Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why old games never die, but new ones do

pleromanonx86.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 335 posts

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#141

Post by ololobus »

The title and overall ‘take’ are very broad, it starts with

> It’s well known that video games today are disposable pieces of slop.

But then it falls mostly into multiplayer games. For the latter, I will probably agree that old multiplayer games were more decentralized and self-sufficient just because distribution was also less centralized back then.

Yet, overall, I tend to disagree because of several reasons:

1. Video games market is vastly larger than 20-30 years ago. That’s why we see more crappy games, but there many-many good games as well

2. Back then there were bad games as well. YouTube is full of videos where gamers walkthrough some old games. And many of even popular titles are literally a broken piece of crappy tech demo with broken mechanics, soft locks, bugs, etc.

3. Outside of MMMO, F2P and multiplayer there numerous great games nowadays. Indie developers are very strong. Games like Buldur’s Gate 3 have a non-imaginable quality and amount of content for 2000s game industry. It’s a matter of personal choice, but I can name dozens of titles for the past 10 years or so, that are really great.

UPD: formatting

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#142

Post by usrusr »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #15
DarkNova6 wrote: post #3

A good and interesting article, but mimicing old games will simply not work. While it would be admirable to have old features back, some of the largest problem these days is fragmentation. Up until the 2000s, a new AAA game was a shared event. Fewer games were released, magazines acted as moderators for a common understanding of the market and each game tried to trump its competitors. Games these days simply left mor…

That's one of the reasons a future in which everyone watches their own AI generated programming would be so empty. Shared culture is important. It already feels like a loss but it could get so much worse.

You don't even need AI for the death of shared media culture. Just look at the end of broadcast and the rise of subscription services: movies like Star Wars or Back To The Future could only reach their status as cultural icons through the low and wide end of the licensing ramp. A successful cinema release might make a movie the talk of the month, but long lasting cultural relevance only came from broadcast repeats. Stuff that stays on a subscription will only ever reach permanents and hoppers.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#143

Post by BSDobelix »

Dove wrote: post #137

It's normal for achievement in any given genre to have a golden age. It can happen at any time and for mysterious reasons, but I think it is very common to have a golden age right when something new begins to mature and gain cultural momentum. I think that happened with cars and airplanes and movies and TV, to name just a few examples. Why do video games kinda suck now, compared to the 90's? I mean, same reason as Hi…

The problem is to try making art/entertainment "professional" and primarily a money making machine.

>Why do video games kinda suck now

Well they don't, just the so called AAA/A studios produce the same shit over and over (like a fast and furious allegory). Just look at "Clair Obscur: Expedition 33" for a recent example why modern games don't suck. The Disney's of gaming are dying and it's a win for every consumer.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#144

Post by BlueTemplar »

wiether wrote: post #126
BlueTemplar wrote: post #52

> the great GameSpy shutdown, in which mountains of games lost online connectivity No, they didn't. They 'just' lost a form of (semi-automatic) matchmaking : these server lists. "LAN mode" is a related misnomer : a better term is the also used "Direct IP connect". Even after GameSpy shut down, you can still play these games online through this "LAN mode". You 'just' need to do the matchmaking yourself. The likes of H…

> "LAN mode" is a related misnomer : a better term is the also used "Direct IP connect". Even after GameSpy shut down, you can still play these games online through this "LAN mode". To me "LAN mode" always referred to hosting a server on your own machine while having a self-discovery mechanism on the LAN and no exposure over the WAN, which means you launched the LAN mode and computers on your LAN can see you and join…

Maybe, but I can't recall a game having separate buttons for these : so it's Direct IP connect with maybe LAN advertising (it would make more sense as a checkbox).

(Computers outside won't see the advertising, but can always be port forwarded to join inside.)

