Five Reasons There’s Never Been A Golden Age of Gaming

Written by MarkyX | May 6, 2009

If there is one thing I’ll never get tired of in this vast world of so-called “Gaming Culture,” it’s the overwhelming amount of idiocy. I don’t know why, but I’m always entertained at reading ignorant opinions, especially if they come from someone who hasn’t hit puberty yet. So, as you can probably tell, I’m a lurker at GameFAQ, GameTrailers, MLG, Blizzard, and Bungie forums, among others.

With that being said, sometimes I read things that personally strike a nerve. I’m not talking about the basic stupid topics like, “‘Halo’ is the best FPS EVAR,” or how sitting on your ass and mashing buttons should be considered a respectable “sport.” Those things would be way too easy for me to rant about.

Today, our little topic will be the mythical creature called “The Golden Age of Video Games,” or more commonly known as, “The 90s.” Lately many gamers across thousands of forums have been bitching about the reality show called “WCG Ultimate Gamer.” They hate the people on it. They hate the games being played. And they hate how gaming has become less of a social taboo. Of course, they also bring up the topic of the “good ol’ days.”

I haven’t watched the show, so I have no idea if it’s bad or not. I only have two reasons to turn on the TV, outside of playing video games; House and Gordon Ramsey. However, when I read someone arguing about how great video games were in the 1990s or 1980s, I have to wear my goggles and a rubber suit because there is so much bullshit being spewed.

The sad reality of it is, we are so much better off now than we were 15 or 20 years ago. Games have improved greatly, and it isn’t costing us a fortune just to get a mere afternoon’s worth of entertainment. I’m going to shatter the myths of the “Golden Age of Gaming” because I’m rather of sick of cleaning bullshit up in my room.

Games were difficult back then.

No they weren’t.

A game with legitimate difficulty would be one that requires reflexes, timing, and full understanding of the game’s mechanics. Most games of both the 8-bit and 16-bit eras did not promote any of these things. Instead, what most of these games boiled down to is mere level memorization. After dying so many times through silly trial and error, you’ll eventually be able to go through the game like water because the game offers nothing else. Games were done this way because they didn’t last for hours, sometimes they didn’t even make it to the hour mark. This was simply a way to artificially increase the “length” of the game.

If you’re looking for some examples of this type of game design, just take a look at almost anything published by Capcom or Konami in those eras.

cv2wasteland Memorization wasn’t the only challenging component; a lot of games were difficult due to poor game design. In some games, you might find yourself stuck in a certain area, and not have any clue how to get passed it, forcing you to buy a player’s guide or the latest issue of Nintendo Power. A perfect game to demonstrate this idiotic format was “Castlevania 2: Simon’s Quest,” or anything by Sierra.

When you compare this to today’s games, it’s much different. Most modern games labeled “difficult” by the gaming community often have a great game design behind them. On the other hand, retro games considered difficult is simply an exercise of monotonous trial and error and memorization. Beating a retro game only told the world that you died a lot.

Today’s games are too short.

Whenever I hear this phrase, I can automatically tell that whomever shouted these words wasn’t playing games in the 90s, since they weren’t born yet.

MadWorld Today’s games are much longer than ever before. A “short” game by today’s standards would be considered an extremely long game in 8-bit and 16-bit eras. Not only that, but games were actually more expensive due to the now antiquated cartridge format. So, not only were you paying more for a Super Nintendo or Sega Genesis game, but you also received less.

And before someone says it, yes, some games were long, such as “Zelda” or “Metroid,” but that doesn’t go for the majority of games. The most common games barely gave you a weekend’s worth of entertainment, and had little to no replayability.

If you need examples of this, type in any game with the words “speed run” in YouTube and you’d be shocked at how short these games are. “Contra” for the NES? Not even 15 minutes. My “Rad Racer” attempt in Retro Play Theater? An hour, even after so many retries. “Street of Rage 2”? 45 minutes.

Imagine buying a game for $80, and only getting an hour’s worth of play time. Suddenly “Madworld”’s five hours for $50 doesn’t seem so bad now, does it?

