Do you find yourself drifting away from the scene?

[Flojomojo]

^^^ that's really well said

 

There's SO MUCH retro gaming, and the internet, ROMs and YouTube bring to the surface so much content I never could have known about (let alone absorbed) if it weren't in a magazine or discussed via word of mouth back then. Retro (and software and hardware in general) has never been so well communicated. The fact that the biggest issue with places like Steam or mobile app stores is DISCOVERY of what's available really changes the way I engage with this media.

 

When I was a kid, it was "show me your dozen cartridges and I'll show you mine," and we could occasionally ogle magazines at the supermarket. We had the Sears Wishbook and we would get a few games a year. It's just not the same today.

 

That's okay. I'd rather have an embarrassment of riches and need to think about where I put my time/money/attention than fewer than 10 games a year.

[Bill Loguidice]

That's okay. I'd rather have an embarrassment of riches and need to think about where I put my time/money/attention than fewer than 10 games a year.

 

Agreed and I say pretty much that same thing all the time. Now is undeniably the best time to be a gamer. Sure, we can talk the typical "golden age" concept and all of that, but the reality is is that with each passing day we get access to more and more stuff, with the best part being that the old stuff doesn't go away. If you're not a happy gamer now, then perhaps you're just not happy gaming anymore.

 

I will say that my tastes in games have changed. I have much less patience than I used to for games with dated interfaces. The most recent example I can give is that last night I was trying to play Spellcasting 101 (GOG had a discount on the trilogy that was on my wishlist, so I said, "why not?"). While I enjoyed the text interface for the most part, I was still frustrated by times when the parser didn't understand me or when I had trouble visualizing the possible directions to go. Little things like that that really wouldn't have bothered me much in the past, but really bother me now because I'm more spoiled by many modern games taking a lot of the tedious parts out of the play experience. And of course also because I'm older, with less time, and probably a bit less patience.

 

Of course, not every classic game is affected by a dated interface or other issues. Action games for the most part are generally immune, and of course classic arcade games were always built for approachable fun. But man, I stuggle mightily with playing classic RPGs and genres like that today, despite previously having an extreme passion for them.

 

(I will say that my changing tastes also apply to other media. I find some 70s and 80s movies MUCH harder to watch now - even some of the classics - because so many modern movies do things different and/or better. It really is harder to go back to some things when you've been shown a "better way.")

[youxia]

I disagree. The "golden age" was characterised by several key factors which are missing today. There was endless innovation and risk-taking present in AAA gaming. You owned your games and could do with them as you please. The DLC/microtransction model which totally affects game design was unknown. These were real things which we really could use in modern gaming, not some nostalgia-affected memories. The great promise which was there back in the day fizzled out and has mostly been substituded by safe and rather boring status quo.

 

I'd still much rather play Spellcasting 101 than some modern "adventure", since the design template is now by default so full of hand-holding and death-aversion that it eliminates any real challenge or motivation to play, for me at least. When I have to mod GTA V, game mostly about car chases to make crashes actually cause some meaningful damage, you know something's not right. In the assorted Deus Exs or Witchers you now just follow the arrows/markers, get through some rudimentary combat and watch cutscenes. Apparently gamers do want "narrative experiences" which are a poor substitute for real gameplay. Of course, I am generalising and there exceptions from the rule, but proportions compared to the olden times have changed, without a doubt.

 

It's a bit sad to read about that on a major retro-gaming forum, especially from peple who specialize in gaming history. Fair enough, I guess, as long as one remembers that it's not some universal truth but a personal opinion. Sure thing, tastes do sometimes change with age. I'm kinda glad mine did not though (and I'd still much rather watch a Taxi Driver or a Die Hard than their modern equivalent - if there are any)

Perspective is key as well: some kids today still can not afford everything and swap warez with pals, unlike middle aged men with substantial incomes.

