"This game only voices the main story sections" is a paraphrasing of a hack request thread the other day, the game in question was a mid size developer effort for a lower powered console. Back when I were a lad then a piece of digitised voice outside of silly money audio workstations was practically unheard of, and skipping forward some years the famous blast of "Sega" when you fired up Sonic the Hedgehog was no small feat.
Today even small independent titles, handheld titles and more commonly feature extensive voice acting. Indeed most will only note it on the latest handheld release if it is bad, not that it is there at all, and back of the box features will tend not to gush about their voice acting, or the extent thereof, and only maybe note they have a particular actor involved. In the future text to voice synthesis (already available today with what amounts to minimal training data) will likely mean no voices in a game with characters is a stylistic or throwback choice like making a silent film is in cinema today, and if AI generation of text even vaguely matches pace then it will get even more fun and open world might actually mean something a bit different.

To go another then while many among us have had to explain that you can't pause an online game then fewer will have left a game on while going for dinner, school or overnight and hope power held, busy others in the house didn't mess it up or some other fate would not see your progress lost. Saves are then an expected feature. Some might limit them, only be available in certain locations, or have side effects for saving but still saves are readily available.

Let us not even pause too long considering how the "save icon" is probably just that to a lot of kids and they may never have even seen a floppy disc; around me USB (or SD+SD reader as it was far cheaper) became dominant about 17 years ago, though legacy things saw floppies stick around a few years after that for some.

As we don't want to be too depressing we will not ponder the fate of local co-op (or indeed local multiplayer) beyond this line. Direct neural induction will happen before "traditional" smellovision though.

A framing question for this thread for those that want one then is what features are either expected or ubiquitous today that were not back when, and what do you imagine is high end today that will be common as dirt in the future? What concepts do you expect to vanish? Or if we need to match the style of the title then "You kids don't you are born, back in the day...." and "If this keeps up then we will be seeing ... in every game".

This is part of a series on GBAtemp where we discuss gaming concepts, industry trends and gaming culture. Previously we discussed what would $20 get you in your preferred gaming genre.

Spoiler: earlier editions

games you play by your own rules., the state of VR and 3D and whether they had once more failed to take hold, the last game skill you unlearned, The game you invested the most money in, times where people said gameplay styles would not work for a platform, the value of online play, emulation vs hardware, a favoured game style that might have become less common in recent times, skills one might have learned or honed because of a game, games on the PS4 and Xbone that will stand the test of time, games that got better after launch, cancelled games and shuttered devs, and story canon in games.

 

[retrofan_k]

Back in my day, nobody acted like a spoilt brat or complained over the slightest thing when buying a gaming console and software.

You just got on with it and appreciated what was given and on offer at the time whether it was good or bad.

 

[RedoLane]

Slightly off topic have you met a person that is troubled by unrealistic gore but not by more realistic stuff? Nothing bothers me these days (got over my dislike of skin grafts) but I have met a few that will watch the fountains of blood stuff but skew into more grounded crime or war dramas and they are nowhere to be seen.

All a matter of graphic violence, and how visually appealing it is. it also how it relates to the situation.
i didn't meet people which you described, only the other way around. heck, i'm that kind of guy too.
it's actually not off topic at all, because according to many polls and reports, more people(including kids) can handle graphic violence(as well as unrealistic gore) in video games way better than people did in the 90s!
That could be many reasons to it. Personally I think it's because the lack of creativity when it comes to gore. a decade ago, it was mostly about "shoot that guy, snap his neck. blood comes out, what a tiny mess.", or bosses that bursts tons of blood after being defeated. it was gore-ish on a cinematic appeal, not in terms of gameplay, so people got used to it.
HOWEVER, in the 90s, games with an acceptable level of gore were very uncommon, so when people found out these games, it was like a first experience for them.
Mine by the way, was Doom. the most obvious example for a game in the 90s. you shoot demons, you see corpses, hellish environment, a truly christian game...but i was a dumb kid back then, yet there were content(specifically in Doom 2) that terrified me to death, and it took me YEARS just to handle it without being disgusted or feeling uncomfortable.
Fortunately, in the current decade, developers finally got the liberty to be creative AND have it being recognized under funding platforms or even through gaming events!
It's great because they investigate what could twist things in peoples' brains, and some games nail it! In fact, one of those just came out: Blasphemous, a dark catholic/christian/apocalyptic Metroidvania game.
It's one of the only games which look troubling to me more than what the cheer violence i used to see in real life or realistic shows.
So in a way, these kind of experiences from the past could repeat themselves, but as i mentioned enough times, it's all a matter of interest.

