Generations of Gamers

[EC2151]

If Cheetahmen is so unpopular, then why is a sequel being planned?

[The Coop]

If Cheetahmen is so unpopular, then why is another sequel being planned?

Fixed.

We've already gotten a part 2

[ZealPath]

A good Cheetahmen game would actually probably be very popular just due to how well known it is that the first 2 games blew. The thing is... would a "good" Cheetahmen game still be Cheetahmen?!

[RDX]

I think a big part of it is simply that people who are 17 and younger are growing up with the 360 and PS3 as their starting base, where others like myself were starting with the Atari XEGS, 2600, NES, Master System and such.

I think a big part of the problem in this discussion is that older gamers are really 'out of touch'. I'm 17, and really you can ask just about any other kid my age what their first console was and they'll tell you it was the N64. Maybe the PS1. A couple kids will say they only had a Genesis.

The fact is, platformers were all the rage when we were young. Those who are 17+ had much more exposure to those kind of games than us 64-bit gamers. Then suddenly, a generation after that, first person shooters became the big thing. Clone after clone came out, emulating the exact same thing. You old fogeys got disillusioned and began to complain, while the vast majority of us 15 and 17 year olds merely adapted and started playing those games. Not all kids did that, I know I didn't, but all this aversion to Halo and Call of Duty is pretty stupid. They're not bad games. Nobody would like a bad game.

Gaming has "evolved", if you will. Super Mario Bros 3 is a good game, yeah, anyone who has played it who is above the age of 12 can't dispute that. But just because people like games that aren't Mario Bros 3, it isn't a bad thing.

[Grayburg]

Agreed. There are bad games, good games, and clones of good games, regardless of generation.

Still, all of my friends telling me to get Black Ops.. lol

At least we're all going to be playing Gran Turismo 5 now.

[Salluz]

I think a big part of the problem in this discussion is that older gamers are really 'out of touch'. I'm 17, and really you can ask just about any other kid my age what their first console was and they'll tell you it was the N64. Maybe the PS1. A couple kids will say they only had a Genesis.

Out of touch? As a 21 year old (who cares, but 'black') male, I played Sonic Unleashed and liked it, save for the confusing non-action worlds without a map! Goddamn, they made the same mistake with Sonic Adventure! Now, is that 'out of touch'? Also, for Sonic Unleashed, some of their kiddie concepts are just... I mean... you think that the people comprehending your games are all five? Do you really think that little kids are that cheesy and stupid!? C'mon!!! If that's the case, then lower the difficulty!

The fact is, platformers were all the rage when we were young. Those who are 17+ had much more exposure to those kind of games than us 64-bit gamers. Then suddenly, a generation after that, first person shooters became the big thing. Clone after clone came out, emulating the exact same thing. You old fogeys got disillusioned and began to complain, while the vast majority of us 15 and 17 year olds merely adapted and started playing those games. Not all kids did that, I know I didn't, but all this aversion to Halo and Call of Duty is pretty stupid. They're not bad games. Nobody would like a bad game.

Halo, despite its better graphics, had nothing on Jet Force Gemini. JFG was non-linear, plus it had lots of involvement that stretched beyond the typical shoot-em-up. You had emotively breathtaking scenery, alternate story paths, relevant accessories, strategy, rescue missions, cool bosses, emotionally compelling moments, great music, and a fair-enough demand on your god-given intellect!

Halo is not a bad game, but it's pretty linear. People, typically guys, tend to like it because you go around with realistic graphics and a gun. They sit there for hours, playing and playing and playing and playing with what objective? Something new? A random accent that strikes the emotions? Is the game entertaining, or just the concept? I would assume that the market is selling an image or a profile, not a game with depth.

It's probably the idea that makes it cool. Shit, I was like 12-13 when Halo was popular. Peeps tried to make fun of me because I could not play Halo for a long period of time without getting a headache. I didn't dislike it because it was new-gen, or because it was a shooter, or because I wasn't "masculine" or "mature"! It was because the game didn't give me much of a reason to play it apart from killin all da alienz, plus a preconceived notion that I was supposed to develop. Right...

