90s Gamers vs. 21st Century Gamers

[lord.jeff]

It makes us better at games do to the fact that we have the extra years of practice.

 

[Irridium]

I dunno. I've been playing games since the 90s (my first console was a Sega Master System), and I wouldn't say I'm that skilled. I'm pretty average at shooters, and I've never been all that hot at strategy games.

I will say, though, that I'm pretty damn good at hack-and-slash/action games, and I could maybe chalk that up to the games I played as a kid. The first game I played on my Master System (apart from Sonic) was Ninja Gaiden, followed by Spiderman. Fast forward to getting an Xbox. The re-booted Ninja Gaiden has just been released, and is hailed as one of the most punishing games ever released. I manage to clock through it with only a modicum of difficulty. Brilliantly fun game, but it's only on the hardest difficulty setting that things become really difficult.

I think if anything, being a gamer since the 90s simply allows me (I would hope) a little more perspective on the gaming industry. I remember when the Playstation came out, me and my friends would swap all sorts of crazy games with each other. I lent a friend Tomb Raider, he lent me FF7, another friend used to trade info with me about Breath Of Fire 3... there was a beautiful variety of games available. You could pick up a game, and chances are there would be something unique about it, something it had that no other game did. Whether it was MGS and its ludicrously over-the-top story and gameplay, or Spyro's protagonist being a four legged fire breathing dragon, or FFVII's revolutionary new visual style... it felt like developers were actively striving to make their games unique and stand out.

Now, it feels like we live in a more homogenised industry. Gameplay templates have been set, and developers follow them religiously. Think how many third-person shooters have stuck to Gears' control layout. Think how many sci-fi games simply nick their design ideas from more famous franchises. I remember games like Xenogears and Star Ocean, games which combined science-fiction with more esoteric sources like eastern philosophy, Jungian psychology, etc. Nowadays, everything wants to be either Star Wars, Star Trek, or Aliens.

Games quality has uniformly increased. And great games are still just as great. But I still can't help but miss that fiery spirit of originality that seemed to permeate game design in the 90s. It truly was a golden age, where originality and risks were actually rewarded with success. The industry now wouldn't invest in such games as Majora's Mask, Legend Of Mana, Vagrant Story, Tombi, Parasite Eve, and the like. And that's a great tragedy.

Pretty much exactly what he said. Well, except the first part. Replace all the hack 'n' slash stuff with shooter stuff for me.

I grew up on Doom, Quake, Wolfenstein, Unreal and all that. And to me shooters these days just seem too easy. Back then you'd fight all sorts of things enemies with all sorts of abilities from every angle with a crapton of weapons. Now you fight a few types of enemies (standard mook, heavy with a minigun, helicopter, tank) in a narrow corridor and most likely with aim assist. Or in Call of Duty's case, auto-aim since it automatically snaps to the target's head when you aim.

I'm really not trying to say this is a bad thing. I mean, there have been games like this that I've enjoyed immensely. Hell, Timesplitters is my favorite game series of all time, and it's a console shooter. I'm just sad that there's no real variety anymore.

 

[zuro64]

Unreal, Quake and Counter Strike all rely on exactly the same thing as Call of Duty: reflexes.

Just because they are older games and are therefore "old-school" doesn't make them any different than Halo or COD. Yeah yeah, I know its always cool to hate the most popular thing, but really, this is getting fucking ridiculous.

So yeah, I wish more people would stop fucking jumping on the nostalgia band-wagon and get some perspective. Older doesn't mean better.

Last I checked CS and Quake don't let you call in gunships that kill swathes of enemies for you or have broken spawn systems that let you achieve 144 kills in 1 game.

I never criticised Halo.

Well let me ask you this: how do you think that one manages to get the kill streak rewards?
Its not by sitting around and waiting for them!

 

[Adam Galli]

I used to get my butt kicked in old nintendo games and still do, but games today I walk through with minimal challange. Playing games in the 90 means we've been playing longer than a lot of people however as we get older we are better able to think and plan. When I was a kid I loved video games but they were hard. Nowdays the old games are still hard but I do better at them because I developed a better concept of what I need to do.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

First of all, games weren't just harder, they were less balanced and generally not as good. (Yeah I went there.) The fact that people have gotten used to solid controls and fair gameplay is not a bad thing.

Second, "Better" may not be the right word. More patient? Absolutely. More skilled? No more so than these gamers will be at 20-25

 

[ElPatron]

Playing "HARD games for MEN!" doesn't make you a good gamer by default.

And practicing hard maths exercises won't get you a good grade in an easy test.

Of course, in modern day's games we have to take into account that balance is almost non-existent compared to old games.

First of all, games weren't just harder, they were less balanced and generally not as good. (Yeah I went there.) The fact that people have gotten used to solid controls and fair gameplay is not a bad thing.

What? Today's games have no fairness and no balance whatsoever.

Well let me ask you this: how do you think that one manages to get the kill streak rewards?
Its not by sitting around and waiting for them!

So in your opinion X kills should equal Y kills and not X, because a player really put his effort on making those X kills.

Kill streak rewards are unbalanced because they do not give the player being targeted a chance to fight back in the same way, thus unbalanced.

All they give you is cold-blooded and anti air assets, which are harder to use than killstreak rewards because you need to be standing up and can't move a lot, aiming at the sky without being able to check your surroundings.

Plus, it takes away your secondary slot and a perk, so you need a separate class to hit killstreak rewards.


That is unbalanced, because most times you'll be using that class is after you got killed.


And let's not mention how annoying it is to waste your missiles/rockets and the chopper/AC130 just pops flares and your effort was rewarded by a knife in the back.

And let's not mention how knifing is a joke. Or how overpowered commando pro is.

