Advancing technology vs the eternal Nostalgic

[cowsmanaut]

I know we've discussed this sort of thing before but I don't think it's had it's own thread.. though if it has one of the regulars will surely slap me with it.. either that or with a large tuna.. anyway.. I have holidays at last, so it's time for debates

The statements about what makes DM what it was. The game that people love. What elements of it's design and character sit at the heart of it?

We all have those of us who push for the advance of the art because the technology is present, or pushing the rules because the technology has the ability to, or adjust the movement, sound, etc.. all because tech has come to a point that we can do so much more. However as one of those who have pushed the art.. I often go the "it doesn't feel like DM" element in variable degrees.

Step based movement vs free movement, static lighting vs the eternal black fog, and some others are constantly discussed with various oppinions on which is better.

So here I ask, did they limit the movement because it made the game better? Did they have the never ending black fog because it was better, did they only have two monster types per level because it improved game play? etc etc. I think we all know the answer is no.. they did so much of what DM is because of limitations of technology, memory, and disk space. Proof is in what they did the moment they upgraded to Amiga.. they added stereo sound, and colour for pointer held items. Proof again when they added more environmental sounds and music, and animations to DMII as well as the burst movement effect.

What I find interesting is when we fall in love with what in essence are limitations or flaws. Which brings to mind something my ex did once. I had gotten a new PC with DSL internet, but she had spent a year being used to my old Amiga 3000 with a dial up modem I think it was 36,000 baud or something insanely slow. She didn't want to switch despite the fact she had more colours on screen and pages loaded WAYYY faster. She felt bad about abandoning the poor Amiga. She was happy to wait 10 mins for her page to load.. eventually I got her on board with the PC and after using it a week she gave in.. but still felt bad for the Amiga which shortly after was boxed and placed in the closet

Nostalgia blinds us and binds us sometimes. Though I think it has it's place too. Old homes, and historical sites should be preserved. The old way of doing things exposed for the sake of knowledge and to honour the memory and achievements of those of the past. Even keeping those old keepsakes.. like the fugly ashtray you made in 3rd grade for your parents who don't smoke.

To continue the focus on what makes DM what it is.. let's ask how many other games make you sleep, eat, drink, memorize runes, practice throwing, casting, and swinging to build experience. There are bits and parts of those elements in other games, but not in the way DM did it for the most part. The spell system is unique to DM though.

I think those elements more than any other make DM what it is.. ALL of the puzzles including those based on grids of teleporters or pressure plates can be done in a free moving 3D engine without any sacrifice.

but there it is.. my thoughts on it.. present your arguments prove me wrong

[Gambit37]

A great idea for a thread and one I will love to contribute to. Unfortunately, I'm rushing to get away for a the holidays and don't have the time. Keep this going while I'm away and I'll pop in some time next week

[cowsmanaut]

indeed, I'll try.. providing anyone else helps me keep it up .. wait.. that sounded wrong.. 0_0

[sucinum]

It's not about Nostalgia for me - DM simply has fast paced gameplay which very few even modern games can beat. The direct, simple and intuitive interface is timeless good and the step-based movement is simply faster then everything else. Since travelling is the most boring part of a RPG (and I get bored VERY quickly), DM still has an edge over many modern games.

Of the games I know, Dungeons&Dragons Online is the only one I found so far which can match that pace. And the most popular buff is, as you can guess, haste. People drink haste potions (which aren't too cheap) even in town to travel faster. That's also the reason why DM2 was so unpopular, it felt sluggish with the pseudo-steps.

[cowsmanaut]

speed of movement can still be done in a 3D non step based engine though simply make the character move more quickly. I do get that people here have memorized the "2left 4forward 3right 3forward 4left and I'm at the altar of rebirth" thing.. but that doesn't require an updated clone to do that.. that is because you've played the game to death so that you have everything memorized. So, why not simply play that one rather than a remake... If you try to travel that speed in an unknown environment you will run into the wall or worse into a firey pit of death. So again, you should move with some level of caution through the maps anyway.. and freedom to look around offers a lot towards feeling immersed.

[Bit]

I'm sure this thread will fill quickly when some of us tried DMT.

[Zyx]

Sounds like a powerful drug.

[T0Mi]

hmmm. Interesting.

I found that people who aren't that much in contact with modern technology often have amazing easy and obvious answers to these kind of questions.
Maybe it is simply not technology and its ongoing development, but people themself. Nostalgia is a way people try to somewhat counteract their mortality.