[Bill Loguidice]

I'd still much rather play Spellcasting 101 than some modern "adventure", since the design template is now by default so full of hand-holding and death-aversion that it eliminates any real challenge or motivation to play, for me at least. When I have to mod GTA V, game mostly about car chases to make crashes actually cause some meaningful damage, you know something's not right. In the assorted Deus Exs or Witchers you now just follow the arrows/markers, get through some rudimentary combat and watch cutscenes. Apparently gamers do want "narrative experiences" which are a poor substitute for real gameplay. Of course, I am generalising and there exceptions from the rule, but proportions compared to the olden times have changed, without a doubt.

 

It's a bit sad to read about that on a major retro-gaming forum, especially from peple who specialize in gaming history. Fair enough, I guess, as long as one remembers that it's not some universal truth but a personal opinion. Sure thing, tastes do sometimes change with age. I'm kinda glad mine did not though (and I'd still much rather watch a Taxi Driver or a Die Hard than their modern equivalent - if there are any)

Perspective is key as well: some kids today still can not afford everything and swap warez with pals, unlike middle aged men with substantial incomes.

 

Oh, I get it, believe me. I've obviously been around the "scene" forever and around other people who do the same with music and movies or whatever. It's incredibly common for people to find their comfort zone, stop, and then never evolve beyond it, vastly preferring the "old" stuff and picking holes in the "new" stuff, while glossing over any issues with the "old" stuff.

 

I guess my only point was a personal one and it was that I never lost my childhood sense of wonder and interest in all things videogames, computers, and technology, so I still derive tremendous pleasure from the all the new stuff that constantly comes out and fully embrace new ways of doing things like with digital downloads (e.g., I love owning many thousands of games that take zero physical space). Stuff in the past had its pluses and minuses, and stuff today has its pluses and minuses. It's all relative, really.

 

I don't really care to (or have to, really) defend any of the modern ways or games other than to state that I think, as was stated by someone else earlier, discoverability is a real issue. Otherwise, the reality is that between low-end indie and high-end AAA stuff, there's literally every desire represented on all the major platforms, be it mobile, console, or computer. Again, the best part is is that that's added to easy access to all of the old stuff. It doesn't replace any of it, so we all win.

 

 

 

I disagree. The "golden age" was characterised by several key factors which are missing today. There was endless innovation and risk-taking present in AAA gaming. You owned your games and could do with them as you please. The DLC/microtransction model which totally affects game design was unknown. These were real things which we really could use in modern gaming, not some nostalgia-affected memories. The great promise which was there back in the day fizzled out and has mostly been substituded by safe and rather boring status quo.

 

It was easier to innovate when there was less stuff around, it was early days, and the barrier to success was much lower. You could target specific niches (e.g., SSI with lots of wargames and RPGs), and thrive. The market is so much bigger now than in the past. Anyway, I'd argue there's just as much innovation today. It's just harder for it to be obvious because we have literally hundreds of thousands of known games that came before. Most of the "firsts" already happened, with it becoming much harder to be "first" by simple numbers.

 

In terms of ownership, that's a generational thing. I'm personally much happier with select subscriptions or "owning" digital rights to something than maintaining physical stacks of items these days. Been there, done that. These new models are only present because the technology is there to make it happen. If we had ubiquitous networks, the Internet, etc., back in the 70s and 80s, we sure as heck would have had these models evolve sooner. It's definitely better in many ways despite some of the downsides. Of course, physical media has its own share of downsides. I'll take the portability, fidelity, and easy access any day to physical items. I DO absolutely get though how holding something in-hand has its appeal, and there's obviously some things that just can't be replicated digitally (e.g., I'm looking at three Rampage stretch toys on my desk now, which is next to a Wonder Woman statue and a Joust snow globe).

[hizzy]

It's games. You play them if you like. There is a culture to collecting, and a scene, I suppose, but I would just rather play games. For me, it's not that deep.

[John Stamos Mullet]

 

Damn! You're right! I always thought Jason Newstead was what helped define the difference in style after Ride the Lightning. I had no idea that Cliff Burton was also on Master of Puppets.

 

Man, this is an old conversation for me... I can't even remember the last time I listened to Metallica. I listen to talk radio all the time, and on the occasion that I do turn on the radio, it's because my daughter is in the car, and I put on some bebop channel that has all the new weird songs.

