Kids and Videogames

[Irick]

As a "millennial kid" or whatever you old coots call us, I have no idea what a "Doom" or a "Quake" or "InsertRetroGame" is. So I do get kind of annoyed when I see Top 10 lists that are chock full of old games that can NOT possibly be better than their more modern counterparts. In a list of Top 10 Stealth games, Thief was number one, due to be the first game where light and sound mattered. So? That's great and it was an important advancement in gaming, but how can it be better than any FPS stealth game out now with similar mechanics? But that's another topic.

Protip: (that's a reference to the Tony Hawk Pro Skater series, by the way. The old ones are rather good, I recommend 3) Don't start posts with "you old coots". It rarely goes over well.

I'm a millennial by the strict definition of the generation. I was born in 1991. I got to play DOOM, Wolfenstein, etc when I was growing up and... I still play DOOM, Quake and a bunch of the old classics, as well as even older classics. What you need to realise is gaming is like any other art form. Just like in literature, there is a canonic list of games. Play them, learn from them, enjoy them.

Thief actually... hasn't been done since. Literally. The stealth model in Thief hasn't been done since Thief. Most stealth games switched to a binary hidden/not hidden and very few still take into account the same degree of variance of noise made from moving across various surfaces. It doesn't hold up graphically, but when it comes to the core mechanics it still holds up well. Even the new thief game didn't do Thief stealth. It's... brutally hard. The game actively punishes you for not using stealth. Combat is damn near a fail state.

Anyway, my real subject is this: Gaming has evolved, and its now seen as a more adult oriented hobby, and i guess that's what developers think as well. So what the hell are we kids supposed to play now? Try to think, right now, of any game that is rated below mature that was actually good. I cant think of one, and I've tried. So now kids are picking up more mature games which ratings do not even allow them to play. And now, games like CoD are supposedly populated by 12 year olds, which everyone hates, but could you blame those kids? What are they supposed to play, Mario? No one, and I mean no one, i know in my class even CONSIDERS playing Mario, or indeed any Nintendo game. We just really arent interested in them. And in the absence of good games, people who i played games with for years just stopped, because they lost interest. Majority of gamers now are adults, who i assume started playing as kids. They are the backbone of the gamer community, and without them games probably would've been banned or censored or whatever. But when you guys pass on, who is going to make up the gaming community? Even the people in my generation who play games are just casuals YES I BELIEVE THERE IS A DISTINCTION who only play one game on their consoles. When we grow up, I'm certain none of them would care to invest in a new console and games.

Dude. Pokemon fucking rocks. Seriously.

Look, these games you consider 'kiddy' are some of probably the best bar none. Play Mario Kart a few times, or indeed any Nintendo game. They will stick in your memory a lot longer than the CoDs will. Don't get too caught up in these ultra competitive games. You'll miss a lot of really fun experiences.

I'm not going to tell you not to play mature games. It's not up to me to say "kids need to be sheltered" or any of that bullshit. I was playing Halo (At Church even) when I was 10. If you can handle it, you can handle it. I've never been one for censorship but... at the same time I really hope that you don't limit yourself to those 'hardcore' games. I really regret that we killed the AAA 3D platformer...

You're right. We pretty much are going to be the life blood going forward. And you're right, a lot of gamers today are just 'casual' gamers. They play for a short amount of time as a pastime and really don't care too much about about the history of games or where it is going. They will never run out of games to play because it's now so easy to make them. But you owe it to yourself to 'read up on the classics' as it were. At least if you want to carry the gamer flag into the next generation.

... on that AAA 3D platformer note. You should, if you ever can find it, Try out Conker's Bad Fur Day on the N64. It's a true gem. Don't let the console or the style fool you either, it's a mature game. Fully Voice acted too. It's got crass humor, great level design and it's probably one of the last great games made by RARE... whom it is a tragedy we will probably never see another game from. Here is a particularly iconic boss fight from it:
(NSFW, for scatalogical reasons)
They ended up re-releasing it for Xbox, but they cut out all of the interesting multiplayer stuff and ended up censoring it to get it down to a Teen rating.

So, do you think is a problem? If yes, then how would you solve it? I for one would like developers who produce kids games make them about things I actually care about, when I see kids playing video games usually its some time-waster of Clash of Clans clone on mobile. I for one would enjoy cartoon/comic games that aren't blatant cash grabs.

