save the three or four hundred bucks.

So I guess gaming hasn't lost its magic for me, I just feel left behind and a little betrayed by this generation of gaming.

Posted: Jan 17 2009 04:32 am

I would say the choice was alot more difficult until recently

I would say get the XBox360

you can get a new one for 199
the games from 2006-2007 have started to get really cheap
great way to watch DVD's and store music
great library of games

The PS3 is a good system but still too much, I can just buy a more powerful video card for my PC if I wanna play the latests,best looking games. I can get a video card thats nearly the top of the line for 200 dollars(Radeon 4870). As long as you have an AMD64 Processor or Pentium D you can still play the latest games as be fine.

Posted: Jan 17 2009 04:58 am

See, I agree with you there. If I WAS going to buy one, It'd be the 360 for all the reasons you mentioned--the recent price break is what got me considering it. It's still a chunk of change though (no way around that), and I hate missing out on the other games for other systems. Its probably what I will get up getting eventually, I'm just not quite ready yet. I'm more inclined to make the investment in my PC at this point before I get a new console.

Its not so much that I'm unsure what I want, as I resent being forced to make the choice. Whiny I know, but it is what made (modern) gaming loose some of its interest for me.

Posted: Jan 17 2009 07:40 am

SoldierHawk wrote:

Its not so much that I'm unsure what I want, as I resent being forced to make the choice. Whiny I know, but it is what made (modern) gaming loose some of its interest for me.

Yea I'm the same way. I'm a completist at heart, so I HATE console exclusives. In the past, I just broke down and bought each of the 3 consoles so as to play all the games, but after going through 2 PS2's and an Xbox with each only lasting a year before bricking, I got fed up buying their shoddy hardware for extortionate prices. Even for $200, I refuse to buy an Xbox306 with inevitable RROD.

Gaming lost it's magic with me though when everything when 3D. For some reason, as a youth, I just didn't "get" the 3D games on Nintendo 64 and only really original games like Destruction Derby for PSone got me playing for more than a few hours. Even now, it's hard for me to really get into a game unless it's on the DS (which I love) or unless it's really spectacular (God of War being the last game I truly loved)

Posted: Jan 17 2009 02:16 pm

I'm not sure what age, maybe 15-16, just lack of motivation really, maybe a bit less time but mainly motivational loss.
I did get a DS for xmas though and have played it a fair bit, the magic isn't completely lost, the game just has to be really really interesting for me to consider renting it even now.

The guy who was talking bout SNES prices, really? Is that in USD? Your shop is horrible, they are 30CDN here, well that's what I paid for mine, a bit of color fade, maybe 50$ for a perfectly coloured one. NES's are harder to come by around here and go for about 60$, i want one because mine barely works.

I don't play a lot of my old systems, I guess I'm more of a collector than anything. I've gone back and repurchesed or had fixed an NES, SNES, Sega Genesis, N64 and got my GC out. I may consider a PS2(they can play PS1 correct?) because I've heard it has some very good games, but I've never been a sony fan.

Posted: Jan 17 2009 03:30 pm

Char Aznable wrote:

It's not a loss of motivation, it's a loss of time.

Same for me for the most part. I still play a lot but with two jobs I don't have as much time for gaming as I did when all I had to worry about was going to school.

Joined: Apr 14 2006 Location: Lake Michigan Posts: 3332

I started losing interest in consoles around 2001 near the end of college and right after the release of the PS2. That's around the time I got sick of new music too, so it might have been a maturing thing. Still, I really had gotten sick of buying new consoles every few years. I still play computer games occasionally since if you buy a top-of-the-line, it can last five years or more, through new revolutions in PC gaming.

This was also right around the time when the emphasis of games starting being graphics instead of storyline & gameplay, which didn't appeal to me.

Like already mentioned, it was a big drain on time & money as well.

Posted: Jan 18 2009 03:24 am

The last two years have basically curb-stomped much of the magic out of gaming. A distinct lack of true innovation or rewarding concepts have really killed my interest in the new generation of gaming. Oh well, there's plenty of back catalog stuff for me to pick up and play through.

Posted: Jan 18 2009 07:48 am

Syd Lexia wrote:

The problem with video games is that the game itself is the only thing you really have to sell. If you spend $200 million making a video game, you have to sell 3.3 million copies at 59.99 just to break even. That's a big risk. It's also why MGS4 has product placement in it; Konami needed to play it safe.

Another reason they should port it to the Xbox 360.

Posted: Jan 18 2009 09:12 am

I'm still obsessed with video games. My problem is that its not the only thing I'm obsessed with. I'm also equally obsessed with movies, television, and sports (which would fall under television since I'm not active in any sports right now). On top of that, I have a two year old kid who does his best to make doing any activity take forever. It took me nearly two hours to watch an episode of Criminal Minds the other night.

So as much as I love games, I still have to make time to watch my collection of several hundred DVD movies and close to 30 seasons of tv shows on DVD, my Netflix accound, as well as trying to keep up with all of the shows I watch on tv.

Posted: Jan 18 2009 11:42 am

scamrock wrote:

On top of that, I have a two year old kid who does his best to make doing any activity take forever.

same reason my brother hasnt played a video game in forever.

i guess that can include me to a lesser extent since my niece is always in my room messing with me while trying to watch tv, play video games, or get online

Posted: Jan 18 2009 10:31 pm

For me, it was a combination of a bunch of newer games just not appealing to me, and when I reached the age when I had to start paying for my own stuff. Dropping a couple of weeks worth of allowance on a game that might suck just quit being worth it. These days, I'll really just play Guitar Hero, and that's about it.