 

Oh, and not true. Metallica only has 5 albums... those other 5 you speak of are garbage and not worthy of being called Metallica... haha.

 

I stopped listening to Metallica after Load. I know they had Re-Load, but I have no idea what it sounds like. Hard to imagine there were THREE MORE after that. They must have been so totally unimpressive that no one ever talks about them.

 

 

Last best concert with them was Lollapalooza 1996.

the last two albums are comparable, style-wise, to the first 4, especially their latest Hardwired. It's really good. Better than the Black Album, even.

 

They went through a shitty phase where them made a lot

Of money. I don't blame them. People take shitty jobs they hate for more money every day.

[phoenixdownita]

... People take shitty jobs they hate for more money every day.

Amen to that, and by the way "shitty" most of the times just really mean "I am doing it for the money, once I've had my fill I'd hopefully remember where I started and get back to have some fun"

[youxia]

 

Oh, I get it, believe me. I've obviously been around the "scene" forever and around other people who do the same with music and movies or whatever. It's incredibly common for people to find their comfort zone, stop, and then never evolve beyond it, vastly preferring the "old" stuff and picking holes in the "new" stuff, while glossing over any issues with the "old" stuff.

 

Rather disappointing, to see this kind of low-blow argument trotted out here. So, it's only stuck-up luddites living in a nostalgia flavoured retro cloud vs adaptive visionary progressives? A fairly black and white, unfair take, one which could also be easily reveresed: "It's incredibly common to find people who turned their back on the past and are non-critically embracing the "new" stuff, who constantly pick holes in the "old" stuff, while glossing over any issues over the "new" stuff". Sounds fair?

 

The fact that I like CRT TVs and have serious complaints about modern gaming does not necessarily mean that I (nor many others) automatically belong to that stereotypical cartoon-like retro gamer trope. I've owned most modern consoles up till this gen and only folded my AAA PC gaming rig last year due to relocation. I clocked hundreds of hours in games such as Fallout 4, Planetside 2, No Man's Sky, Elite Dangerous or X COM. I'm a gaming news junkie and keep tabs on all the latest developments. Hardly a basement dweller hunched over a shrine to Mother.

 

"Change" is not always good, despite it being a constant mantra used to hand wave away criticism in any walk of life. Personally, I'm also non-convinced by the particular arguments offered in defense here. Discoverability may (or might not) be easier today - but it was never really that great a problem. We had mags and word of mouth and from what I recall it worked quite well. Quantity does not equal quality. So there is a million gaming apps on a mobile and 10000 RPGs on Steam? Great, how many of these are of any substance?

 

There clearly is not "every desire" represented since complaints can be heard not only in my post here (vocal minority, eh?) but all over the net. When a game style such as that of Dark Souls is hailed as something special I feel it's like rediscovering the wheel all over again. "Innovation" does not need to be just coming up with new stuff, but at least following up and expanding on the old: instead we get something like Deus Ex which nearly 20 years after the groundbreaking original offers only more polygons and much less emergence.

 

There's probably no point going over the digital vs ownership debacle any more either since it's all done and dusted now...but it will never cease to amaze me how people in favour of it can only offer something as really minor as "zero shelf space" or "portability" as key pro- points. Especially when contrasted with the opposite facts: "you can't sell or trade it", "it requires online connection" or "it can be taken away at a whim". It's definitely not a "generational" thing - just a corporate stranglehold model sold as convenience.

 

None of the modern changes are all good or inevitable in the present form. We could have digital downloads with ownership rights. We could also have modern blockbusters unafraid of challenge and being satisfied with sticking to decade old design templates. We don't, mainly becasue these ways make much more money for the few. That is why I'm not a fan of non-critically embracing everything, only because it's "new".

[Keatah]

I suppose the main reason for me downsizing much of my Apple II material is because of duplicates and a desire to return to what I had as a kid. And that is rather modest hardware, though at the time it was considered quite extravagant. What 10'ish year old kid had a 64K computer, with 2 drives and a color monitor. In the 1970's!

