Causual games, like hardcore games are - games. Both are 2d/3d virtual entertainment toys. So they do occupy the same industry and both are made by game developers. Its not like casual games come from somewhere entirely different, its not like Cadbury or Coke Cola make them and pair them with their products is it. There are always loyalists to a type, a brand, a genre etc. Its not that much of a stretch to understand that while someone may enjoy OF but would like something similar (eg; modern war shooty thing) although a bit simpler and faster paced like Cod or Bf, is it? While i do enjoy Arma 2, it can get a bit heavy.My solution is to play something like Cs or Cod, I enjoy both but at the end of the day my attention span or free time is more often than not... limited, so casual games take up more time than id prefer just like alot gamers. Thats why the casual (casual by my standard as per previous post) exist, flash n the pan entertainment for people in a world short of time or with just as short attention span. People want stuff faster and faster these days, they expect it and unfortunately the hardcore miss out from time to time.
Yes, casual games also come from developers. The developers may be the very same people who make hardcore games. However, my argument doesn't change on that fact. My point is that the bulk of consumer base for these two types of products are vastly different. If casual games are pushing hardcore games out as you and others argue, then absence of casual games would've meant huge success to hardcore games... do you honestly think ARMA 2 would've made $500 million in 2 days of its release in retail have CoD never existed? Would all those highschool kids go home for the 2 ~ 3 hour single session of ARMA 2 multiplayer competition where they have to coordinate with each other for even a moderate success? You guys argued that casual games pushed hardcore games out... to that I'm still making the same rebuttal; could you name a hardcore game that would actually appeal to the current bulk of casual consumers in the absence of casual games? The current bulk of casual gamers probably would have never gotten into video games industry had those casual games not existed in the first place. Of course a person could enjoy both types of games. The question is, would significant portion (not just few people, we can always find exceptions in large group) of current casual gamers ever have gotten into "gaming" if the casual market did not exist? But you did buy ARMA 2 and did enjoy it, correct? See how your consumption simply expanded from hardcore to encompass casual, not being pushed out? That's my analysis of today's video game industry; softcore didn't push hardcore out, it simply expanded the market that the hardcore built.
1.Will yeah, as since cod in your example dosnt exist then Arma would have had the spotlight all to itself. 2.Pretty much every hardcore game from whatever genre one would choose as since as per your example: If there are no casual games then the only games they would have to play would be hardcore games, so that argument/example of yours dosnt work, put simply - take whats there or go with out. 3.I think were talking about two different things here to be honest, Hardcore games and hardcore gameRs.
From a slightly different Point of View, Call of Duty runs on the ID Tech 3 engine (though modified heavily), ArmA 2 runs on whatever Bomhemia are trying to call an engine. Crysis 2/3 uses CryEngine 3. Frostbite 2 jumped in the mix recently too with BF3. Comparing just the engines equals ArmA 2 is the worst, CoD third, Battlefield 3 second and Crysis first. Going on gameplay though which is a very personal thing, I'd say all are utter crap at the moment. CoD I play purely for competitive purposes and reactions, the gameplay is limited and very very repetitive. Single player wise I don't think I've even bothered with the last 4 Call of Duty's. However if you discount the recent fad for console ports and matchmaking crap, you have a very solid multi-player platform underneath which has some of the best hit rego and response along with decent character speed bringing back from the abyss of total failure. However due to crap like P2P hosting and matchmaking MW2, MW3 and now Black Ops 2 have become a total crap fest. Last decent MP version was Black Ops 1, and competitively you have to go back to CoD 4 Modern Warfare for active teams with decent weapon and map balance. ArmA 2 easily has one of the worst interfaces for a user ever made. Reactions to user input are slow and depending on server can be heavily delayed in Multi-Player. The movement is clunky and animations are often pretty poor, though DayZ makes things a lot more fun, until you get fully geared at least... Crysis 2 (seeing as 3 isn't out yet) had some of the most promising features in FPS gaming. The game turned out to be a linear shooter which fell flat compared to the original 2 games (Far Cry and Crysis). The eyecandy even fell flat by CryEngine standards with modders releasing HD texture packs long before Crytek did. Knowing the capabilities of the engine and what can be achieved with it, I was very disappointed in the CoD style small map multi-player and the generic weapons. Seeing as the engine has more detail support than both ArmA or Frostbite 2, it's really disappointing to see it wasted on an arcade shooter that doesn't have any soul to the protagonist or the elements within it. By detail I mean it supports accurate simulation ballistic trajectory, detailed physics and awesome animated detail, not