Unreal, Quake and Counter Strike all rely on exactly the same thing as Call of Duty: reflexes.

Just because they are older games and are therefore "old-school" doesn't make them any different than Halo or COD. Yeah yeah, I know its always cool to hate the most popular thing, but really, this is getting fucking ridiculous.

So yeah, I wish more people would stop fucking jumping on the nostalgia band-wagon and get some perspective. Older doesn't mean better.

Why don't you out your money where your mouth is and show us some Quake gameplay of yours?




I mean, it's not like in CoD you can time the exact second a certain power up will respawn, or that enemies can be rocket jumping from out of nowhere.

 

[Kermi]

Meh, I grew up on 'Nintendo Hard' and I'm pretty shit at games these days. It's the people who can S-Rank Devil May Cry on 'Dante Must Die' and make it past the bosses in Ninja Gaiden II that impress the hell out of me.

 

[Vegosiux]

Playing "HARD games for MEN!" doesn't make you a good gamer by default.

And practicing hard maths exercises won't get you a good grade in an easy test.

Your point being? Yes, it either went way over my head, or it's simply not there.

 

[zombieshark6666]

21st Century Gamer playing Doom: Where's the checkpoint arrow? Which dude do I shoot first? Who's going to open that door? When does this game end? I'm tired.

 

[ElPatron]

Playing "HARD games for MEN!" doesn't make you a good gamer by default.

And practicing hard maths exercises won't get you a good grade in an easy test.

Your point being? Yes, it either went way over my head, or it's simply not there.

Basically, if you study hard for a test, it will be easier than if you only studied easy exercises.

Playing harder games makes you conditioned for easy ones.

I make zombieshark6666's words mine

21st Century Gamer playing Doom: Where's the checkpoint arrow? Which dude do I shoot first? Who's going to open that door? When does this game end? I'm tired.

 

[Bento Box]

Wait, why does how "good" a gamer you are "overall" depend on how "hard" games you play? That's ridiculous, and I'm one of the old school gamers.

Playing "HARD games for MEN!" doesn't make you a good gamer by default.

I know, right? That's like saying that frequently picking up heavier things than other people do, will make you better at picking up heavier things later in life! That's just silly!

 

[Vegosiux]

Wait, why does how "good" a gamer you are "overall" depend on how "hard" games you play? That's ridiculous, and I'm one of the old school gamers.

Playing "HARD games for MEN!" doesn't make you a good gamer by default.

I know, right? That's like saying that frequently picking up heavier things than other people do, will make you better at picking up heavier things later in life! That's just silly!

Well, no, it's more like saying that frequently picking up heavier things than other people is going to make you better at physical labor later in life.

Playing "HARD games for MEN!" doesn't make you a good gamer by default.

And practicing hard maths exercises won't get you a good grade in an easy test.

Your point being? Yes, it either went way over my head, or it's simply not there.

Basically, if you study hard for a test, it will be easier than if you only studied easy exercises.

Playing harder games makes you conditioned for easy ones.

Well, there's more to being a gamer than just how quickly you respond to scripted events was my point, actually. To put it differently, "being a good gamer" and "being good at games" aren't nearly the same thing. Just like "being good at math" and "being a good student" aren't. Or for that matter, "being good at picking up heavy things" and "being a hard worker".

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I grew up in the 90s.

I sucked at modern games until about 4 years ago.

So, no real "skill" translating from Spyro to Halo, at least.

 

[Myke_storm]

there were no "gamers" in the 90's,that god awful term to lump people who enjoy playing video games as past-time was invented by those shady marketing executives 5-7 years ago when enough of us suddenly had enough buying power to become profitable to sell crap merchandise to.

but no playing games in 90's (or in my case since the mid 80's) does not a great game player make

 

[Warforger]

Honestly, the old era doesn't look much better than the current one, but well at least it didn't have as much modern shooters, with the amount of copy and pasted story lines across games it gets boring really quickly.

Before I can reliably answer this question I want to know what you mean by "better". Skillwise, "better" is very dependent on which games you play and someone who rocked Total Annhilation or Command & Conquer won't fare very good just because of that if they try out Dawn of War II or Company of Heroes, for example.

Well that's true with any RTS since getting good at them means memorizing the units and knowing how the resource system works.

I know, right? That's like saying that frequently picking up heavier things than other people do, will make you better at picking up heavier things later in life! That's just silly!

......What? So if I say beat Ninja Gaiden 1-3 or whatever I'll pwn everyone on CoD?

 

[orangeban]

Well, no, not really.

You can't just say someone is a "good" gamer, because gaming is really, really diverse and many different skills are needed. Take me for instance, I'm shit at twitchy shooters, but I'm good at puzzles and strategy games, everyone has different skills.

Gamers in the '90s might of played lots of hard platformers, so it makes sense that they would, in general, be better at platformers, but modern gamers are probably better at other kinds of games, the kinds of games that are more popular today.

Popular games get played more, so their players get better at them, practice makes perfect etc. etc.

Anyway, what does "hard" even mean? In my eyes, the remake of Prince of Persia is fucking hard, I died hundreds of times! However, I also died loads in Grand Theft Auto IV, but I wouldn't call that game hard, it's just got frustrating bullshit "gotcha" moments and crappy controls.

 

[SycoMantis91]

Probably. I was born in 91, so I didn't exactly grow up with the toughest games ever. But I do still own a Nintendo/SNES/Genesis and play games on all. I play Mega Man X, Contra, Ristar, even much less known games like the Sparkster games, EarthBound, Wild Guns, Demon's Crest, Splatterhouse, Metal Storm, Journey to Silius, Total Carnage, etc etc. So I'd like to think I can own most people my age when it comes to games like that and hopefully it overall makes me a better gamer. Though I don't have scientific backing.