 

I already focus on PC gaming, some old and some new. And I also built (evolved) my all-in-one childhood dream machine, the mystical UltraVision. I'm just about happy with it compared to what I imagined. There are several personal Apple and PC projects I want to get underway. And having a master bedroom full of Apple II material is not conducive or useful for any of that! At one time I thought it would be. But I was mistaken.

 

I like the physical items I posses to mean something. I have no use (anymore) for 10 different kinds of parallel interface cards, not even a Buffered Grappler+. I'll keep my original MicroBuffer with the control panel on it thankyouverymuch. Don't have use for 4 Apple Cat II modems. Nor some 20 odd Disk II drives. 2 + spare parts will be fine for now. Haven't done anything with the Apple ///+ in ages and I don't foresee myself going in that direction either. Tried to get into the ///, but it remains a catalog computer. A computer I always read about in catalogs and nothing more.

 

There's so much unique and niche hardware for the II series, and trying to whore it all is impractical. Actually doing so takes away from the flavor of the platform and what we all had and knew and loved back then.

 

Does downsizing my Apple II material mean I'm drifting from the scene? Yes and no. Yes in that I no longer get blasts of nostalgia looking at the stuff I wanted to own as a kid. No in that there new things I intend to do. So it's more a shifting of interests. An evolution of interests. Finish one thing, move on to the next.

Edited September 16, 2018 by Keatah

[atarilovesyou]

I just ignore everything that happened after the Black Album and before Death Magnetic, it's like they broke up for a while and then got back together. .

I couldn't agree more!

[AtariLeaf]

If kittens and puppies are part of the scene than I'm still in, if not count me out.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

There's probably no point going over the digital vs ownership debacle any more either since it's all done and dusted now...but it will never cease to amaze me how people in favour of it can only offer something as really minor as "zero shelf space" or "portability" as key pro- points. Especially when contrasted with the opposite facts: "you can't sell or trade it", "it requires online connection" or "it can be taken away at a whim". It's definitely not a "generational" thing - just a corporate stranglehold model sold as convenience.

 

None of the modern changes are all good or inevitable in the present form. We could have digital downloads with ownership rights. We could also have modern blockbusters unafraid of challenge and being satisfied with sticking to decade old design templates. We don't, mainly becasue these ways make much more money for the few. That is why I'm not a fan of non-critically embracing everything, only because it's "new".

 

Hey, whatever. It's what we have and I for one like it and find it superior. You don't like it and that's fine too. And of course Steam, Xbox Live, PSN, Nintendo's eShop, iTunes, Netflix, Google Play, etc., can all go away tomorrow, but so can we. And if I outlive my digital ownership of things, so be it. I'm sure I'll have thousands of other digital files to entertain me in reserve. (And don't get me started from a productivity standpoint on how much more I like the perfect redundancy of services like Dropbox and don't mind paying for subscriptions to Microsoft Office and Photoshop and what-not--it's literally transformed the way I work with zero stress of losing stuff and being able to work from anywhere on any machine.)

 

And for those who want "ownership," there are always places like GOG that give you the best of both worlds - easy, portable digital game management as well as the ability to download and backup what you own as you please. Same thing with buying movies. You can find your happy place by owning a physical disc, but it almost always comes with a digital rights version as well. That sounds like a win-win to me and far superior than a physical-only world.

[atarilovesyou]

the last two albums are comparable, style-wise, to the first 4, especially their latest Hardwired. It's really good. Better than the Black Album, even.

 

They went through a shitty phase where them made a lot

Of money. I don't blame them. People take shitty jobs they hate for more money every day.

The sad truth is that their worst period of music netted them the most money. If the black album never came out, they probably would have turned out like an Iron Maiden or Van Halen: important, worldwide acts, but not as universal as Metallica today.

 

Although the last ten years have been their most lucrative monetarily, along with many other big bands.