It was more that genre as a concept/word is fairly pointless from where I sit as it pertains to games, which then makes discussions surrounding it tricky. What is Deus Ex? FPS. What is Call of Duty? FPS. What is Portal 2? Probably still FPS as I am still using a gun in a 3d space, having to have good timing and precise movement. What is Vanquish? Actually that might be a third person shooter but really what is the difference between that and some of the more modern COD titles with their fancy movement (other than Vanquish being a solid game that I would play again)? This does not even get into the Japanese and Western (which I would argue breaks down again as the Americans all seem to want to remake Dungeons and Dragons but Europe seems to opt for old school storytelling) RPG thing. Speaking of action games then what on earth is "action-adventure"?
But above that if I must use the word genre and hope it means something then I would happily +1 a statement of "there are no weak genres, only weak games".

Genre as a concept isn't pointless, because it helps people who love certain elements, look for new games they haven't heard before that share these elements. If i'm in a mood for platformers but feel like i played literally everything the world can offer, just looking up the genre on Steam helps me find out platformers that i either forgot they existed, or have something to look forward to.
If a person loves how a Puzzle game works, it means he loves that specific game. But I know people who claimed that genre X is worse than genre Y, when they didn't even play a single game that belongs to genre X.
Defining genres have nothing to do with it, because in my opinion, only experienced people can define "gameplay" genres, but everyone can easily define genres of context. Let's say hypothetically that i never played an RPG game. could i tell how that specific RPG game works just by watching it(assuming there's no tutorial)? no. But if that RPG game was also a Fantasy game, i could easily tell it's a Fantasy game just from it's context.
my problem with a unfair amount of people, is that they mix up gameplay with game content. I don't like Fortnite because of it's visual appeal(taunts and dances, you know) and publishing, not because it's a Battle Royale game(and to be honest, it's a pretty good BR game on it's foundation). I like PUBG because it's a great Battle Royale game, but the world and locations feel too generic.
Notice how i specifically mentioned 2 different opinions in both examples. What I see nowadays is that people won't give a try to any Battle Royale game because they hate Fortnite(blaming it for the BR craze or something). Like, seriously? it's not like every Battle Royale game is like Fortnite. heck, that game wasn't the first one to dip into that element.
That's what irritating me, when people hate on a genre without even giving it a try, being childish and immature for one game just because it isn't visually appealing to them.
"No, i won't play *insert BR game here* because it's just like Fortnite. they're all the same".

If i was a young adult in the 90s, i highly doubt i would hear that kind of opinion regarding games under specific genres.

 

[raxadian]

Ice Climber(s) was supposed to be a co-op game. In practice it is much easier if you just make the other player die. In fact playing it in a coperative way is quite hard.

The first game I actually played co-op successfully was playing Descent, my cousin did the driving while I did the shooting and so we did both things faster.

And my experiences with online gaming have been terrible to the point I don't think is worth it.

 

[FAST6191]

