Enough time to play?
Members - Reputation: 1326
Posted 19 January 2006 - 11:00 AM
Original post by Muji_
If you're over 20 and used to play a lot more games than you do now
Yep I fit those criteria, but it isn't because my interest in games has declined, it has merely shifted to the making them side over the playing them [smile]
I still play a lot of games though in saying that, but not nearly as much as my pre-programming days.
Crossbones+ - Reputation: 1370
Posted 19 January 2006 - 11:05 AM
By the way, you probably aren't going to get a true depiction of the general game playing public by asking that question on a GameDev forum. I'd wager that the general interest in games here amongst over 20s is slight more fanatical that you'd find in general [smile].
Members - Reputation: 298
Posted 19 January 2006 - 11:05 AM
When I have time to play, it's usually for pretty short periods. I tend to not even bother most of the time because a big chunk of my time is spent waiting through company logos and cutscenes I can't skip. Then I get 10-20 minutes to play, and all my progress is lost because I don't reach a save point in time.
It also drives me nuts when games try to make me do chores. I hate it when my ten minutes of gaming is spent finding a bear skin for a guy and bringing it back to him, only to have him ask me to bring whatever he made out of the bear skin to someone who's a 10 minute walk away (I'm looking at you Guild Wars).
So I guess to answer your question, no I don't play games as much anymore, and yes it is because of time.
Members - Reputation: 518
Posted 19 January 2006 - 11:21 AM
Thus, I mostly play games like Tony Hawk and Tiger Woods, where it doesn't matter if I finish much/any of it. This is primarily why I like old Amiga 500 games, you can finish the whole game in 20-30 minutes usually.
I really look forward to getting some time to play some of the games that I've bought and not yet played, like Zelda WindWaker, Eternal Darkness and Knights of the old republic.
Moderators - Reputation: 5701
Posted 19 January 2006 - 11:23 AM
Members - Reputation: 744
Posted 19 January 2006 - 11:53 AM
Overall, I'd say most video games just aren't worth the time to play them.
They waste my time with company logos and other things I don't care about when I turn them on. Yes, I know who you are... if I wanted to pay money to look at your logo I'd... well... I wouldn't...
They waste my time with unskippable cutscenes when I just want to play. Don't get me wrong, I love stories. I still play Final Fantasy games because I enjoy the stories. But sometimes I just want to "fast forward" or play the game side of things. Please, just let me play...
They waste my time with small margins for error. It's not fun to miss the same jump ten times in a row, especially if the game isn't about jumping. If the game isn't fun, why am I playing?
They waste my time with uninteresting puzzles. They're either too hard (I'm relatively burnout on difficult puzzles from class) or too easy, and almost always time consuming. Not that the puzzle itself takes a long time, but running all over the world collecting whatever I need to deliver, telling various characters various key words... if I figure out the puzzle in ten minutes, it shouldn't take me another half hour to carry out the solution.
If they're just going to waste what little time I can give them, I'll spend it with something else.
Like one of the other hobbies I've picked up. Music and photography also take up what free time I have. When I have to decide whether to play a game or play my guitar, most games just don't measure up. And not just time, but money. I'm already on a limited budget (I'm trying to live off my stipend to avoid more student loans), which has to pay for rent and food and car repairs (just spent $500 to repair my 15 year old car). If I find $200 in the budget, it'll go toward a bass guitar before it goes to a game console. Why? Because in five years that console will be obsolete and most of its games forgotten, but I'll still be playing that bass.
Crossbones+ - Reputation: 3754
Posted 19 January 2006 - 12:10 PM
Original post by Muji_
If you're over 20 and used to play a lot more games than you do now, why is that? Is it simply because you can't find enough time in your life, or more because your interest in games has declined?
Thankyou for your input
I have far more time to play games now than I ever did. There's actually quite a number of changes that have caused me to play less.
1. Immaturity - Even when I was young and immature, I still understood basic sportsmanship and how to type. Playing multiplayer games is far less fun when your playing partners lack simple communication skills and/or the concept of fair play. This is the biggest impact, since multiplayer games offer the most replay value, and thus the greatest gametime change.
2. The Rise of Consoles - Generally, I like PC games more than console games. I can only play so much with console controllers before my hands begin to ache. PC games tend to be more strategic and less action which I generally prefer. While it's understandable that the industry prefers consoles, it will unfortunately lead to me playing less.
3. Mad Skills - After 20 years of video game playing, I'm pretty damned good. A game that might've been challenging, requiring load after re-load to beat a good part or for a dumb mistake now is beaten easily. Less time for the same game.
Members - Reputation: 1268
Posted 19 January 2006 - 12:13 PM
Original post by Trapper Zoid
For me, it's mostly about not having enough time. After you take into account the hours of work or study, dealing with life's chores, and attempting to have a little bit of a life outside the glare of computer monitors, there's not that much time left for hobbies. Combine with that an additional hobby of wanting to make your own games, and that whittles down the time even more.