 

Truth is, and video game design is kinda similar, today's music targets a niche (because really, everything is niche now) and extracts the most they can. And that's great, if you like the product. But the more fans, the more money, the generally higher quality. Not in the demographic? Good luck to you: Bill is right, there: evolve or stay where you are. I don't like using the loaded evolve term as to me it implies improvement...and I don't see much improvement in kodern gaming other han the technical specs climbing higher and higher. But that's been with video games since the early days. Some were totally happy with Pong and still are.

 

I sound like a broken record, but my ideal thing would be this: a team who kniws their market (old school guys like me) and caters their products to what I like. More expensive? You bet, as it should. High quality components, of course. But in the end, both sides are benefiting.

 

But unfortunately, many others in my demographic are simply unwilling to actually pay for that kind of quality. So we get what we get. Which ain't much to really have a 'scene'about...so we stay with the tech that we know and love. I can live with that. But it sure would be nice to have something to truly get enthusiastic about.

[thetick1]

 

...

I've also written enough books (and the movie, of course) to satisfy what I wanted to creatively get out of that way. Other than updates to previous books at special request of publishers (like Vintage Game Consoles 2.0, which I'm due to finish in February) and the occasional special project, I have no interest in actively pursuing writing more videogame/computer-related books. And now that working for a videogame company that specializes in classic gaming is my primary job these days, I have quite a bit on my plate in that area to sap my energy/interest in related projects anyway.

....

 

 

Looking forward to Vintage Game Consoles 2.0 but to be honest The Ultimate History of Video Games is still my favorite. I'm hoping Vintage Game Consoles 2.0 will be my new favorite! Thank you for all your contributions and also your huge sale which was a real treasure to the reto computer and gaming communities.

Edited September 17, 2018 by thetick1

[Bill Loguidice]

 

 

Looking forward to Vintage Game Consoles 2.0 but to be honest The Ultimate History of Video Games is still my favorite. I'm hoping Vintage Game Consoles 2.0 will be my new favorite! Thank you for all your contributions and also your huge sale which was a real treasure to the reto computer and gaming communities.

 

 

The Utlimate History was the last true mega-hit in the category (not counting books like "Art of Atari," of course), back when books could still do really well (and not much competition at that time), but it's obviously dated now and contains some incorrect info. It still sells surprisingly well, though, and has thus far never had a need to be updated for whatever reason (I guess if it still sells as-is, why bother?).

[+Cafeman]

Are the sales stats available? Interesting point to bring up. I assume you mean Kent's book.

[Bill Loguidice]

Are the sales stats available? Interesting point to bring up. I assume you mean Kent's book.

 

Yes, the Kent book. I'm not aware of publicly available sales stats, but it doesn't mean they're not out there.

[+wongojack]

 

. . . I've put in a good four decades with this stuff, so I feel like it's kind of mission-accomplished at this point. I'm satisfied. Vintage gaming (and computers and related collecting and enthusiasm) is as big and accessible as it ever was - and you add to that the endless new stuff - it's a LOT to keep track of. There's just so much to experience and enjoy. Even just 10 years ago, things were far easier to manage and keep track of.

 

 

 

I agree with this. In the last 10 years we've gone from feeling lucky to have a very basic 4k program released to having custom hardware designed to extend the capabilities of the 2600. And then the quantity of new games, software, peripherals, controllers, and even multiple new consoles makes it all pretty much impossible for someone who isn't a billionaire to own and keep up with all of it. And that doesn't even get into the trend of new pinball machines costing $10k+. The scene has simply expanded to a point where there's no way to feel at home in all of it.

 

As for the modern vs new "debate." I refuse to choose. I see the points by Bill and those of Youxia. I agree with both of you. My opinions swing wildly without predictability. One minute, I'll swear that I'm never making a map for a game again. Then I find myself doing exactly that. In another moment, I'll declare that I'm done with FPS modern gaming, and a friend will pull me into a session of Battlefront. The next weekend, I'll decide to only own flash carts, but then I'll find a cheap copy of the original Fantasy Zone for the SMS and just have to pull the trigger. The next month, I'll decide that virtual gaming isn't ready, but then 2 days later use a coupon to finally get a PSVR rig. Video games are amazing and I think I will continue to enjoy them while balancing time, space, and money for the rest of my life.