> Continue Reading Five Reasons There’s Never Been A Golden Age of Gaming

Pages: 1 2

Filed Under Featured Articles, Gaming Culture, New
Tagged: 16-Bit, 8-Bit, Castlevania, classic, Golden Age, nintendo, Nintendo Entertainment System, Retro, Sega, Sega Genesis, Super Nintendo

November 23, 2009 -- Mario And Sonic At The Winter Olympic Games Review: Going For Gold
July 29, 2009 -- Shadowgate Retro Review: Welcome to Your (Many Forms Of) Doom!
July 15, 2009 -- Arkanoid Live Review: They Don’t Make ‘Em Like This Anymore
July 3, 2009 -- Kirby’s Dream Land 2 Retro Review: Gray Puffballs and Furry Friends
May 21, 2009 -- Uniracers Retro Review: One Tire To Rule Them All

« Previous Post | Next Post »

Comments

38 Responses to “Five Reasons There’s Never Been A Golden Age of Gaming”

Zondac on May 6th, 2009 12:47 pm

Zelda: OoT got released in the 90s, Super Mario 64 got released in the 90s, and there were MANY more awesome games in the 90s. When I think about the 90s games, i think about quality from the n64, but in 2011-2020, what games will we think of from these years? Think about it, what memorable games have you played thats NOT Weeaboo game (Anime-based). I can only think about 1 game, and guess what? It’s a Zelda game! TP. Also, Zelda: OoT took me about 2 months to complete, while it took 2 days to beat TP. Super Mario 64, well… I still haven’t won that one (I have defeated bowser, but i’m far from all the stars).

So yeah, games were better in the 90s

Reply
Sinclair1k Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
The golden age is from the 80s, not the 90s

Reply
Cliffracer Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 10:53 am
@Zondac,
You do know that Mario and Zelda are pretty much anime based games, right?

Reply
R3dfall Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
@Cliffracer
AHAHAHAHAHA

No.

Reply
Cliffracer Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
@R3dfall,
Actually, yes.
Both games are using Animu/Weeaboo art style and both are made in glorious nippon. So yes, they are animu based.

Reply
Lol Reply:
November 6th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
@Zondac, go back and play Ocarina of Time, you will realize how ridiculously easy it is. It took me hours to sneak into the castle as a kid, and playing it now it only takes 2 minutes.

Reply
no on May 6th, 2009 12:55 pm

are you fucking serious?

Reply
BD on May 6th, 2009 1:04 pm

Prince of Persia, the latest one.

They took the franchise that required quick thinking and skill, but more than that, a game that incorporated functions such as “The Sands of Time” which beyond their capacity to slow or freeze time, the function served to belittle the numerous foes you had to fight, making it an endeavor into seamless choreography provided you were gifted enough, in order to shape the levels to be the true enemy for the player (evidenced by the final stage of Sands of Time, removing The Sands of Time from your posession) – they took that franchise (which admittedly was getting shit with its shit sequel, but better third iteration, but that’s a different point), and they transformed it so that it would appeal to the person that plays games for two hours a week and calls it a toy.

Quite honestly, I think my fear is justified. I believe Mirror’s Edge, a game today ragged on by the entire press due to their inadequacy to cope with it and realize the true potential of the game through advanced response, will be the last game made that required a specific level of skill in tackling this so called “toy” – making it challenging. Sure, the story was awful, but the game bit, the gameplay was perfect if you are skilled enough to take it on, becoming better with each playthrough BUT having nothing to do with memorization of the levels (it gets more evident where you are in relation from A to B, but you still have to get there by your own devices).

The fear is therefore, not unfounded. In the chase for money, the developers suddenly stop catering to my wants and needs, which is to successfully climb a mountain, and start catering to the wants and needs of the person who wants the toy to be entertaining for his two hours a week in which he doesn’t have to provide any input to feel gratified. That’s why Prince of Persia plays like a string of Quick Time events that you have the luxury of timing yourself.