I'm in college and I still see that crap. But it's what it is. Don't let yourself turn into a one trick pony though, expand your gaming 'vocabulary' so to speak. Go through a few of those best of lists, play some of the old stuff. Now, granted, things like Theif will look more or less like formless blobs compared to modern games. But, hit up Spyro 3, Quake (make sure that you get it with the NIN soundtrack. If you get the steam version there is a patch that upgrades the engine and re-inserts the soundtrack), Tony Hawk Pro Skater 3 (Darth Maul FTW), Sly Cooper. Seriously. Just, explore. There is a lot out there.

Yeah, a lot of the reason you'll see retro games brought up _is_ nostolgia. But at the same time older games are a bit more risk-taking. They had smaller teams, so ideas didn't get sent through the grindmill, they just went right into production. Enjoy a few of those games. Enjoy games like Saints Row 3 and 4. Enjoy it all, you're going to be bringing this stuff and its history into the future.

And... kick some of these devs in the ass while you are at it. Especially Microsoft. Rare and Insomiac should still be making awesome games. Seriously, go play Ratchet and Clank too... and Jack and Daxter... what are they making these days? Uncharted and Infamous? Grrr... it's still good, but I miss Spyro, Ratchet and Clank, Jack and Daxter... and Banjo and Kazooie....

Damn it Microsoft. Nuts and Bolts made me want to eat babies.

 

[Kingjackl]

I was curious about this, so I went onto EB Games' website and did a search for Xbox 360 games rated 'PG'. The reason I searched for that is that the Xbox is considered to be the least 'kid-friendly' of the consoles, which means it is naturally the most popular console with actual kids. Here's what I found on a cursory glance:

A boatload of Lego games - Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Pirates of the Caribbean, the Lego movie, etc.
Minecraft
Halo Wars
Need for Speed
Portal 2
Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm 3
Forza
Prince of Persia
Adventure Time: Explore the Dungeon Because I DON'T KNOW
Midnight Club LA
Driver San Francisco
Tom Clancy's HAWX
Spider-Man Web of Shadows.

That was just the first two pages of about ten. While these games aren't all fantastic, there are still quite a few decent ones, plus there are a number of M-rated games that I'd still consider entertaining for kids, like the Arkham games, Mirror's Edge or even Halo.

My point is, good kid's games are still being made, you just have to look for them. It's even easier these days, since nearly everyone has a smartphone that you can get games on, and most of those are family friendly as well.

 

[fenrizz]

So what the hell are we kids supposed to play now?

Based on what my kids (aged 7 and 8) enjoy I have compiled the following list for your convenice:

* Minecraft (PC)
* LEGO Indiana Jones/Star Wars/The Hobbit (PS3)
* Castle Crashers (PS3)
* New Super Mario Bros Wii (Wii)
* Animal Crossing New Leaf (3DS)
* Super Mario 3D Land (3DS)
* World of Warcraft (PC)
* Skylanders (PS3)
* LEged of Zelda: A Link between Worlds (3DS)

They are also very, very fascinated by Skyrim, Fallout New Vegas and Deus Ex human Revolution (Wow dad, he has robot arms? COOL!), but I won't let them play them just yet.
Or, I let them play some Skyrim at times.

So there you go, plenty games for kids to play.

Oh, and they do enjoy my old NES and SNES games too.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

I was born in '95, so I'm a millennial kid, too. My best advice is to keep an open mind. When you see a top 10 list praising a game, give it a try. Maybe it does something better than the other, more modern games it's similar to. It doesn't have to be a big difference; maybe it's just a subtle difference in level design, mechanics or style that make for a more cohesive experience.

I do agree with the argument that old games are not necessarily better than the new ones, but I disagree with the argument that new games are necessarily better than the old ones. Games don't have a linear progression of quality like hardware does. Chrono Trigger and Super Mario World are good, not because they're old games, but because they're actually good. They stack up very well with modern games, even with limited graphics, because they play very, very well. The graphics themselves look great, as well, because the style is clear and consistent.

Is it a problem? Not as such. There are a lot of "modern classics" around for people to play. It's just that you have to keep an open mind and maybe do a little digging to find them. As for "cartoon/comic games that aren't blatant cash grabs", Nintendo is the obvious answer, to be perfectly honest. I mean, they've got their cash cow franchises, for sure, but the thing is, they don't sacrifice quality at all. New Super Mario Bros. is the closest thing that Nintendo has to a blatant cash-grab, and even then they are competent and enjoyable games. As for non-Nintendo games in a cartoon style, there're a ton of games. Sly Cooper, Ratchet and Clank, Kingdom Hearts, Rayman spring to mind immediately. If you consider anime-inspired visuals to be cartoonish, then you open yourself to the vast world of JRPGs, too. The Tales series is great, for example.