[Bill Loguidice]

 

As for the modern vs new "debate." I refuse to choose.

 

Nor should we choose! Hopefully most of us can enjoy and experience everything, past and present.

[Rocket Man]

Well, let's demodernize this concept. Let's look at YouTube videos like street performers. Low barrier to entry (unless cities/towns have ordinances against public performances) and it's you, your ability, your time and people. Many performers lay their hats/instrument cases/whatever out for those who wish to tip them for the performance. Heck, this is a pretty regular thing you see at Ren Faires and you have to pay to get in those.

 

So are those folks "begging" for money? In my mind, no. They are taking their time to perform for you and you can toss them some cash in appreciation or in some cases buy a CD from them if you want to continue to enjoy their music. When I think "begging", I'm seeing someone standing on a street corner holding a sign asking for food or someone walking up to you asking for money. In comparison to the musician or YouTube folk, they haven't produced anything or aren't doing anything in return for you-they want/need money for whatever. Two totally separate situations that shouldn't be comparable.

 

(Note to those who may sensitive-please know I am NOT looking down on the homeless/less fortunate/whathaveyou. The above is a blunt comparison of what many see as "begging"-YouTube folks asking for subs or Patreon, etc. to actual begging in the classic sense).

 

We live in an age where anyone can create content and show it to the world easily without needing big bucks or a manager/publisher/etc. to get stuff out there. If they have an audience, why not ask for some cash to help make it easier to publish your work?

 

The universe knows I'd like to make more videos than my one I made almost 8 years ago. When your time is tied up in life, it can be easy to let others say "it's just a hobby" and get you to down play your own personal time to take care of everyone else. But it makes the justification easier when you say "it's a hobby that I love and I also make a little scratch from it." It puts a feather in your cap that your stuff is good enough to earn some cash and that's envious. I don't get any cash from my dinky video but I still get giddy when someone watches it.

 

To me, Youtube is simply TV minus the requirement for viewers to pay access to the service. Because of this, the "content creators" are beholden to the Service, not the people watching the videos. The effect this has on the dynamic drive behind 'why' people make videos, is that they're not making videos, for a piece of the monthly charges billed to viewers (because that only applies to Cable and not to Youtube), but for a piece of the Advertising Revenue that Google has agreed to give them, for their viewcount.

 

If "creating content" was a real job, the people making the videos wouldn't whore themselves out to Google, a company with poor Ethics and Morals, and zero respect for the 1st Amendment. People like metal flake don't make videos because they like to make videos, they make videos in an attempt to mooch off of Googles Ad Revenue. It's cheesey... and if that wasn't bad enough, they also stick their hands out with Patreon and Paypal requests begging for money.

 

No, they're not artists in the street asking people to donate if they enjoy their music or art, on the street... they are literally attempting to cash in on Advertising Revenue. How many folks like ADs? No one I knew, growing up, "liked" ADs, so why has it become acceptable to "make a living" off of Ad Revenue... a question that boggles the mind, yet is easily answered with but a word, 'greed'. They don't care as long as they make a buck.

 

It's fine as long as you don't hide behind the façade, that you're doing it "for the love of it", considering where that 'scratch' is coming from - advertising companies that don't have peoples best interests at heart most of the time, and who are funded by nefarious means a lot of the time.

 

It's actually much harder for a new guy to enter the YouTube scene now then before. From 2005-2010 you had a lot of fresh ideas, people riding the waves, people who got popular through shock or controversy, political punditry, and sound/video equipment had vast differences in quality.

 

Now, everyone has a decent mic for the most part, video editing is much easier, templates for after effects are widely available, you'll have 200,000 other accounts covering the same topic, game, or news you do, and webcams in the lower price ranges are adequate, and even some phones provide a good facecam.

 

These days you kind of have to have a unique idea, go in being controversial which could possibly have the reverse effect, have connections, or have lots of disposable income.