DM was such an overhelming and outstanding step forward. For all those years I've been looking out for a gaming experience that comes close to what DM provided back in those days. I'm still looking. (And looking forward to DMT! )

[sucinum]

That's a good point, cow, but the speed still adds a lot to replayability. I completed lots of RPGs once or maybe twice to chose a different path, but i did't complete any RPG (nearly) as often as DM.

[cowsmanaut]

indeed many of us have completed DM many times and justly so, as the game has a balance and flavor that no others do. There is ownership in the actions performed by the player.. more so than that of other games.. the act of feeding and giving water to your 4 heros, the act of memorizing the spells for them, the act of picking up can carrying their bones, setting them to sleep in the hopes they will not be awakened and trapped by some horrible creature. All of that is still not captured in any other game. However, again.. it's nothing to do with the graphics, sound, or movement..

Taking your character to an inn and paying some gold for a refresh that takes 2 seconds pales in comparison to finding an alcove or hopefully a room with a door and then pressing the sleep button only to listen to the scuffle of hungry monster feet around you hoping.. praying they won't wake you because your characters have not eaten in hours and are barely surviving on stamina potions.. I mean seriously. Who can name a game who leaves you with that feeling?

Or going to a store and buying a spell that ends up in a drop down menu, vs trying to remember the 3-5 symbols for various spells and sometimes right at the moment you need it, rifling though the papers on your desk with various map scribbles to find the sheet containing your spell list.

or the embarrasing moments when you stood in front of a unbreakable door throwing ninja stars and bashing it with a sword gaining ninja and fighter levels.. but let's not mention those

It's very easy to derive what made it good beyond the technological limitations.

[Rasmus]

I agree with you cowsmanaut, all the freedom DM provide are very rear in new games. I remember playing DM when I was 10 years old and was just about to enter the big room where Chaos and all his demons are. I remember that I was very hungry and tired, I had been drinking alot of stamina potions. It didn't matter how prepared I was when entering the room, I still jumped of fear when meeting Lord Chaos.. The feeling this game provides are mostly because I can do all those thing that I image that I would do if I was there in real life. I think that's why I remember that situation more like I have been there than just playing the game.

Ofcourse, I was young at the time and the DM technology was very new. But I don't think that is the only reson..
The DM game are very good on building up the fear of what it is you might face behind the next corner. This makes you want to train so that you can defeat the unexpected and lower your fear, and the hunger forces you to continue!

There are so many games on the market that only focus on the newest 3D technology and dosn't focus so much on the game feeling. It's like viewing a movie with alot of effects and no story, if you don't have anything to look forward to you won't get thrilled when it finally happened.

As a conclution I would like to say that the reason that I don't want to make any major changes in DMT is that I first want too create THAT DM feeling, and then (if possible) increase it.

[Jan]

There are so many games on the market that only focus on the newest 3D technology and dosn't focus so much on the game feeling.

Exactly. This is exactly my opinion, and my answer to Cow's question. A modern game is made by dozens or even hundreds of people, mostly technicians and programmers, each of them focusing only on a very narrow segment of technical aspects. The games are technically perfect, but lack a good atmosphere, "feeling", story, personal "imprint" and a strong lead that had games 20 years ago, made by only a few people.

[PaulH]

My favourite game is Bane of the Cosmic forge. 8 colours, but was enough. Gameplay was fantastic.

[Bit]

My favourite game is Bane of the Cosmic forge. 8 colours, but was enough. Gameplay was fantastic.

- FULL COLOR ANIMATED graphics
- DIGITIZED sound (NO add-on required)
- HARD DISK supported
- 11 Races, 14 Professions (with rankings!)
- Weaponry, Physical and Academia Skills
- Six Spellbooks, 462 Combinations
- Non-Player Characters
- An arsenal of over 400 researched items
- Varied Fighting Modes
- Primary and Secondary Attack
- Continuous Journey
- Unlimited Backups
- Save Game

'Only through the power of the latest computer technology could the full dimensions of this new genre in FRP be possible'.