Genre as a concept isn't pointless, because it helps people who love certain elements, look for new games they haven't heard before that share these elements. If i'm in a mood for platformers but feel like i played literally everything the world can offer, just looking up the genre on Steam helps me find out platformers that i either forgot they existed, or have something to look forward to.
If a person loves how a Puzzle game works, it means he loves that specific game. But I know people who claimed that genre X is worse than genre Y, when they didn't even play a single game that belongs to genre X.
Defining genres have nothing to do with it, because in my opinion, only experienced people can define "gameplay" genres, but everyone can easily define genres of context. Let's say hypothetically that i never played an RPG game. could i tell how that specific RPG game works just by watching it(assuming there's no tutorial)? no. But if that RPG game was also a Fantasy game, i could easily tell it's a Fantasy game just from it's context.
my problem with a unfair amount of people, is that they mix up gameplay with game content. I don't like Fortnite because of it's visual appeal(taunts and dances, you know) and publishing, not because it's a Battle Royale game(and to be honest, it's a pretty good BR game on it's foundation). I like PUBG because it's a great Battle Royale game, but the world and locations feel too generic.
Notice how i specifically mentioned 2 different opinions in both examples. What I see nowadays is that people won't give a try to any Battle Royale game because they hate Fortnite(blaming it for the BR craze or something). Like, seriously? it's not like every Battle Royale game is like Fortnite. heck, that game wasn't the first one to dip into that element.
That's what irritating me, when people hate on a genre without even giving it a try, being childish and immature for one game just because it isn't visually appealing to them.
"No, i won't play *insert BR game here* because it's just like Fortnite. they're all the same".

If i was a young adult in the 90s, i highly doubt i would hear that kind of opinion regarding games under specific genres.

So you are expanding and refining a concept beyond the traditional fps, third person shooter, shmup (never mind they used to be called shooters, and just like the two before are often categorised by camera style -- vertical vs horizontal), fighting game, real time strategy, turn based strategy, action games, RPG, flight sim, driving sim, maybe arcade racer, possibly space sim, point and click, text adventure, platformer, puzzle and .... and starting to contemplate mechanics, the nature of play and more besides to categorise the games.
This would be where I argue the discussion has to go to make it useful -- I have other problems with things here but board games some time back started categorising them according to the mechanics they featured ( https://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgamemechanic ). Furthermore various Steam tags, and more interestingly some of Netflix's hidden tags ( https://bgr.com/2018/12/18/best-netflix-series-top-10-secret-categories/ , some of which almost resemble some of the odd terms you see in IMDB listings) allowed you to escape the confines.

As for the 90s (which did include the N64) then you must have missed the perception of Nintendo during that time. OMG (I think that was in by then) Nintendo is the kiddy company (though it did lead to my personal of N sissy 4)

On all the same. Endlessly repeated online multiplayer against strangers that you will likely never bond with (so full https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/greater-internet-fuckwad-theory in action)? They are all the same in that regard.

 

[MercilessDeth]

I'll admit I didn't have time to analyze these posts in detail since I'm on a work break; I normally enjoy reading through the different perspectives these types of posts invoke. Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I'll throw it in:

I sometimes wonder what 'classic gaming' will look like in the future. I am currently what you would consider a classic game fan..I own modern systems of course but I have a lot of older hardware and games. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 physical titles, though the most obscure hardware I own is maybe some NEC stuff. I'm an electrical engineer, so I can usually pick stuff up for cheaper than normal since I perform my own repairs.

Anyway, my broader point is that these games are on cartridges, CDs, DVDs, etc and still exist physically. Supposing all is operating correctly, when I insert a game like Mario 3 into my NES, the program loads and I can access all content. There is no concern about any type of licensing or copyrights and there is no decentralized or server side content.

What about games that get delisted from online marketplaces due to licensing and have no physical release? There are always cracked versions available, but that requires faith in the cracker not distributing malware, or requires a modified console to play. What about games that are primarily online experiences? When the servers go down, fans make their own (Phantasy Star Online, for example). But those games still require somebody to host content, and some require other players present to enjoy. Battlefield 1942 was a good game, but will you ever be able to experience a full 64 player match in the future? PC games can easily be pointed to a custom server, consoles less so. The experience of World or Warcraft may be lost to time 30 years from now, as the requisite elements to enjoy it are niche or no longer exist. Nevermind that proprietary server-side content cannot be saved or even acquired sometimes.