Ok, so they gave the game a point by giving you an objective to kill all da alienz, but... is that it? Kill all da alienz?

An alien race is taking over. Quick, do something.

You are here. ----------------------------> This is what's next. ---------------------------> Here, shoot.

BORING!!! Let me give you the formula for a great game: y = a(x^2) + b(x) + c. Sexual satisfaction = well-developed game + logic + entertainment.

Gaming has "evolved", if you will. Super Mario Bros 3 is a good game, yeah, anyone who has played it who is above the age of 12 can't dispute that. But just because people like games that aren't Mario Bros 3, it isn't a bad thing.

Evolved? I guess, and this is coming from a guy whom admits that the Mario series came out when he was unborn, and a baby. I grew older, played yesterday's games, both the games in my time and the ones before. Yes, today has GREAT games, but that's not the issue here. Really, the question is this: will I use my $50 to buy your game, or would I rather go to an expensive restaurant?

[The Coop]

I think a big part of the problem in this discussion is that older gamers are really 'out of touch'. I'm 17, and really you can ask just about any other kid my age what their first console was and they'll tell you it was the N64. Maybe the PS1. A couple kids will say they only had a Genesis.

The fact is, platformers were all the rage when we were young. Those who are 17+ had much more exposure to those kind of games than us 64-bit gamers. Then suddenly, a generation after that, first person shooters became the big thing. Clone after clone came out, emulating the exact same thing. You old fogeys got disillusioned and began to complain, while the vast majority of us 15 and 17 year olds merely adapted and started playing those games. Not all kids did that, I know I didn't, but all this aversion to Halo and Call of Duty is pretty stupid. They're not bad games. Nobody would like a bad game.

Gaming has "evolved", if you will. Super Mario Bros 3 is a good game, yeah, anyone who has played it who is above the age of 12 can't dispute that. But just because people like games that aren't Mario Bros 3, it isn't a bad thing.

Are there a healthy chunk of 17 year olds who grew up with an N64? Yep. I'll give you that point. Are there 8 year olds who are growing up with a Vectrex somewhere? Yep. But the largest percentage of 17 and under kids I've come across started with a PS2, XBox or Gamecube, and moved on to the next system. That bit you quoted was a mistake on my part, as I was thinking PS2 and Xbox, but typed up PS3 and 360 in a momentary brain fart which I didn't catch (but have now fixed). And yes, the Dreamcast was a part of that same generation, I just didn't list it... because... **sniffle** it didn't get as much love.

That said, keep in mind that the PS3 and Wii are over four years old, and the 360 is over five. These weren't just launched last year. So in truth, there is going to be a percentage of those 17 and under who began their gaming life with a 360, PS3 or Wii. It's not nearly as large as the chunk that started with those systems' predecessors, but they're there.

Anyway, rest assured, I'm quite in touch. I don't own the newest systems yet (can't afford them at the moment), but I have a PS2, Xbox and such. I've played and beaten the GTAs, the Halos, the Spyros and the Command & Conquers, along with the old Sonics, Marios, Dragon Warriors and Phantasy Stars, and had fun with them all. I've been through the vector graphics, digitized actor and the "Why is everything brown?" crazes. I'm not pulling these statements out of my ass as I go along, I'm stating them based on years of experiences and conversations. Yes, there are 2010 kids who will grow up being introduced to the NES, the Genesis, the PS1, and even the 2600, and they'll have a damn good time hopefully. But the sad truth is that there are a lot more kids who will blow off those older systems when given the chance to play them, simply because the systems are outdated. Maybe it's because of the dated visuals, the lower quality music, or whatever, but the games of old seem to get ignored for all the wrong reasons by the younger game players. And while I know there are older gamer's who do the same kind of thing to newer games, to be honest, everything I've seen points to there being more young gamers unwilling to try older games, than older gamers unwilling to try newer games.

Again, this is based on everything I've experienced over the years. Maybe I'm wrong and my experiences are some odd little microcosm of gaming. But frankly, I've been given little reason to think so at this point.