OOPS - I violated a copyright
Seems that advanced technology is somehow the base of eternal nostalgic

[cowsmanaut]

indeed, that was my point. Those creating those great games wanted the best technology had to offer them in order to bring us the game they had created. The fact that it has great story, playability, etc. Is not about the technology and that seems to be the argument of the nostaligc as well.. that it's about how well the game was designed from a game play point of view. However this only strengthens the technophile's argument. A game with superior technology behind it could still carry that same element of good game play.

an example though, of how new technology can ruin something is not hard to find.. George Lucas does that quickly... however his ruining of the first 3 movies has more to do with him allowing his children to make decisions for him, and for him to not have a secondary writer to consult with (which he did have on the original 3) .. So did tech ruin it? no.. someone with all of it, and no sense of responsibility to the quality of the product.

moo

[Bit]

George Lucas - I just remember the "Eidolon". That came from his ranch. Atari 800 - 3D with free movement. Unfortunately at the end of the 800 time, or it had become a classic too!

[Rasmus]

I was thinking (Not that I want to brag)..
I had a conversation with a friend the other day about a topic simular to this.
I think most of the old classic game got so good because the technology didn't advance so fast as it does nowdays.
I don't know when the amiga came out, but I know that I had one most of my childhood, and games was just poping up looking better and better, and had better gameplay, more details etc.

Personally I would like to experience something like this: What if the technology stopped so that no one could own a better computer than the best one out there right now. Think about it, gamedevelopers can spend more time creating games that are really good not worring about that the tecnology will outrun them.. We could have really advanced games maybe not graphicly, but when it comes to AI, gameplay freedom etc. that the developers could have worked on for several years, after beeing done with the graphic after just a couple of months..
I think todays buyers (us) are to affected by all the game advertising so that we don't sit down a play a game fully, mostly because all the games generally are the same but with improved graphic.

I bought Final Fantasy XIII a while ago, I like these games because they are never ending and have a good story. But this time I got really dissapointed, 20 hours of really nice graphic and good story, but the game was to repetative because it had a straight storyline with no sidequests. Just before completed the game after alot of boredom I got the chance to go on sidetrails killing 50 good looking bosses without any difficulty finding them... Let just say that I played that game about 30 hours before I got so bored that I sold it..

So give me some opinions, what would you think about stoping the computer technology for about 10 years, would the games be better or worse than if the technology proceeds as it does now?

[Trantor]

I don't think that technology advancing too fast really is the problem with today's games. It wasn't that much different back in the 80s, it's amazing how far the Amiga was advanced over the C64, for example. In fact, I think that all the possibilities of games are exploited. The main reason I lost interest in modern games was that I always thought "Oh, it's like game X from 10 years ago, only with better graphics." Games don't surprise me anymore, they don't break boundaries that were thought to be insurmountable.
In the 80s, there was only so much you could do in a game. Then, a new game would come along that let you do stuff you were never able to do before, and you were amazed. Take DM: Wizardry or Ultima showed us 3D dungeons before, but combat and puzzles weren't done in real-time. This is why DM was a whole new experience.
This phenomenon eventually stopped around the year 2000. Games either got bigger or prettier or both, but the innovation was gone. Everything today is just recycling of old ideas. If you stop technological advancement, nothing will change. It's not the need to make prettier graphics that's the bane of today's games, it's the fact that everything that can be done has already been done.

[Rasmus]

I agree with you there trantor that everything has been done and therefore everthing are just copies of older games but with better graphic.
But still, with the advancing technology the developers still have something "easy" to offer to the buyers. If the technology stops, they are forced to offer something new..

[Gambit37]

it's the fact that everything that can be done has already been done.

I don't agree with this at all. Sure, lots of games copy others, but there are ALWAYS innovations coming along. Physics in Hlaf-Life 2 for example, Portals in Prey (and better executed in Portal) to name just two. For as long as people have imaginations, there will always be some form of innovation, even if it isn't universally game-changing (excuse the pun!)

[Trantor]

Good point Gambit. I take back that everything has already been done, as your examples show the contrary very well (another example would be the gravity in Super Mario Galaxy). But these innovations are rare and infrequent; 20 years ago, the flow of new ideas was much stronger.

[Jan]

I agree with Trantor that advancing technology is not the main problem. In my opinion, there are two crucial moments (that are more social then technological), that cause the differences in games 25 years ago and now:

1. Games are more mainstream nowadays. 25 years ago, the gaming community was much smaller, and more specific (like most of the players read sci-fi and fantasy, so they kind os "shared" knowledge; most of them knew a lot about computers and were more "nerdy", I think). Today, games are made simply for anyone, for hundreds of millions of people in the whole World, with very different backgrounds and - let's face it - with a lower average IQ. This simply changes the demand. The mainstream asks for simple, fast, action, visually attractive games.