But in 2019, games from 1989 can still be fully enjoyed, self contained on a ROM chip in their entirety. Though my argument falls short given that BS Satellaview games survived long after their original server side broadcast and have been made playable today via emulation or flashcarts. Hard to say how it will pan out

 

[RedoLane]

As for the 90s (which did include the N64) then you must have missed the perception of Nintendo during that time. OMG (I think that was in by then) Nintendo is the kiddy company (though it did lead to my personal of N sissy 4)

This has nothing to do with what i said. Did people back then wouldn't play other platformers because they don't like Super Mario 64? that's what i meant. It would make more sense if they said "I don't play other platformers on the N64 because Super Mario 64 is the only good platformer on that console", which is a completely different topic btw.
My entire point throughout this discussion is that unlike in the 90s, people nowadays reject entire genres of gaming because they saw one game they didn't like, found out other games join the wagon, and they just hate on it, without even trying any of those!
So from what i believe, they don't hate the genre from it's gameplay aspect, but hate it because by mere coincidence, the most popular one isn't visually appealing to them.
For the sake of argument, i'm referring to genres that revolve in gameplay alone, and not genres that revolve in the game's content and/or context.
All these tags on Steam that refer to anything but gameplay elements are still genres, but because games have become richer and massive in the amount of different elements they can use, it's hard to define a single, main genre that the game fits in. In that case, I refer to them simply as "Multi-genre games" or choose between 2-3 elements that are the most remarkable and obvious, such as "First-Person Sci-Fi Puzzle game"(AKA Portal).
That's at least what I think. other people could argue otherwise. I don't think people in the 90s were busy discussing and defining game genres correctly. The internet wasn't even universally accessible around that time.

 

[IssMare]

Back in my day we didn't have 3D but did have Super Mario Bros. 3.
A game was rated by its ability to entertain us, not how long it was. Graphics didn't matter as much, offline same screen 2 player was a thing.

 

[FAST6191]

This has nothing to do with what i said. Did people back then wouldn't play other platformers because they don't like Super Mario 64? that's what i meant. It would make more sense if they said "I don't play other platformers on the N64 because Super Mario 64 is the only good platformer on that console", which is a completely different topic btw.
My entire point throughout this discussion is that unlike in the 90s, people nowadays reject entire genres of gaming because they saw one game they didn't like, found out other games join the wagon, and they just hate on it, without even trying any of those!
So from what i believe, they don't hate the genre from it's gameplay aspect, but hate it because by mere coincidence, the most popular one isn't visually appealing to them.
For the sake of argument, i'm referring to genres that revolve in gameplay alone, and not genres that revolve in the game's content and/or context.
All these tags on Steam that refer to anything but gameplay elements are still genres, but because games have become richer and massive in the amount of different elements they can use, it's hard to define a single, main genre that the game fits in. In that case, I refer to them simply as "Multi-genre games" or choose between 2-3 elements that are the most remarkable and obvious, such as "First-Person Sci-Fi Puzzle game"(AKA Portal).
That's at least what I think. other people could argue otherwise. I don't think people in the 90s were busy discussing and defining game genres correctly. The internet wasn't even universally accessible around that time.

I would say it follows just fine -- met several people that would refuse to play Perfect Dark, Turok or Goldeneye on the N64 with us because it was a kiddy console having seen Mario 64 and they presumed it was all that (several of which later went on to play pokemon but we are not laughing at double standards right now).

"but because games have become richer and massive in the amount of different elements they can use"
Have they? System Shock (1994) would likely go up against anything today in terms of complexity and most likely win (some might call it needless complexity and some builds will struggle without cheats to get anywhere but if all you have is good choices...). The choice of actions available in the average roguelike would likely put anything done by Bioware or the Witcher guys to shame.

So more terms = more genres. So now we either have an overloaded term or one that means vastly different things to different people.

I'll admit I didn't have time to analyze these posts in detail since I'm on a work break; I normally enjoy reading through the different perspectives these types of posts invoke. Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I'll throw it in:

I sometimes wonder what 'classic gaming' will look like in the future. I am currently what you would consider a classic game fan..I own modern systems of course but I have a lot of older hardware and games. Somewhere in the neighborhood of 700 physical titles, though the most obscure hardware I own is maybe some NEC stuff. I'm an electrical engineer, so I can usually pick stuff up for cheaper than normal since I perform my own repairs.