[Benjamin Briggs]

I think a big part of the problem in this discussion is that older gamers are really 'out of touch'. I'm 17, and really you can ask just about any other kid my age what their first console was and they'll tell you it was the N64. Maybe the PS1. A couple kids will say they only had a Genesis.

The fact is, platformers were all the rage when we were young. Those who are 17+ had much more exposure to those kind of games than us 64-bit gamers. Then suddenly, a generation after that, first person shooters became the big thing. Clone after clone came out, emulating the exact same thing. You old fogeys got disillusioned and began to complain, while the vast majority of us 15 and 17 year olds merely adapted and started playing those games. Not all kids did that, I know I didn't, but all this aversion to Halo and Call of Duty is pretty stupid. They're not bad games. Nobody would like a bad game.

Gaming has "evolved", if you will. Super Mario Bros 3 is a good game, yeah, anyone who has played it who is above the age of 12 can't dispute that. But just because people like games that aren't Mario Bros 3, it isn't a bad thing.

this whole post is a load of crap and I'm not going to waste my time explaining why

as a 22-year-old gamer I just felt the need to call bullshit

[RDX]

Whoa. I didn't know that was going to be that inflammatory.

chthonic you're gonna have to explain.

And Salluz, as for your generalizations about Halo and the people who play them, that's not really fair. Halo has a plot, it has characters people get pretty involved with. I can confidently say that most kids probably liked Sgt. Johnson over Master Chief. Halo is interesting because while its main focus isn't necessary plot (Though it does have an average one), it instead chooses to focus on gameplay which strangely gets all the 'old fogeys' pissed for some reason. What, was Mario not all about gameplay? Was it not about killing random enemies and getting to the goal line? Sure, the marketing is focused around being a badass d00d with a gun who kills aliens. But um, marketing has always been like that, in regards to just about every product on the face of the planet. Do people like Mega Man because of those godawful cover arts? Or the cheesy 80s commercials? I don't think so.

Most arguments I've heard against modern games just don't make any sense. Older gamers have double standards. I don't really even have any next gen systems, frankly I'm the one who's out of touch. But the thing is, being a 17 year old most of my friends are around that age. So I'm pretty much always exposed to their tastes in games.

Maybe I worded my original post crudely? I dunno. For the record, Sonic 3 & Knux is probably my favorite game, ever, so don't go thinking that I'm some nub gamer. I appreciate the classics.

[Benjamin Briggs]

bleh ok fine

You old fogeys got disillusioned and began to complain, while the vast majority of us 15 and 17 year olds merely adapted and started playing those games.

this was a gigantic and completely inaccurate generalization that did nothing to validate your claim that older gamers are "out of touch"

[RDX]

lol, figures

[Imagist]

Calling basically everyone over 17 (a large portion of this forum) "old fogeys" probably didn't get you off to a great start.

Honestly, guys, while there may be merit to the argument that the average young'un is more likely to dismiss older games than a veteran is to dismiss new releases, I don't think this means there's something inherently "different" or "wrong" about the new generation. It doesn't necessarily mean there's some fundamental shift in game development that's caused this. I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until someone presents non-anecdotal, objective evidence to the contrary; games are games are games are games. The chances of finding a dud are the same whether you're looking on the Atari or 360. It may be more noticeable now that games are a larger, more mainstream industry, and therefore more prolific, but that doesn't mean things have changed for the worse.

The thing is, every rising generation has a tendency to think the previous one is full of crap. They're more likely to stick with what's "new" and "hip," regardless of how much logic may or may not be thrown at them in defense of the "classic." And then they'll grow older, mature, gain perspective and realize that not everything they've been taught is a scheme to convince them to be lame. And they'll appreciate a broader range of new things--with or without abandonment of what they've cherished in the past. This happens with everything; look at politics. Every senior generation has, on average, swung toward more conservative views as they've aged. And many of them entertained liberal preferences when they were young. Just because a generation may start out one way doesn't mean they're any different than we were; we just see things that way because time has passed and circumstances have changed. It all comes around eventually.