2. There are also huge changes on the supply side. 25 years ago, the games were being developed by individuals or very small teams of only a few people. Today, games are being developed by virtually hundreds of designers. But this is like when 100 writers tried to write one book. The games are technologically perfect, but they lack atmosphere and "feeling" and "whole new" ideas. Of course they do. If your task in a game's design is to design only - say - pants for NPCs, or if you write dialogues with 10 other people, it's just very hard if not impossible to come with something new, innovative. And, of course, most of the designers are programmers, and not artists. They focus on technology, not on the story.

This also explains, that it is possible to come with new ideas, but it's very hard to incorporate them into a game.

[Trantor]

Very good points there Jan. It's just amazing that games in the 80s were developed by only a handful of people, or maybe just by one or two guys! Maybe it's not quite as possible to create a single, unique artistic vision if game directors have hundreds of people under them.

It's also true that games today are more mainstream-y. Games were also much harder back then. That was certainly a means to increase the lifespan of a game (if you knew your way around, you were often done in half an hour or less), but the average gamer was also much more patient back then. I can hardly believe how much loading time I accepted with my C64, let alone how many deaths I was willing to die.

[Rasmus]

Hehe, I came to think about all the flashgames out there. They are created by one or maybe some more people instead of whole companys. And here we can talk about alot of new gameideas..

[zoom]

15-20 years ago,these were different games, due to resolution. Mainly reflex based, too

[raixel]

From what I understand of big-budget video games is that theres a bunch of huge publishers (EA, Ubisoft ,ect.). They decide what gets put out, and they dont really like to run the risk of trying something new. So you end up with these games that are basically the same game underneath everything else. In the 80 s and 90s it was more free without these giant publishers strangling everything, as Trantor and Jan said, it only took a handful of people to put a game out. So you didnt have to worry about getting up the finances to pay a team of 200 people, which basically only the giant publishers have the manpower to do. Personally I think a lot of AAA games nowdays are like hollywod films, all graphics and no substance.

My brother works in IT and knows a bunch of people who make video games for a living. He says the dvelopers are usually creative, innovtive types who love to come up with new ideas. But then the publisher (the one with the pocketbook) comes in, all suited with a graph-chart and says "According to our market analysis, gamers like games with aliens and big guns. So put more in it." Developer: "What? This is a realistic sim of life in 17th century russia!" Publisher "well, ya, but our market analysis shows that most males between the ages of 17-35 buy 1st person shooters with aliens and big guns, and they are our top buyers. So change it. Or you can take your project elsewhere." The stupid thing is, it becomes a self perpetuating spiral. Their market analysis shows a certain type of game is popular, so they fund it, which floods the market and makes games buy that type of game because there isnt much else, so they make more. Eventually there isnt anything on the mainstream market but tried-and-true genres.
The above scenario completely killed PC RPGs when WoW came out. For a while you couldnt buy any PC RPG that wasnt an MMO.

I think its why flash games and downloadables have become so popular. People want something different. Games like Portal, Flower, and Flow (nevermind a million flash and browser based games) were created by these tiny studios (well ok Portal was created by Valve, but the original form of the game was someone's college project). A big publisher would have never picked them up, but with the advent of downloadable games, XBL and PSN were willing to pick them up. Yeah, the graphics might not be as good, but they offer something different. Its why DM remains amazing after 20 years. It was, and still is, something different

[Sophia]

About the only big developer/publisher that does anything risky or innovative these days is Nintendo, and even they hedge their bets by making sure to involve well-loved characters that they've been using for the past 30 years. How many games has Mario been in, now?

I forget who said it, but someone big in the game industry said words to the effect of, "If someone came up with Tetris today, nobody would want to make it." It's probably true.

[Jan]

I forget who said it, but someone big in the game industry said words to the effect of, "If someone came up with Tetris today, nobody would want to make it." It's probably true.

Good point.

Personally I think a lot of AAA games nowdays are like hollywod films, all graphics and no substance.

Good point too. Woody Allen once said that nowadays, nobody would finance / produce a film for a 1 mil. USD that would make 2 mil. USD. Everyone wants to produce movies that cost at least 100 mil. USD and make a least 200 mil. (or something)

[zoom]

So there are 2 types of games.. one with big budgets -hollywood games- and the ones where independent little game studios do "cheap" stuff(probably comparable to 20 years back games-(and then again not..)
if the cheap games are some good they get bought out by the big budget companies ...

[sucinum]

You can still get a lot of indy games at COG, MobyGames or Steam, it's not like the whole market is eaten up and dominated by large companies.