I am the same. I remember when I was still in high school I vowed to keep playing games as much as I had my entire life. Being a computer engineering major can quickly destroy goals like that (in other words, its ROUGH). I'm 23 now and by the time I turned 20 or so (junior year at undergrad university), I had pretty much ceased playing games. I had hardly played any at all, but I bought a GameCube and 4 games last summer (for only $120 I might add [grin]), played but only played them just a little bit. I've actually picked up gaming again and bought several games over the holidays (FFX-2, Xenosaga 2, Mario Kart: Double Dash) and had some fun playing them on my only vacation of the year. But I can't just find the same interest in them that I used to.
Nowadays, if I play a new game and I'm not having fun within the first 30 minutes or so, I usually put it away. (Happened with Xenosaga II, currently my most boring RPG ever...). I don't like to play games if they are boring or frusterating, because I get enough of those feelings from real life now. [wink] But one of the great things about being out of the gaming loop is that when I finally get around to buying the games I've wanted to get for months, they are in the $15 or $20 bin (new), instead of being $50 or $60. Sure saves a lot of cash to be behind on the gaming front. [lol]
A free, open-source 2D RPG in development.
Latest release Oct. 10th, 2010.
Members - Reputation: 1294
Posted 19 January 2006 - 12:50 PM
I've also been playing more short burst games - things like mame, shareware/indie shooters (Space Tripper etc.) and GBA/DS/PSP games are all much more direct and 'quick fix' than other games.
Moderators - Reputation: 1825
Posted 19 January 2006 - 06:48 PM
The problem with aging is that you tend to accumulate-- even if by accident-- more and more knowledge about lots of different things. But when the media you've grown up with doesn't grow up with you, it can be a real drag. Most games aren't about much of anything, and certainly aren't (as Ernest Adams once said) about something larger than themselves. By comparison, though, books, movies, and music can be.
I find myself playing less because, at the moment the industry is, by and large, locked in a cycle of producing games that are about fighting, simulation or puzzles. This might just be a phase of an nascent media, but my fear is that this formula will leave those who make and fund games believing that "that's all there is" to what games could be.
Members - Reputation: 524
Posted 19 January 2006 - 07:01 PM
Members - Reputation: 744
Posted 19 January 2006 - 07:56 PM
Original post by Wavinator
The problem with aging is that you tend to accumulate-- even if by accident-- more and more knowledge about lots of different things. But when the media you've grown up with doesn't grow up with you, it can be a real drag.
Part of the reason they don't grow up is that they have such a short lifespan. The technologies available have objectively improved in many ways. What passed for "realistic" a couple years ago is now a poor imitation. What was good AI a couple years ago is now simple minded. I've tried playing some of my favorite NES games, and I get the feeling they'd be fun if only the controls could be revamped. Lon Chaney and Charlie Chaplin may have been great, but over all advances in story-telling, cinematography, and sound have made their movies difficult to watch. I can see why they were considered great, but even a half-way decent romantic comedy beats them in many ways. I've been meaning to read the Count of Monte Cristo, but I've had many warnings from people I would've expected to like it that it's really not all it's hyped up to be.
Another problem: Try finding a working NES to play cartridges on, now try to find a working cartridge. Or, more revealingly, try to get King's Quest VI (my favorite and still worth playing, in my opinion) to run on a modern computer. Advances in technology can make video games literally unplayable. It takes much longer for a movie or book to die in this manner (and movies are much more easily translated to new media and books much more easily translated into modern dialects).
Most games aren't about much of anything, and certainly aren't (as Ernest Adams once said) about something larger than themselves. By comparison, though, books, movies, and music can be.
I've thought about this, so I'm honestly curious when I ask: What can video games be about?
I haven't been able to come up with much, but some games are truly great. I feel Tetris holds a place among classic (not necessarily video) games like chess, checkers, go, and reversi. Deus Ex may be another example (the way it got people to use non-lethal weapons without in game penalties is truly amazing) of a true classic able to hold its own against more "respectable" media. These I would say are larger than themselves.
More on topic, Wavinator's comments remind me of what C.S. Lewis said of books: Excepting text books and other instructional materials, if it's not worth reading when you're grown up, it's not worth reading as a child. Some of the games I liked when I was younger I liked in the same way people back in the day enjoyed movies of things simply moving. Some of the games I liked when I was younger I liked in the same way that I can enjoy romantic comedies (or, really, any sort of film) so long as I don't watch too many and stick to the better ones (wow... how many hours did I waste on crappy side scrollers?). Very few are worth playing now (more would be worth playing with some slight tweaks). I wouldn't mind playing Gorf again, but I don't think there was much loss when we got rid of our Vic20 (and you thought the Commodore 64 was old school).