There are whole worlds of games out there that you miss by limiting yourself like that. Look around, try new things, play some Nintendo and pick up some old games. Gaming kids in general would benefit from that kind of thing, too.

 

[Demonchaser27]

I think the problem your running into with your logic, Bob_McMillan, is that you assume that newer always means better. Or in otherwards, progress is something that constantly occurs. It's not, unfortunately. There are modern games that do better than their older counter parts. But the main problem is the feeling that the game is trying to evoke and whether the mechanics help make the game feel interesting.

In recent years a whole lot of developers have gone a long way to make features and how their implemented more efficient. Efficiency isn't necessarily a bad thing. But efficiency has the inherent quality of taking away necessary effort of a task. Make a game's gameplay too efficient and the gameplay becomes boring. I think a lot of the debate raised today is that bigger titles have become too efficient. Modern FPS games, for example, have a problem with pacing and level design. They have cut out the fat too much. They've made shooting too inefficient (having to use Aim-Down-Sights for anything but machine guns) but have made the actual level design far too efficient. You can't leave the "Battle Area". There is nothing to be explored. The few games that do allow for exploration have nothing meaningful to find. Therefore exploration is chalked up to "seeing the sights". There are a lot of reasons developers aren't really influenced to focus on level design as much now. Regenerating health is one, since you don't need to accommodate the level's design for secrets and health drops anymore. Another is weapons. There is no "finding weapons" anymore. You are either given the correct weapon for a scene or you find it on the body of the enemy you just killed. Most importantly though is the idea that for FPS games singleplayer just isn't important anymore. Every FPS apparently HAS to have multiplayer be in the game. I don't hate multiplayer, but you used to see singleplayer focused FPS's and now you don't really see any.

Basically, efficiency isn't bad, but it has caused a problem of effort and engagement in games. Games become more of "just something to do to kill time" rather than "something to be experienced and get lost in". Gaming was/is a hobby. Hyper efficiencies in design make it hard to get lost in that hobby since you don't really feel like your there anymore. Because if there is one things games can do that books and movies can't (at least as well as games) it's making the player feel like they're really in the moment. Often they want to push their story on you instead. And creating "player stories" is hard to come by in games anymore. These are created from unique gameplay scenarios that occur only by gameplay that is directly linked to the player's actions. They aren't fixed actions that are supposed to occur per some story or side mission/quest. They are a series of programmed actions that come together into creating a unique event for the player that's playing. A recent example of this is the new Shadow of Mordor game. Despite it having a main narrative, the actual bulk of the gameplay is about manipulating the events of Orc hierarchies. The Orcs will react accordingly to the players actions, for example if I burn an Orc and he runs away and escapes then next time I see him he'll have burn marks on his skin. He'll also mention how you "may have burned me, but I'm going to gut you." These kind of things create unique player stories that allow the player to feel like a part of a world. And on top of that the events of the game (Orc hierarchical change in command and wars between different parties) occur without your manipulation as well, excluding the main narrative obviously. Games that have these kind of experiences are likely to be the new wave of evolution in gaming. We'll see if people support it or not.

 

[josemlopes]

As a "millennial kid" or whatever you old coots call us, I have no idea what a "Doom" or a "Quake" or "InsertRetroGame" is. So I do get kind of annoyed when I see Top 10 lists that are chock full of old games that can NOT possibly be better than their more modern counterparts. In a list of Top 10 Stealth games, Thief was number one, due to be the first game where light and sound mattered. So? That's great and it was an important advancement in gaming, but how can it be better than any FPS stealth game out now with similar mechanics? But that's another topic.

Im sorry for not reading the entire post, especially since what comes after that starts with "Anyway, my real subject is this" but you really need to understand some things, one, Thief really is the one ahead of the others, Dishonored almost managed to pull it off because it was a carbon copy of the same features but with less. Just because its old it doesnt mean that its worse, only that it usually looks worse.

Quake, Doom and Serious Sam are still the best "pure FPS" experience out there no matter how old they are because no one really managed to do it better. They arent mentioned just because they were the first games of whatever genre they belong (Serious Sam certainly wasnt) but they are in fact really good at what they do.