[The Coop]

Yeah, but just think of how the things are going to be when there's another fresh group of 17 year old gamers about 17 years from now. Ancient gamers, old gamers, young gamers... and when we figure out how to let unborn fetuses play games, all hell's gonna break loose

[Csyzr]

being that Im 23 and have played almost every game under the sun (thank you MAME and other Emu's) you come to recognize certain patterns and cliche's when it comes to new games. for example when I play a new game my brother always asks if I played it before because I can find the majority of secrets the first play through.

with that said my point is; new video games have offered very little in the way of changing things up. the view points are almost always the same (3rd person, first or top-down) and the objectives are usually similar (find X many tokens, or kill X creatures then fight boss, rinse repeat) or in the case of FPS kill w/o being killed.

this is why as an older (not much mind you) gamer, I tend to stay away from newer games and would prefer to kick my friends ass in some 2d fighters or scrolling beat em ups or even better shmups.

the main focus today is multiplayer, rather than developing the game to break the mold on game play (cool cinematics and sequence driven movies don't count 'Ive played FFVIII before thank you')

just try and take your 'skillz' from any of todays games and go see 'how high can you get' on donkey kong, or can you beat DoDonPachi in 1 quarter. the old games would rule todays kids because they didn't have the technology to make the game look awesome, so the company had to develop gameplay to keep us pumping quarters.

old games = gameplay thought and creativity

new games = shiny, good looking old motifs

[Power Smoothie]

I'm 17 years old, but I think growing up on emulators, Japanese RPGs, and my stepdad's library of ancient mac games has left me with an older person's taste in video games. I don't really care for games like Call of Duty and Gears of War. Then again, maybe I'm just a hipster who hates everything that's popular.

[Deep Thought]

I'm going to go out on a limb and state what I see as the big difference between our "younger gamers" and our "old fogeys." (so I'm old now?)

The older gamers have one quality that should have developed playing games. Patience. If it wasn't for the "3 lives and then start over from the beginning" gameplay of the older gens, then I'm sure many of us would have grown accostomed to the modern day "restart at the last checkpoint, 10 yards behind you"

Linear gameplay is not bad inherently either, if you want to say that SMB 3 was linear. It's just that Halo managed to turn many gamers into what you see online: dumb gunslingers that have no idea what it's like on an actual battlefield. When I played AC Brotherhood for the first time, I crushed everybody else. Why? Because all of the other gamers made mistakes like running to catch up with their camoflage, moving erraticly, and most importantly, heading directly for me. In a game about stealth and subtlety, most players go straight towards their objective. I learned not to do that from MGS1.

Also, I have sworn to never play multiplayer in any FPS with people on my floor. Every single one goes and shoots the first thing that they see. No cover, no stealth. Run, Run. Bang, Bang. They think that they deserve a cookie.

So in my mind, the difference lies in being able to use my patience that I've gained wisely, whether it means wait, suffer through a tough game, or even just get myself in a more tactically usable position. (And entirely off-topic: camping is real war)

So thank you Contra, Sonic the Hedgehog and Super Mario World. You have made me better.

[Gollgagh]

being two and a half weeks shy of 23 myself, I find it really funny being lumped in with "older gamers" considering there is a whole nother generation of gamers twice my age

[Salluz]

And Salluz, as for your generalizations about Halo and the people who play them, that's not really fair.

I had no intention of flaming. I am a jester, if you will.

I shall give Halo one more chance. That excludes online/multiplayer mode

[Schwaltzvald]

being two and a half weeks shy of 23 myself, I find it really funny being lumped in with "older gamers" considering there is a whole nother generation of gamers twice my age

I'm just about three years your senior and I'm already lumped in with the old farts.

That said...

Halo is not a bad game, but it's pretty linear. People, typically guys, tend to like it because you go around with realistic graphics and a gun. They sit there for hours, playing and playing and playing and playing with what objective? Something new? A random accent that strikes the emotions? Is the game entertaining, or just the concept? I would assume that the market is selling an image or a profile, not a game with depth.