even mentioning the high detail textures and high polygon count the engine supports. Battlefield 3 is for me as bad a mistake as Crysis 2. Fantastic engine, sorely misused and abused with lots of rubbish ingame. First up the hit rego is so delayed that two players can kill each other regularly at the same time, even getting a second kill in before hit rego actually registers. It's odd that there is such a delay on it since MoH Warfighter reduced the rego lag to 25% of BF3 (and it still stinks compared to CryEngine and CoD's modded ID Tech 3). Really there needs more optimisation and less gimmicks for this kind of title, especially with claims of reality and simulation as it has neither even coming close. ArmA 2 is more realistic and in that you can die from walking over a tiny little wall... As it stands there is more than enough technology out there to make a really good FPS for the current generation of engines. Even making it accessible by having different modes within the same FPS are viable with modular and sideways thinking, however most design studios are run by franchise restrictions and publishers viewpoints, both of which stifle creativity and ingenuity. For a truly great FPS to be released, it will have to come from an indie developer. To further support what I was saying there is a Battlfield 2 mod that runs on CryEngine 2/3. It feels so superior to both it's original game and any Crysis game it's almost criminal. If the dev of it could get a kickstarter going, he could probably make something in the region of DayZ pretty easily. There's a lot of good old and new games, it's just that the developers currently are aiming for the highest dollar percentage which isn't the hardcore market. The time it would take to develop for both markets isn't considered cost effective by most publishers so they end up stifling the possibility at a pre-alpha stage. Luckily with kickstarters, WMD, indiegogo and other ways to fund development becoming increasingly popular (get the following before the game comes out = more financial security on release anyway!) things are looking up for the hardcore crowd.
Playing games now compared to when they were released gives a totally different experience if you didn't play them at the time of release. that's like comparing a 8800gtx with a 680 and saying that the 8800 was a complete load of rubbish and always has been rubbish even when it was released which is completely untrue. This is what you are saying regarding Neo geo yet it was the most powerful machine that money could buy in the world and even the ps1 or ps2 couldn't replicate its sound perfectly when they came out so for a good while it was king of the hill regarding the games that it offered. I know this because ps1 and ps2 versions of neo games were rubbish compared to the real thing. I was going to bring the PC engine into the discussion about how advanced that was at the time and yes ihad one of those too and still have it now, but I don't think you have the real hands on knowledge of owning one of these either so you probably trash talk that as well despite how advanced it was before the Neo Geo. You definitely never had a Neo Geo when these were in there prime, I think that you just played on one recently through emulation and I think that you use wiki for your information because if you was there at the timeyou wouldn't make those very inaccurate claims. This is why I think your a tosh talker tbh cause something isn't adding up. I enjoy and prefer some of the older games over there newer modern day equivalents, I prefer the gameplay and features and its not going to change just because somebody starts quoting what they may have read on wiki while trying to force there inaccurate opinion if you can even call it that which is why I refer to it as tosh. Anyhow no point going over old ground and thread becoming a mess, so for that reason as Duncan Bannantyne would say I'm out
Since when did this topic go into "were old games better than new games during their prime"? It was a straight up talk about are they better game now or not? You pulled that condition out of nowhere and went full on off topic. 1996. I can say the exact same thing to you because you disagree with me but let's not because that's just trolling and adds nothing to the discussion. I assume "tosh" = trash and you are just not spelling it out to avoid moderator action or something like that. Again, this adds zero to the topic so let's not go there. ... Way to take the moral high ground after calling the opposing view as "tosh". 1. See this is where our world view differs... if CoD/Halo/BF didn't exist, I think majority of current gamers who got into gaming through those games would look at ARMA 2 and just say "this is way too nerdy" and walk away from gaming. Because I don't see video gaming as a hobby that people feel compelled to partake in. If casual games didn't exist, gaming would, in my world view, forever remain as "nerdy" past-time stuff and the "cool" people would be doing something else (like drinking with other people and facebook stuff I guess LOL). 2. Again, same deal. I don't see playing game as a mandatory deal. If games weren't casual enough, current casual gamers probably would have just never played games to begin with. 3. I don't see 3. but guessing that it's just general point you wanted to make... I think we are talking about the same thing. Yes there are games and gamers. We need to talk about both of them since you need both games and gamers to have gaming market, and that's what we were talking about.