Deus Ex is still a really good fucking game that even Deus Ex Human Revolution didnt manage to surpass (again, it was close) and just because it looks like shit (it really does) what it achieves is still ahead of the current games (mainly the open endness of the gameplay).

 

[crazygameguy4ever]

I grew up in the 90's and can say 100% that there were a lot of games from that era that are far better the today's games in terms of story and atmosphere...just because you haven't played the game from the 90's (or late 80s' for that manner) doesn't man their automatically bad.. i can think of dozens of games from the 90's that are far better then most FPS games today.. I never played Thief but I guarantee it was better then you call of duty game you like to play. Personally I think Dishonored was great modern stealth game, but it wouldn't be here without games like Thief.

as for what games can kids play today beside mario titles? well there dozen of Lego video games (that are fun for all ages like : Little Big Planet, most of the Spider-Man games, Skylanders, various Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles games,Ratchet and Clank,Pac-Man and the Ghostly Adventures,wii sports, those bakugan based videogames,Sly cooper, De Blob and Disney Universe. Those are just some of the games for kids i looked up... there are lot more though.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

Well bub, those Top 10 lists you seem to hate on are made up of games that were well received by the list-maker. You may not think they're something worth anything because the graphics are outdated or some mechanics are missing that newer games have, but you're missing out on a lot of what makes those games great. They are before your time, true but it doesn't make them worse than newer games.
Just different. Different times, different technology and different mechanics.
Some of today's games don't match up because publishers are looking at how shiny the game looks over how well it plays mechanically. While this isn't a universal issue, its very prevalent. A stealth game like the original Thief series took a lot of skill to play, sometimes frustratingly so, but it didn't detract from the fun generated by the game itself. A few modern games that have stealth mechanics tend to hold your hand with things that Thief made you do on your own and that's a huge difference.
I'm only 34 by the way and barring illness, accident or act of God/random asshole with a weapon and intent to use it, I'm not dying anytime soon so I don't think we're in danger of "passing on" and leaving you with no "kid" games to play. Just cuz we're older than you doesn't make us old. XD
Sure there needs to be a few more well-invested PG/"E for Everyone" games, ones that don't treat kids like idiots. Also remember that games are created by adults, and a good portion of the industry is populated by folks who grew up with games unlike their forerunners so there's going to be a lot more of them making games for people their own age. Things will shift, and change constantly... And thats a life lesson for ya.

 

[Hawki]

Heh, as someone born in 1989, I'm feeling a wee bit old here.

Anyway, I'm not going to say that "gaming was so much better back in the day," as I had more time back then, played games more than I do now, and there's always the nostalgia factor. But hey, for fun, I'll stir the pot a little, so random thoughts:

-Doom was perhaps the first FPS I played (as in, I would have been very young at the time, and it was on a friend's computer at that). I didn't like it much. Goldeneye was the first FPS I truly played, though I don't think it's aged well mechanically. That, and while I'm what many would call a dirty console peasant, an FPS is always going to control much better on a computer.

-"FPS stealth game" is kind of a contradiction in terms IMO. Yeah, FPS games can have stealth in them (e.g. Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, ODST), or more tactical approaches (e.g. Marathon), but I don't think it's a genre that's well suited for stealth, mainly due to the first person perspective (haven't played Thief, but while that's first person, it's not an FPS).

-Under the assumption that "kids these days" aren't interested in Mario (which I find hard to believe - Mario's clearly intended for a younger audience), I have to ask why CoD is the logical step-on point. I mean, taking the average kid who walks into a games store, is CoD really the thing that's going to pop out at them? I mean, I haven't played CoD since the WWII era (last one I played was United Offensive), but from a visual standpoint, I have no idea why kids would gravitate towards it. Or maybe it's advertising.

-I don't mind the prequel trilogy actually. Somehow Star Wars became a "thing" (granted, it was a "thing" long before I saw it in cinemas in the 1990s), but after all's said and done, I can't call the prequel trilogy bad. Perhaps not great, but there are far worse films out there. And it's rediculous IMO that it's still a "thing" to call it out for its supposed awfulness.

-I think stuff like matchmaking is a net positive for games, as well as random factors (which is why I loved SSB so much for instance, the battle could turn against you or for you all depending on the drop of an item). I get it, some people want to play ultra-competitively, but it's not my thing. I enjoyed SC2 multiplayer much more than SC1 for instance because while I was stuck being a lowly bronze, I could be safe in the knowledge that my opponent was of equal level (in theory). So not only were the chances minimized that I'd be curb-stomped, but also minimized that I'd be the one curb-stomping him in turn.