 

A lot of channels, especially gaming channels, aren't really growing, and if they are it's very, very, slowly. Guys like AVGN, CGR, GG, SGB, TF, Continue? Had started there YouTube channels 5-10 years ago and are basically stuck.

 

For guys like AVGN, GG, JonTron, this isn't much of an issue since these guys already had made a lifetimes worth of money and still have enough of an audience to make money off of with regular uploads. No reason to beg for money.

 

But for guys like CGR who have 30,000-150,000 subscribers they have been putting out content but haven't really gone anywhere for years. So I kind of don't really mind this group asking for money to be honest. With YouTube now starting to consolidate more and more they kind of need to ask for money.

 

You also have to realize that group of YouTube creators is hit hardest by the video takedowns and demonetization as well. JonTron and Pewdie getting three videos demonetized for that weeks earnings is nothing. For guys like CGR or guys in that 30,000-150,000 subscriber range? Their screwed because they just lost a big part of their income.

 

I guess I'm kind of in the middle of the consensus in the thread so far. I think if they are a certain size, I don't mind asking for support and Patreon. For the big guys though, I don't like it.

 

I won't attempt to contradict your point, but if one can't afford to VLOG, which is a hobby... then they should focus on their life imo. From Advertising companies.... I suppose I'm in the minority, considering no one else has chimed in on this... but I do not understand how so many companies are driven by Ads, and people, who for the most part hate Ads, are cool with said Ads. It's Hypocrisy of the highest caliber.

 

I don't much care for those kickstarters. At first, like most of us, I was hoping they'd be a viable way to fund new consoles and get them to market. Nearly all of them degrade into emulators on underpowered hardware. And lots of drama is generated in the process. Some like ataribox are just fronts for other business activities.

 

I group that segment of the hobby as social activity. These projects have the same atmosphere as any social media shitshow.

 

I concur entirely.

 

 

 

With regard to the Thread - as someone else pointed out, if one can't enjoy Gaming and what's available in this day and age, then perhaps they don't truly enjoy Gaming. I couldn't agree more.

Edited September 18, 2018 by Rocket Man

[HoshiChiri]

 

If "creating content" was a real job, the people making the videos wouldn't whore themselves out to Google, a company with poor Ethics and Morals, and zero respect for the 1st Amendment. People like metal flake don't make videos because they like to make videos, they make videos in an attempt to mooch off of Googles Ad Revenue. It's cheesey... and if that wasn't bad enough, they also stick their hands out with Patreon and Paypal requests begging for money.

 

No, they're not artists in the street asking people to donate if they enjoy their music or art, on the street... they are literally attempting to cash in on Advertising Revenue. How many folks like ADs? No one I knew, growing up, "liked" ADs, so why has it become acceptable to "make a living" off of Ad Revenue... a question that boggles the mind, yet is easily answered with but a word, 'greed'. They don't care as long as they make a buck.

 

 

I won't attempt to contradict your point, but if one can't afford to VLOG, which is a hobby... then they should focus on their life imo. From Advertising companies.... I suppose I'm in the minority, considering no one else has chimed in on this... but I do not understand how so many companies are driven by Ads, and people, who for the most part hate Ads, are cool with said Ads. It's Hypocrisy of the highest caliber.

 

 

Oh, I can explain the ad thing quite simply- it allows one to 'pay' for their content with their time & attention instead of money.

 

Remember when TV was broadcast via antenna? That was 'free'- still is if you buy a digital one & can grab some signals. But nothing is truly free... you pay by watching ads. Companies like ads becuase they raise brand awareness & bring in new customers. People like ads becuase they can pay not with their limited dollars, but with their time (which they perceive themselves as having more of.) Yes, I just said people like ads, even though they say they hate them. It's the coffee thing all over again. I learned that one watching Jim Sterling (who, by the way, doesn't monetize his videos at all in favor of a pure patreon system- I'll come back to that). When you bring people into focus groups and ask them what kind of coffee they like, they say they like a rich, dark roast from freshly ground beans. When you look at what sells- it's bland, milky, and often instant. See, we care what the people around us think, so when asked what we want, we often say what we think others want to hear- not what we truly want. Saying you want thick, bitter coffee that took you 20 minutes to grind and prepare sounds good- what a connoisseur you are! But in reality? Most people would rather microwave coffee-flavored powdered milk they can drink quickly & get on with their day. So- people say they hate ads becuase it sounds good- how independent you are! But in reality? You don't want to pay money for programs on top of the internet bill, so a few seconds of ad to peck at your phone or eat your dinner is a great deal!