Over the past day or so I did some self-study so to speak just to further educate myself on the history of gaming. So for anyone interested and if you haven't already done this yourself, I suggest reading the articles on Wikipedia to get some expanded awareness. Two articles that stood out were: History of Video Games PC Game There are lots of offshoots from these as well but the first one in particular was very informative. I also thought I would add another dimension to the discussion. PC games are the natural host for hardcore gaming due to their flexibility and broader range of supporting hardware with an emphasis on input devices. Speaking from my own experience, I can remember the excitement as more and more equipment was released to immerse the player into gameplay. I still pursue this as much as I can. I'm not so passionate that I would go so far as to create a gaming cocoon like some people do but I do like to immerse myself from a hardware perspective to some degree. I'm speaking mainly of hardcore sims and some sci-fi based games. I have a full pro-series HOTAS from CH Products. I also have voice recognition software so I can set up commands to be executed by speaking them into a headset microphone. These devices are particularly immersive with combat flight sims and games like Battlezone. But I should also point out this form of gameplay is really a niche market in the true sense of the word so it really doesn't apply to the main discussion. I mention mainly because you see so few (if any) games being released that have been designed to use these types of control. And older players will likely be familiar with the experience as I have. I posted in a discussion about this on the UbiSoft forum for FC3 and got several replies from people who apparently never heard of this type of gameplay and asked lots of questions.
Some of us here are old enough to witness and experience that history of gaming, however many factors will fall into play depending who you ask and what you are asking. However i think all you nerds are wwwaaaayyyy over analyzing all this.
Agree, I actually wish that things like wiki didnt exist in a way because then we would see how much people really know in there head depending on there real-life experience. Personally i never use it for topics regarding old gaming,like yourself Firefly I Dont need too
One more +agree. Factors like, people are different, even with two persons with the same age, perception of games would be different. Example, my friend (older 1 year) play games like crazy and love all games he have. Me, lost interest in games (long time ago), and do play only few, and if i have to give grade for some game it would be bad one (with few exception).
You really can't accept the fact that I owned Neo-Geo back in 1996 and just didn't like it all that much, can you? Let me provide little context to my ownership so that it may make more sense to you... I had multiple arcades within 10 minutes of walking distance from home (wasn't living in USA at that time). Why would I want to spend $60+ (after rough conversion into $, it was more like 90,000+ won IIRC while SNES games were around 40,000 to 60,000?) for used game (never brought new games back then) when I can just spend fraction of that cost and play multiple games to my hearts content? As for why I bothered to get it in the first place, my sister during that time was so heavily into Samurai Showdown 2 so we figured why not just own it when she spends about 3 hours a day on it regularly... turns out it's not as fun when she's alone at home playing... Another plus of arcades is it was the only way to have new opponents (downside is some strangers couldn't keep their cool and wasn't a pretty sight to say the least) for your fighting games.
I do like the overviews of what was going on in the gaming industry during those days, they can help explain why things were the way they were and a consensus of gaming life in general, which back then, we really only had in limitation between our friends and what information supplied from gaming magazines.
Yeap people today born into the Internet, Mobile phones and consoles and computers that are so advanced that the fine line between reality and Simulation is so much thinner than it used to be. Kids dont even know there born nowadays, Many things are taken from granted yet i suppose there were many things we took for granted compared to our Elders like a TV. @Gaizokubanou i was talking to Firefly not you, I have nothing more to say to you, Your just a person on Guru 3D that i have very little respect for so please give it a rest for the sake of the thread.
Then don't get all passive aggressive and talk about me (it's obvious to anyone with a brain that whole wiki comment was directed at me), kk?
Max Payne 1 - Legend Max Payne 2 - Great Max Payne 3 - Good Grand Theft Auto Vice City - Legend Grand Theft Auto San Andreas - Great Grand Theft Auto IV - Good Call Of Duty 4 Modern Warfare - Legend Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2 - Great Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 3 - Good Mostly modern games has not got the soul of old games. They are just good but something is always missing. Not only for soul. The new game technologies suck. They are useless and decrease performance for nothing. Mouse Smoothing Depth Of Field Motion Blur HDR/Bloom Vignette Alright let's make it a little bit clear. For instance, motion blur is not totally useless, it's well to be used with high speed car racing games. But when it's used with walking, you know it's crap and bullsh*t. You dont see blurry when you are walking in real life. Same stuff with HDR/Bloom.
cinematic doesn't mean realistic. cameras and human eyes have some differences. human eyes don't see light as lens flares but cameras do.
Subjective, however most games are not life simulators. Things like motion blur can be taken for entertainment and eye candy. Usually those features can be turned off or adjusted and like any other special effect, they are a natural evolution in the entertainment industry and an ongoing pursuit of perfecting them. There are still plenty of old school style games being made with more modern graphics and techniques, some even with old style graphics and it's inevitable that some "anti-newgamers" will never be able to match their fond memories to modern adjustments enough to say an updated classic style game is better.
