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

281–290 of 335 posts

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

#281

Post by Sleaker »

squigz wrote: post #169
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.

It's not like they were designed like that on purpose. It was a limitation of the technology of the time. If they could've made as many live service games back then, they would have. This comparison is also unfair for a couple more reasons: - It ignores the fact that when a game was released on CD back then... that's it. No updates. No patches. Nothing. You break it, that's it. Game ending bug that corrupts your save…

> Oh, scratched your CD? TOO BAD. Maybe try one of these folk remedies with tooth paste or some such.

Not folk remedies, you can take it to a game store and most have the equipment to resurface the CD.

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

#282

Post by TulliusCicero »

somenameforme wrote: post #219
Hikikomori wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bit weird to compare a singleplayer game with little replayability to the genre defining multiplayer game of its time and try drawing conclusions from that.

Doom was the genre defining multiplayer game, and it released in 1993. And there were a ton of multiplayer shooters released in the 7 years interim. The only really distinct thing about Counter-Strike, besides its quality, is that it came to Steam from the very beginning. But the game had already become a classic before 1.6 launched on Steam and the idea of playing on/through Steam at the time was quite divisive.

Counterstrike was the defining game for a subgenre of tactical shooters, of which you can see that Valorant is a member.

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

#283

Post by TulliusCicero »

zx10rse wrote: post #165
mattnewton wrote: post #2

The article kinda dances around this point, but I think the largest reason "old games never die" is simply the old games mentioned were the good ones of their generation. Similar to the lindy effect[0] where shows that had been around a while were likely to stay around a while longer. The are the games good enough for people to host fan servers and make mods, and behind each good game there is a lot of forgotten stuf…

I don't think it is a generational thing or a lindy effect plain, and simple greed is what is killing modern day games. Eventually they become a never ending grind loop for battle passes, points, buy more points, cosmetics priced as full fledged titles, loot boxes, etc. etc. There is simply nothing to it, no depth, no cool mechanics, no story nothing, and once a player spent x amount of hours realizing that, you simp…

> There is simply nothing to it, no depth, no cool mechanics, no story nothing

I see we've reached "grumpy old man yelling at cloud" levels of rhetoric.

Sure, there's predatory micro transactions, but there's absolutely also neat new content and mechanics added to games like Dota or Fortnite. Dota just recently got a couple of fuck off huge patches that I saw the notes for (I don't play it myself but occasionally see things mentioned in the Deadlock community).

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

#284

Post by 29athrowaway »

somenameforme wrote: post #116
Gigachad wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Outside of computer games, there are plenty of games that have died off because the communities to play them no longer exist or the rules have been forgotten. Any game that has a multi player or team aspect will eventually die. Even if the servers stay online forever, it will not be the same experience as if you were there in the moment playing when it was lively.

Counterstrike 1, released 25 years ago, averages around 10,000 players 'online' at any given moment, pretty much exclusively for team based multiplayer [1]. That makes it more popular (by active player count) than e.g. Hogwart's Legacy. Most modern games not only really fail to bring anything new to the table, but often feel like the overall gameplay is general decline. For instance the gunplay in Counterstrike still…

The main difference with the newer version is better graphics, but that comes at the expense of minimum specs, loading time, etc.

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

#285

Post by tstrimple »

tumsfestival wrote: post #236
jmyeet wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RPGs and MMORPGs are interesting genres for different reasons. The RPG genre has largely died. By that I mean we have Bethesda games (notably Skyrim and Fallon 3 and New Vegas were huge in their time) and that's... about it. Well, apart from Baldur's Gate and Mass Effect I guess. We used to have a bunch of other franchises. Bard's Tale, Wizardy, the TSR D&D games, Ultima Underworld, etc. A lot of RPGs are now real-ti…

>The RPG genre has largely died. By that I mean we have Bethesda games (notably Skyrim and Fallon 3 and New Vegas were huge in their time) and that's... about it. Well, apart from Baldur's Gate and Mass Effect I guess. We used to have a bunch of other franchises. Bard's Tale, Wizardy, the TSR D&D games, Ultima Underworld, etc. That's just not true, I think you're just not keeping up with new releases if that's your r…

Expedition 33 had a huge launch and was a fantastic RPG experience. Far better to my tastes than games like Oblivion or Skyrim.