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#145

Post by jwitthuhn »

999900000999 wrote: post #99

I want FOSS alternatives for every genre. I tried to make a FOSS MTG clone and I keep running into weird edge cases. Anyway, even small games need solid teams to get started. Even if the games are ultimately monetized , it would be nice to have a FOSS core. I want to play COD without a bunch of stupid skins and side effects. I would pay 60$ over the base 60$ to disable that non sense, it’ll never happen though. Back…

If you're interested in a FOSS MTG clone check out XMAGE and Forge. They don't have every card but they do have a whole lot.

https://github.com/magefree/mage https://github.com/Card-Forge/forge

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#146

Post by wcoenen »

Unreal Tournament is given as an example of an old game that never died. But I've tried to play it with a group of friends, and we found it too buggy. Unmaintained games will stop working eventually.

First there was a brightness problem; the game was too dark on multiple computers to be playable. Eventually we found a patch somewhere for that. Next we noticed that the player hosting the game could run much faster than the others. We gave up after that.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#147

Post by [deleted] »

999900000999 wrote: post #99

I want FOSS alternatives for every genre. I tried to make a FOSS MTG clone and I keep running into weird edge cases. Anyway, even small games need solid teams to get started. Even if the games are ultimately monetized , it would be nice to have a FOSS core. I want to play COD without a bunch of stupid skins and side effects. I would pay 60$ over the base 60$ to disable that non sense, it’ll never happen though. Back…

[deleted]

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#148

Post by buran77 »

mattmanser wrote: post #117
CrossVR wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet the obscure forgotten stuff is still playable if you kept a copy of the disc. Those games didn't need a community to preserve them, because they were not designed to be ephemeral like live service games.

That's not actually true. There are lots of things that make old games unplayable that you need patches and emulators for. For example the era of games from MSDOS days often used a different memory setup which modern PCs don't support. So I own and play Darklands every few years, but it needs a special emulator to play. Luckily GOG deal with that for you for many old games.

> make old games unplayable that you need patches and emulators for

So then they're playable just fine. You can use a PC/console from that era, VMs or emulators, apply patches, or get the versions from storefronts like GOG.

That's the crux of the matter, for older games there are many ways to keep playing them potentially forever. But for many newer games this might never be possible, especially for the multiplayer-only or always-online games, on top of the DRM. Maybe some regulation will push developers or publishers to release the components needed to make the game work (remove DRM, release the online components, etc.) once it's no longer offered for sale.

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#149

Post by jbverschoor »

imhoguy wrote: post #122
fendy3002 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

beware of using old cd though, the older it is the higher risk it'll shatter and damage the unit.

At that point I think the game is available as ROM file or at least the owner of rare one should make such.

MSX/C64 era: games are smaller than your average png icon

SNES era: games are smaller than a single photo or most bundled javascripts / cas

PS1 era: games are smaller than a random electron app

PS2 era: games are smaller than your average update these days

Re: Why old games never die, but new ones do

#150

Post by epolanski »

luisgvv wrote: post #94
overgard wrote: post #88

I think another reason might just be: simplicity. A lot of these older games are much easier to pick up and grok. I remember I used to play a ton of Battlefield 1942 back in the day (like, in a competitive clan, going to LAN parties, that kind of thing). I tried picking up Battlefield V but I just gave up because it felt like there was just too much going on. It probably has a host of other great things, but my main…

You just described my experience with MOBA games like League of Legends and Dota. Around 15 years ago there were only about 50-60 playable characters. Nowadays there are more than 100 and more items and customizations. As for shooters this is the same. Too many weapons classes and subclasses, maps, game modes eventually divide and distract the playerbase from the core essence of the game. I think this is one of the r…

+1 I can relate completely.

I am a season 1 veteran, and even though I'd like to keep playing League, I only want to play some games per week at best

But without keeping up with the constant changes you can't play well, you lose matchups because with this and that change now Renekton loses to Camille lvl 7 even though it used to be the opposite just weeks before.

I now play only chess for this reason, I need an online game that I can master through my life without having to keep up with weekly meta changes

Post reply on HN