I didn't dislike it because it was new-gen, or because it was a shooter, or because I wasn't "masculine" or "mature"! It was because the game didn't give me much of a reason to play it apart from killin all da alienz, plus a preconceived notion that I was supposed to develop. Right...

Ok, so they gave the game a point by giving you an objective to kill all da alienz, but... is that it? Kill all da alienz?

An alien race is taking over. Quick, do something.

You are here. ----------------------------> This is what's next. ---------------------------> Here, shoot.

BORING!!! Let me give you the formula for a great game: y = a(x^2) + b(x) + c. Sexual satisfaction = well-developed game + logic + entertainment.

and

Only ever hated Halo for its fan base which sadly overlapped onto XBOX LIVE.

[Salluz]

Only ever hated Halo for its fan base which sadly overlapped onto XBOX LIVE.

HAHAHA! Well, I'll give it another chance. However, I stress that I will avoid the mutiplayer bullshit cuz it's a headache.

[Ghetto Lee Lewis]

I guess I'm one of the old gamers who started gaming on the 2600 but really got hooked on the NES and SNES. This year I finally got a Wii, which is the first new console I've had since SNES (though I've played most of the other new-gen consoles with friends).

I must say, the Wii has tons of potential for being fun, but I've been very disappointed so far in the games. There seem to be a lot of cutesy Mii-style games, and a few work-out style games. It seems like the work-out type games try to emulate going to a gym or casual recreation, which I don't find very fun at all. At least the Dance Dance Revolution series had a way of making exercise extremely fun and addicting. Though I have to say the Wii DDR games seem pretty lame, with mostly hip hop crap (though there are a few good songs like Never Gonna Give you Up on DDR Hottest Party 3).

Then again there are a few gems like Zelda. So far every Zelda game I have ever played has been extremely good and addicting. Though I have to say putting fishing into the main storyline of Twilight Princess was a cruel, horrible thing to do. Aiming the bow with the remote was a pain in the rear also. I am really looking forward to Skyward Sword and the new motion-plus based system.

Bottom line is, I still spend more time playing Flash games on Kongregate.com than playing my Wii. I am a strong believer that concept and gameplay will always be more important than graphics. I became bored with Elder Scrolls Oblivion due to poor gameplay elements, even though graphics were amazing. All in all, I think any old game can be enjoyed by anyone if it's simply made to be fun.

[XZero]

The Wii is an interesting console because it's got great games for two very distinct groups, but little for the mainstream.

On the one hand, it has tons of crappy kiddy games and lots of so-called "shovelware" games, many of which are aimed at family-oriented play. On the other hand, it has lots of games that appeal to gamers like yourself: people who grew up on the Atari, NES, and SNES (and N64 to some extent), and who have very fond memories of those games and that generation. For you, there is New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Super Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Super Smash Bros. Melee (GCN) and Brawl(Wii), Donkey Kong Country Returns, Kirby's Epic Yarn, and a host of other games I'm forgetting, plus the virtual console classics.

I remember a recent post on Youtube or some other video site where the person noted that a noticeable amount of adult gamers were more interested in Kirby & Donkey Kong than Call of Duty this year. Those are the gamers from our generation.

Incidentally, the biggest problem with the Wii is ironically its selling point. The motion controls are annoying. I thought the Twilight Princess controls were fine, and the Mario Galaxy controls work well enough, but for most games, I just want that second analog stick and some extra buttons. The best games on the Wii are those that don't use or otherwise completely minimalize the use of motion controls.

[Cerrax]

For all the bickering that I see on these pages, I think it's clear that we all enjoy games from all of gaming's history. Just look at my list of most-played games in my collection:

Robot Tanks ( 1980 )

River Raid ( 1981 )

Yar's Revenge ( 1982 )

U.N. Squadron ( 1989 )

F-Zero ( 1991 )

Mega Man X ( 1993 )

Driver ( 1995 )

Starfox 64 ( 1996 )

Super Smash Bros. ( 1998 )

Maximo series ( 2002-2005 )

Portal ( 2008 )

Mirror's Edge ( 2009 )

Split/Second ( 2010 )

[Esker]

Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare is somewhat what an innovative game should like.