Members - Reputation: 122
Posted 19 January 2006 - 10:20 PM
Which ends up with me playing most of them for less than 3 hours on average apiece. At least it's enough to get the gist of the gameplay and novelty (which is my main motivation for buying them).
Members - Reputation: 158
Posted 20 January 2006 - 01:59 AM
I bought my first gaming system on credit from Montgomert Wards. It had a Donkey Kong (version 1 !!) arcade style game, a Pac Man kind of thing that went woof-woof and an airplane you manuevered through obstacles to face a giant robot at the end. It was used regularly for about 6 months then became a dust catcher under the TV before I finally packed it away. The 640 Kb computer brought a whole new capability and market for games. I remember frying my eyes and x-raying my sinuses raw playing games like; Earthrise, Ys, SimCity, Prince of Persia, Railroad Tycoon etc. But it did seem that as time went on buggy products became acceptable (which just totally turned me off as a gamer) and less imagination, humor etc was making it through to the shelves in place of the chop/hack/shoot/explode genre. If I wanted to pay large amounts of money to be bored mindless then I'ld get a premium cable package. While my son was happily occupied with Mario Brothers, Snowboardinng, Car Races and Duck Hunt, I still enjoyed the challenges and graphics of SimCity and tried its spin-off, The Sims. The first "tutorial" with the Hatfield family had me laughing myself silly, it was really too bad the whole game wasn't as inventive. Then I was drawn into the creative side of the game, there were many 3rd party objects, character meshes and skins that put the official stuff to shame! It was great entertainment just to flit from site to site and see all that was available. Then there were all the official and 3rd party programming tools for making your own characters, objects, animations and even behavioral changes. It was the first time I ever learned a computer language "by intuition". But I was hooked on "creating" for my game enjoyment as well as thousands of others world-wide. It really did inject a lot of imagination and talent into the game and kept it wildly popular for years. That urge to create lead from wanting to make a game mine to wanting to make my own games. Anyway, where you are along the life-cycle (as well as gender, economic status, educational level etc) appears to not only influence the number of games you play but also the type of games you enjoy.
Members - Reputation: 242
Posted 20 January 2006 - 08:04 AM
I'm 27 and the reasons I don't play as much as before are:
-I can't find enough time so I gotta pick carefully. That leaves overly complex games out, as much as I love them :(
-Meteorically rising prices means picking even more carefully
-Mature games are actually juvenile games with blood and/or poop jokes. (conker was.. stupid.)
-Most storylines are laughable token fantasy or token action stories. (insert RPG or FPS name here)
-Most characters, even on mature games, are flat and cartoony (not graphically). Syberia nailed this with the lead, but not with the rest of the cast.
-As mentioned before, mandatory logo-staring. It's in the box damnit! don't make me look at the box!
-samey gameplay on most new titles (hooray katamari!)
-As mentioned before... why are gamers tolerating buggy software? I mean memory-leaking topcrash buggy kind of software! EW!
-Not enough party games to play with friends. I don't own a Gamecube though.. Maybe I should. I'm considering Revolution for that, if they get it right it could be the ultimate party game. Currently I'm using my PC with a MOMO Force Feedback wheel and some racing games. Worms worked in the past too.
So things to aim at with future games:
-Playable in both short bursts and long runs.
-Cheapen each individual title. There are ways to do this, and I intend to explore them :)
-A good storyline. Not too deep, not too shallow, not too stupid.
-Story and dialogs adjusted to targer audience. This should be a no-brainer. I'm 27, I haven't laughed at poop jokes in over 10 years.
-Characters designed beyond looks, at least protagonist AND antagonist.
-Risk some original gameplay, even if it has to be tucked inside mini-games.
-topcrash and leak free, completable with incorruptible saves out of the box.
-party games! splitscreen, turn based, brawler style, whichever works!
Moderators - Reputation: 6978
Posted 20 January 2006 - 08:20 AM
I agree with everyone else: I can't play anything that's only half-OK, because there's just not enough time. If something sucks in the first two hours, it goes on the shelf. Even if something is good, but takes too long (like Jade Empire), it won't get finished.
At least one of the kids is big enough to want to play with me, so it's not an either-or on the family-vs-games spectrum!
Staff Emeritus - Reputation: 1693
Posted 22 January 2006 - 09:13 AM
Original post by hplus0603
Even if something is good, but takes too long (like Jade Empire), it won't get finished.
I'm starting to hate that game.
My interest in games has declined. In fact, my interest in games is nearly dead, plus I have less time to devote to an increasingly moribund activity (games are just more technically sophisticated today, not any more ethically complex or intellectually engaging; in fact, one could argue that they have regressed in those two areas).