Bascially, I prefer equalization and randomness. It's no fun dominating your foes, or having them dominating you. Well, for me personally. I think there are certain games that I did definately get better at over time, but no matter how good, I'd still prefer to go against someone of equal skill than have a disparity, whether it's in my favor or not.

-Favorite stealth game of all time would be Metal Gear Solid, though I acknowledge Snake Eater has better stealth gameplay.

-I've kind of fallen out of love with platformers. Certainly I had a good run with them - the Sonic games, Super Mario 64, the first two Banjo games...and the odd stinker like Earthworm Jim 3D. Still, I've grown more invested in story over time, and while platformers have followed suit in some cases, it's not up to the standard of other genres like the RPG and adventure. Last platformer I played to completion was the first 'Legend of Spyro' game. Decent, but nothing that stuck out in my mind. I don't doubt that mechanically sound platformers still exist, but...well, let's just say that Mario rescuing Peach was old by Super Mario 64. Far as I can tell, that 'plot' hasn't changed.

And yes, Conker's Bad Fur Day was a gem. That said though, I consider Banjo Kazooie and SM64 to be superior. Conker's Bad Fur Day had its moments, but there was a lot of frustration too (e.g. carrying the cheese around...ugh).

-Never owned the Tony Hawk games, but played them at a friend's house back in the day. Good times.

-Pokemon may rock, but never made it past Gen. 2. Yes, Gen 2 was superior in terms of mechanics, diversity, length, etc., but I played Gen. 1 far more. It's a clear case of nostalgia factor.

-FPS...well, there's a lot of stuff nowadays that I don't mind. I don't mind iron sights, provided that not using them is viable. Had a blast playing Killzone 2 this year, and while that had plenty of iron sights use, sometimes it was better to just run and gun (especially the fight with Radec at the end, that was a blast). Regenerating health...eh, I'm indifferent to. There's certainly examples of where I feel it would have been to the game's detriment to have included it (e.g. Half-Life 2, especially the fights with the walkers towards the end of the game), but I never found a game that did have it inherantly less fun for featuring it (KZ2, the Halo games). As for weapon variety, I've never found that lacking - in Halo, the Covenant and UNSC weapons have clear advantages and disadvantages in comparison to each other (part of the reason I don't like H4 much is that Promethean weapons are clearly superior to both, so it became a case of "get the Promethean gun and stick with it"). KZ2, not as much variety, but the ISA and helghast weapons still function differently. Of course, the ability to carry multiple weapons at the same time works well too (Half-Life 2, Marathon, heck, Colonial Marines), but I don't consider one system to be inherently better than the other. One system has you rationing firepower to suit the situation. Another has you choosing between firepower, hoping that it's the right choice for the situation, and any future ones. I've had fun in both.

-I know that CoD and Battlefield have become the poster boys of Spunkgargleweewee but as someone who hasn't played those games in ages (Bad Company was the last one I played in both series) I can't comment. I prefer the sci-fi and fantasy genres as a fictional medium regardless of how that medium is presented, so modern warfare games fall into the same category as GTA at the end of the day. Contempory settings aren't really my thing. The story aspects offput me more than the gameplay for example - e.g. I liked Bad Company because of its sense of humor - no reason is given for why the US and Russia are at war, which IMO, adds to the hilarity of it all. In contrast, looking at Ghosts, I understand that South America chose to invade the US because...it's evil? I dunno, but when space Nazis and religious aliens give more plausible reasons for the conflicts they're in, something's gone wrong with the worldbuilding.

-I don't have much desire to create my own story in a game. As far as story creation goes, I write as a hobby, so that's my outlet. And while I enjoy some freedom in a game, including control over a character, I prefer a story to be presented (e.g. Mass Effect, or Final Fantasy X to cite a recent example) than the method of "here's the world, have fun" (e.g. Bethesda games or many other WRPGs). I can understand why people might like that, but it's not for me. At the end of the day, I'd much rather control a character rather than be a character, or if I'm indeed being a character, I'd rather that character still have a core personality (e.g. Commander Shepard, Robin from 'Awakening', etc.) that becomes manifest outside what the player dictates.

Anyway, just thoughts in regards to the above comments. I await the angry replies.