Anyway, my broader point is that these games are on cartridges, CDs, DVDs, etc and still exist physically. Supposing all is operating correctly, when I insert a game like Mario 3 into my NES, the program loads and I can access all content. There is no concern about any type of licensing or copyrights and there is no decentralized or server side content.

What about games that get delisted from online marketplaces due to licensing and have no physical release? There are always cracked versions available, but that requires faith in the cracker not distributing malware, or requires a modified console to play. What about games that are primarily online experiences? When the servers go down, fans make their own (Phantasy Star Online, for example). But those games still require somebody to host content, and some require other players present to enjoy. Battlefield 1942 was a good game, but will you ever be able to experience a full 64 player match in the future? PC games can easily be pointed to a custom server, consoles less so. The experience of World or Warcraft may be lost to time 30 years from now, as the requisite elements to enjoy it are niche or no longer exist. Nevermind that proprietary server-side content cannot be saved or even acquired sometimes.

But in 2019, games from 1989 can still be fully enjoyed, self contained on a ROM chip in their entirety. Though my argument falls short given that BS Satellaview games survived long after their original server side broadcast and have been made playable today via emulation or flashcarts. Hard to say how it will pan out

Oh no not more competition for the broken but fixable if you know how consoles.

On things being saved then the SNES did however lose its xband efforts (if you are not familiar then addon which was basically a combo of a modem and a ROM intercept style game genie, paid service, stored ROM hacks in battery backed RAM for those games that did not have baked in support).

I did once see a talk from an artist that purposely made pieces that will degrade (possibly to nothing) in a matter of months, and you do of course have the famous shredder


Others contemplated what goes for ARGs where you hunt around the internet (or real life) for clues.

All that said you would not be the only one to have concerns over the, often pointless, nature of some DRM that not only stops servers (though I will say in terms of percentages the Wii and DS server reconstructions are the best out there which might trouble the consoles less so line). I might write it off the same way that I will write things off as the skill caps trend towards "only sub 25 year olds that won the genetic lottery and have endless time will do well here" mean top level play in a lot of games is now rather beyond my reach.

 

[DobaMuffin]

Honestly, I miss the days when I was younger. Growing up on GameCube, Xbox, and PS2, there were limited selection of games in the house due to the fact that my parents rarely ever bought new games once we got a small collection (might have been too young to remember that though).

Me and my brother would play through the games we were allowed to, and we'd replay the ones we liked the most. I would also watch my dad play the violent games I was not allowed to play, or I'd watch him play games on his pc. I'd also watch my mom play her games on the xbox.

The best day was when my mom said that me and my brother could play all the violent games in the house. That gave us a slightly bigger library of games to play.

If I look back at the games I used to play, I still enjoy them. A good portion of them are more enjoyable to me than the new games being released. I particularly enjoyed the ps2 games as they has some pretty nice exclusives.

I was never one to complain about the content of a game in the sense of what the game's engine could accomplish. If I complained about a game it was because I really didn't like it.

Now I look at the new games being released, and while they are enjoyable, I am not happy with the direction a lot of them are going. Split screen multiplayer was always a favourite of mine, and it's getting slightly harder to find. I don't particularly like the whole expensive dlc thing going on. The Addition of micro transactions that add gameplay elements beyond just cosmetics, kill the mood for those few games I would be willing to play online. One of the big issues I have with the way things are going is that everything is starting to become digital only. I love collecting physical boxes.

While I accept where things are going, and I am excited for some aspects, the way things are going in general don't leave me wanting to play anything particularly new except for select titles.

If this doesn't fit in with the purpose of this post, I blame me going off about something I care about. For all of those who have made it to here, I thank you for taking the time to read what I had to say.

Sincerely,
DobaMuffin

 

[mattytrog]

Back in my day, everyone was a programmer, which, for me, was more fun than playing the games.

Copying tapes... Tapes were GREAT! High-speed-dubbing woes andwriting down tape counter numbers aplenty.

Going into your retailer and "programming"...

10 CLS
20 PRINT "All dixons staff are wankers"
30 GOTO 20

run

 

[DANTENDO]

. I love collecting physical boxes.

