Remember those graphs I posted earlier? I made a whole illustration and video blog around them:



Here's the final illustration:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6012/...07595cdf_z.jpg

Actually, 'creating' games aren't that rare. Think of stuff like minecraft. And by the way, developers had always wanted to create stuff like we have today, they just lacked the necessary technologies, that's why there were no sports games (which isn't true, just take a look at our sports section). But I see your point though, we barely have any games which demand thinking - like old RPGs. Today's RPGs need no thinking either. Good luck with your project.

Yeah, since 2007 when I was initially thinking about this, things have moved for the better. I do mention Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress in the video itself. But in 2007 it looked quite grim to me (no AppStore, no GOG, hardly the diversity you can find today on Steam). The last Tycoon game I played at the time was The Movies (an amazing game thankfully) and there was not even a (good) SimCity game to look forward to. Spore was the only AAA creative title I played since then, all the rest (Mincraft, DF) came from indie developers. It's a start, but apart from iOS Tycoon games, which are probably on the same cloning/theme-changing selfdestruction path of late PC Tycoons, still there's not as diverse offering as in the 90s:

• building a Rube Goldberg machine (The Incredible Machine series)
• racing on tracks created by yourself (Stunts)
• building a vast transport system (Transport Tycoon)
• building a city (SimCity series)
• running a car factory (Detroit)
• building roman cities (Caesar series)
• building real estate with competing firms (Constructors)
• becoming an ant! (SimAnt)
• building a skyscraper (SimTower)
• building railroads (Railroad Tycoon)
• building a pizza restaurant and designing pizzas (Pizza Tycoon)
• running a business (Free Enterprise)
• settling on new land (Settlers series)

And your argument about technology just makes me wonder - if all these games could be made back then - imagine what developers with a bit of ingenuity and love for innovation & creativity could come up with today.

Something like Phun?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H5g9VS0ENM

Maybe, but "Phun" is not really a game but a simulator. That's not really the same thing because if I were to play with "Phun" it would feel more like work or a chore to me than having fun. Which is the normal reason to play games.

I agree that some games like Minecraft and Dwarf Fortress are really going in the right direction... But those games are indies and are not going to get anywhere before years because normal publishers simply either don't want to go in that direction or don't want to take the risk to try to go in that direction. And even then, I know nuts about Minecraft... But Dwarf Fortress is turning out to be yet another huge game in which you absolutely have to run the latest fresh out of the factory monster computer to be able to run it well...

I really love your video and your little graphic. This stuff has to be published to the general public more I think. I'll start by ninja-ing them for myself and place them on display on my Facebook account. ^_^

One thing I've noticed, that graphic specialists and complex game engines exclude each other, for example: In human history there is no Goethe who is a great poet who could run a marathon in less than 3 hours. So, neither there is an Usain Bolt who is world record holder for 100m sprint who could write a deep philosophical essay on antropology?

They somehow need to combine graphic companies like CryTech together with game experts like Wizards of the Coast. The later ones program their own game with nothing more but a Text-Interface, which is then sent to CryTech for pepping it up big-style.

And one company shall not know what the other does, to prevent feedback loops. Those could happen for example, if WotC saw what Crytech is doing with their "text-based Rpg", then they see: "oh that fireball looks cool" and then they could easily derail. They would start programming nonsense into their game concept just to see even more fireballs happen! So they must both program each their thing. Crytech must not know what WotC will come up with next, and vice versa.
And voila: the sheer thought of a game like Baldur's Gate 1 with CryEngine3 makes me *drool*

me? i tend to have some fun with newer games but treasure the memories of all the old games i did and still do enjoy. though gaming as a whole has got worse.

Well, I had this idea because of Wolfenstein - Enemy Territory. You know, ID-Software developed this game. It would have become yet another bland shooter, a bit capture the flag, nothing special maybe worth a few weeks of fun.

But then what happened was amazing, they gave this shooter to SplashDamage, a newly formed developer team with lots of creativity, and said: "Here you are. Make something interesting out of the multiplayer!"

I'm saying, that the brain of a game developer works differently than those of a creative person. And because in our good old days a programmer could start writing programs with just a few weeks of learning. But ever since then, the creativity of developers was destroyed by 10.000 DirectX and Windows Kernel function calls. And as long a programming languages get more complex, the new games coming out will be getting worse and worse! It's time to split up the developers into "graphic" and "game mechanics" specialists.

It's tautological to say that the industry serves the customers what they (most) demand. With time the industry's gotten very good at telling what will sell, nowadays it's dominated by hugely profitable companies, whereas the companies from the Golden Era went bankrupt (arguably the best game maker, Microprose, was nearly bankrupt all the time until it disappeared).

Technology played a role in this. During the last decade graphics have improved, but stayed more or less the same. The polygons have more vertices and the lighting is better or something, but The Elder Scrolls III and V (9 years apart) have the same graphics, basically.

Back in the time computers were really capable of qualitatively new things every year, and everyone was wondering "what the future of digital entertainment will be like". If you were not too little during the late 80s and early 90s, you will remember everyone on the TV saying that in a few years all man-machine interfaces would be in "virtual reality". Even the possibility to make big 3D games was great when it appeared, TES Arena and Daggerfall, Wolfenstein 3D and Doom, and Tomb Raider were really innovative. Back in the Golden Era of video games, makers were in disarray, and they simply tried everything, with little idea if the consumers would like it, or if they were going to lose money. Nowadays they know in advance how much money will they make.

It's not that the technology is very advanced, that's always relative. It's that it's relatively stationary. The situation is more or less the same with portable devices or with the Wii.

"Indie" developers can try new things, most times they want to make games they like themselves, not to sell. Although many indie games are completely unoriginal too. But indie developers won't replace the industry, at most the ones who are successfully can become part of it. But that doesn't change everything said above. For now the outlook is stationary.

http://memebase.com/2011/05/26/memes...getting-worse/

It's because old games are better and hold a special place in our heart and yeah, graphics have taken over and the games now-a-days suck. And people are too drunk on graphics to realize it. That and multiplayer that gets old fast.