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

#286

Post by programd »

wellthisisgreat wrote: post #107
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…

BFV and 6 and all that are just bad tbh, I can’t imagine a competitive BF1/5/6 etc scene at all- it’s either aim assist hell, or just lowest common denominator of a gaming experience that stuffs you with stimuli and leaves 0 room for any tactics and communication let alone strategy. For BF1942 adjacent experience try Hell Let Loose it’s really quite brilliant (and modern)

In fact Hell Let Loose is a direct copy - or let us just say homage - of the Reality Mod for Battlefield 3. It's a fantastic game because its roots are in fan made enhancements to the already fine Battlefield games of that era. I'd call it the thinking persons Battlefield.

On the other hand if you want a fun, borderline infringing clone of Battlefield 2042 give Delta Force a try. BF 2042 has about 8,000 daily players now, Delta Force 150,000. Clearly they are doing something right that EA could not with the last BF series entry.

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

#287

Post by [deleted] »

DrillShopper wrote: post #249
sidewndr46 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Planned obsolescence doesn't account for games like Concord

Live service shooters usually have a very short lifespan unless they can displace Overwatch, Valorent, Fortnite, or Destiny Even Halo (Infinite) couldn't manage it Stop buying this kind of game if you are expecting game preservation from one of the worst studios running.

[deleted]

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

#288

Post by phatfish »

Barrin92 wrote: post #158
mattnewton wrote: post #2

The article kinda dances around this point, but I think the largest reason "old games never die" is simply the old games mentioned were the good ones of their generation. Similar to the lindy effect[0] where shows that had been around a while were likely to stay around a while longer. The are the games good enough for people to host fan servers and make mods, and behind each good game there is a lot of forgotten stuf…

>is simply the old games mentioned were the good ones of their generation. I don't buy this. Yes obviously there's a survivorship bias but here's some of the most popular games of 1998 alone , from memory: Ocarina of Time, Half Life, Xenogears, Metal Gear Solid, Thief, Starcraft, RE 2, Mario Party, Baldurs Gate Almost 30 years later we still play franchise spin-offs and remakes off these games, half of them invented…

Minecraft birthed a genre and crossed into a full on cultural event. Boosted by YouTube let's play and live streaming also growing very fast at the time.

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

#289

Post by LegionMammal978 »

buran77 wrote: post #148
mattmanser wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-o…

> You can use a PC/console from that era, VMs or emulators, apply patches, or get the versions from storefronts like GOG.

Only insofar as those PCs and consoles are still circulating, or the platform was big enough to have good emulators (and the distribution format was standard enough that you can still rip the ROM, and the emulators themselves can still be run on modern systems), or the game was big enough for someone to have been willing to write patches for it. If you don't have the technical knowledge and skills to work around these (or you don't have the time), then the game might as well be dead for you.

And of course, it can't have died enough at any point for everyone with a copy to have lost it, which is the fate of a lot of the old text adventures.

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

#290

Post by const_cast »

sidewndr46 wrote: post #212
safety1st wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's different is that new games increasingly incorporate planned obsolescence as a business strategy. The game won't function unless it can phone home, stream assets etc. from their server, and they can and do plan to shut that server off at some point, forcing you to move on and buy new games. Now what's really troubling is you can conceivably employ this approach with any form of digital entertainment. I think N…

Planned obsolescence doesn't account for games like Concord

Concord was dead even at the conceptual stage. The problem is these big AAA studios are always chasing the hottest new thing, never innovating for themselves.

It's the same problem with movies. They're so unbelievably expensive that nobody will dare pay for something that isn't already proven. But if you do something that's proven, there's a good chance it's just gonna come up second best. Worst case scenario, it comes out as uninspired slop, destined for the bargain bin, like Concord.

Post reply on HN