Yep I would pay an extra fiver for a game if we could hav commodore amiga style boxes again

 

[DobaMuffin]

Yep I would pay an extra fiver for a game if we could hav commodore amiga style boxes again

Boxed games with flashy art are the best. Love buying PC game boxes when I can.

 

[OncRN]

Back in my day, it took years to discover all the tricks/secrets in a game- and most of the time you couldn't find all of them. Nowadays, you can go online and read all about them before you even get your first play. Even today I'm coming across info about games I played in my youth, things I never knew about.

Not saying it's a bad thing, but there are pros and cons. On the down side, it does take some of the mystery and accomplishment out of the games. On the plus side, it beats burning every single bush in Legend of Zelda to find a hidden item. Especially w/ the blue candle.

 

[mattytrog]

Yep I would pay an extra fiver for a game if we could hav commodore amiga style boxes again

I used to like the games when they came out "on budget" - ie Hit Squad cassette inlays.

After a while, once the game had been out for a while it would come out "on budget" and you could pick it up cheap.

EG the dizzy games...

 

[andyhappypants]

Back in my day we didn’t have all this 3D lark, I did have and still own a neogeo aes and later a consolised MVS so life was good

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I used to like the games when they came out "on budget" - ie Hit Squad cassette inlays.

After a while, once the game had been out for a while it would come out "on budget" and you could pick it up cheap.

EG the dizzy games...

I remember those days also! And the free games on the covers of Magazines

 

[bahamut920]

Back in my day game devs had finish games before releasing them!

Here's a secret; no they didn't. Game-breaking bugs are becoming more commonplace as a result of tighter deadlines, more cooks in the kitchen, and games being exponentially more complex pieces of code than in decades past, but there are websites to catalogue all the things left out of games and all the bugs left in, and modern games don't hold the monopoly on entries. You might be surprised to learn that some of your favorite classic games were "unfinished"; Final Fantasy VI had the infamous Sketch Glitch (which had potential save-eating and possibly even cartridge-destroying properties), and a stat (Evasion) that just plain didn't work; Final Fantasy VII also had a stat (Magic Defense) that plain didn't work, and the localization for both it and FF Tactics could have used more editing. Secret of Mana has a bug that lets you get back into Potos by changing characters repeatedly, but then you can't get out. Don't even get me started on what a mess the original Pokemon games were, and we outside Japan got the improved versions! I can go on, but I won't. If any of these bugs ever got fixed, it was either in unmarked cartridge revisions (FF6 had a "1.1" release that fixed the Sketch Glitch), or in a "Director's Cut" or other special edition, either of which required you to shell out the price of the game again. In an ideal world, every video game would release after being thoroughly QA tested and every bug was squashed (although exploiting bugs can be fun sometimes, and certainly make for interesting speedruns). We don't live in that world, and never have, so every time a developer releases a patch for the bugs in their games, I personally am grateful.

Back in my day we didn't have 3D but did have Super Mario Bros. 3.
A game was rated by its ability to entertain us, not how long it was. Graphics didn't matter as much, offline same screen 2 player was a thing.

Games having length as a selling point is also nothing new. I certainly remember some games, mostly JRPGs, advertising how long they were back in the early-mid '90's. Another silly selling point for some games (especially on the SNES or PSX) was the size of the ROM chips on the cartridge or the number of discs in the case.

I miss manuals, and the extras that would sometimes come with physical games, even though I've largely given up buying physical games due to the clutter.

 

[OncRN]

Back in my day, when you bought a game, you OWNED that game. If you wanted to loan it to a friend, you handed it to them, and it worked on their console. If you wanted to sell/trade it, no one could tell you no, and the game became the sole property of the individual who had it in their possession.

 

[Deleted User]

Back in my day we didn't have bad Nintendo games but we did have good Nintendo games.

 

[TVL]

Back in my day we didn't have X and we didn't have Y... only A and B.

 

[CeeDee]

back in my day gamers didn't fucking whine so much about minute shit like pride flags in games, different launchers, minor outfit changes, and shit like that. they just played the game and were happy with it.