 

One thing I am curious about- you keep complaining about ads, but keep adding in 'and THEN they stick their hands out for Patreon!' like it's just as bad if not worse, even though that's pretty equivalent to the hat/instrument case in front of the street performer. So- which is it? Is monetizing videos for ad revenue bad? Is Patreon bad? Are you OK with the likes of Jim Sterling, who only asks for Patreon & rarely directly (just sticking a link in the endcard, and occasionally mentioning it in the closing monolgue?) What about Game Theory, who's gone the other way and only does AdSense with no other shilling involved? In fact, they're newest video says YouTube is encouraging them to take on additional monetization by becoming a membership channel, and they said they wanted to ask their viewers first if they'd even want that. Are these guys doing it right... or do you just hate the idea of anyone on YouTube expecting payment at all, via donation or ad?

[+GoldenWheels]

 

 

I'd still much rather play Spellcasting 101 than some modern "adventure", since the design template is now by default so full of hand-holding and death-aversion that it eliminates any real challenge or motivation to play, for me at least. When I have to mod GTA V, game mostly about car chases to make crashes actually cause some meaningful damage, you know something's not right. In the assorted Deus Exs or Witchers you now just follow the arrows/markers, get through some rudimentary combat and watch cutscenes. Apparently gamers do want "narrative experiences" which are a poor substitute for real gameplay. Of course, I am generalising and there exceptions from the rule, but proportions compared to the olden times have changed, without a doubt.

 

Could not agree more. Some video game companies think they are in the movie making business now. While lots of people like the narrative driven cut-scene loaded epic horseshit, I can't "Hit X to skip" fast enough.

[John Stamos Mullet]

 

If "creating content" was a real job, the people making the videos wouldn't whore themselves out to Google, a company with poor Ethics and Morals, and zero respect for the 1st Amendment.

What fresh hell is this?

[atarilovesyou]

Could not agree more. Some video game companies think they are in the movie making business now. While lots of people like the narrative driven cut-scene loaded epic horseshit, I can't "Hit X to skip" fast enough.

I like to thank Metal Gear Solid for bringing in the era of "watch 30, play 10" gaming. No sir, I don't like it.

 

I think there's a lot of frustrated wannabe directors who just happened to get into video games because it's an easier go. I shouldn't say easier: it's a route that doesn't require extensive connections to break into, unlike Hollywood.

 

While I loved cutscenes back in the late 80s (Ninja Gaiden, one of my all time faves), and really helped build a narrative and (most importantly, for me) build character development in games, I tried 'playing' The Last of Us on PS4 sometime last year. That intro, while cool...went on about 25 minutes, I think?...before getting me to do anything, which I think was simply pressing button they told me to (push the button, get the banana). Now I'm sure that game must be good for it to be so popular (even though I'm sick to death, pun, of zombie games having lived through the Resident Evils the first time around), and the intro to Resident Evil 2 was one of the three reasons I bought a Playstation, there is an ever so delicate balance. MGS was the game that squarely said, "Watch first, play later". And while it was revolutionary and introduced some fun stuff to boot, overall I think it really pushed the cutscene thing to the forefront and now it's everywhere.

 

Anyways, that's just one man's opinion.

Edited September 18, 2018 by atarilovesyou

[Flojomojo]

Good, well produced, intelligent cutscenes that add to the story can be great. I agree that MGS's yammering was not so great.

 

As beautiful as Okami is, I could never get into that game because of the drivel that comprised the prologue before the game started, about eight words in large text requiring me to press A about 40 times.

 

Or the insipid, unfunny interludes in Paper Mario.

 

Ugh. Give me N++ or Super Meat Boy, please.