Reply
anon on May 6th, 2009 1:15 pm

You sir are indeed the biggest faggot in the world.

You obviously know nothing of gaming nor you care for it so why are you even playing them?

Seriously you bring shame on yourself and the gaming community as a whole by posting your shit comment.

You fail at life so please do the world a favor find the time to kill yourself.

Reply
Kei-chan on May 6th, 2009 1:16 pm

Well-written, and extremely accurate. I think you’ve pretty much hit the nail on the head here :3

Reply
anon on May 6th, 2009 1:25 pm

While I agree somewhat…

>They don’t like games that take 40 hours to beat, or games with complicated control schemes. Do I have a problem with this? Of course not, why should I?

You should have a problem with this; this casual audience who doesn’t want complicated games is the most highly profitable group to market to and create games for. More casual gamers = more casual games which we ‘HARDCORE ORIGINAL GAMERXXXxxxX” chaps don’t particularly enjoy. It’s an us vs them mentality because they don’t like the same shit we like but they are gonna spend more money and have more games developed for them.

Reply
MarkyX Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
As I stated in the article, the reason for this is because the “hardcore” gamers refuse to support the industry yet whine most about the “faults”

Simply put, the reason why developers are turning more “casual” because it sells unlike so-called hardcore games. Games since the beginning were designed to sell because they are a business, nothing more.

Reply
BJacq on May 6th, 2009 1:26 pm

This is probably the truest article ever delivered through a journalistic medium.

Reply
anonymous on May 6th, 2009 1:50 pm

GAMES JOURNALISM

Reply
GoNintendo » Blog Archive » Five Reasons There’s Never Been A Golden Age of Gaming- What are you waiting for? on May 6th, 2009 2:09 pm

[...] Article here [...]
Steve Sanders on May 6th, 2009 2:12 pm

This is an amazing article and I completely agree with everything.

The “hardcore gamers” are all faggots that need to shut the hell up.

Reply
NOUFAGGOT on May 6th, 2009 2:33 pm

OP is a fag.

Reply
Sebor on May 6th, 2009 2:39 pm

Not to come right out and say “U R MR GAY KTHNXBAI,” however I do disagree a good bit with a couple of your points.

I do believe there’s reason for there to be fear that casual games are going to take over the market. Gaming is becoming more trendy, I mean just look at Nintendo’s Wii console. Personally I find it great that more people are getting into gaming, however I think it’s coming at a bit of a cost for non-casual gamers. Games like Wii-Fit and Wii-Sports are at the forefront of the system, I mean hell, Wii-Fit was the topic of discussion on that awful talk-show “The View.” Did you watch/read last year’s E3, where Nintendo showed off a whole bunch of nothing, and let their hardcore audience down. All they had to show for was a whole bunch of casual garbage. Just taking a look at my local game store’s shelves and seeing all the shovel-ware both the DS and the Wii is enough to convince me that they’re Nintendo is aggressively targeting the casual audience. How about, Reggie Fils-Aime’s cop out on bringing Fatal Frame 4 stateside.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying both the DS and the Wii are just out there for casual gamers with a bunch of garbage shovel-ware, however I am saying that a bunch of this garbage shovel-ware exists, and Nintendo’s promotion of the whole bit is evidence enough that they’re starting to lean more towards marketing to the casual gamer.

Personally I like my games with a lot of depth and complexity. I like a game with a strong narrative/story, and I also enjoy games that are just plain old fun, like Peggle (glamorous f’ing Peggle). I’d say between those attributes and gameplay, those are the two defining factors for me what makes a game worthwhile. I always roll my eyes at the mention of “Gwaphics” because, although eye-candy is nice, it’s not quite essential for me in enjoying the experience. Recently I had a chance to sit down with an old Atari 2600 game by the name of “Adventure” and absolutely loved it. If you want to talk graphics the main character is a square, nothing else, just a square, and you slay very poorly rendered dragons that look more like ducks.

I’m kind of on the fence on whether or not I should agree on the basis that there never existed a “Golden Age” for video games. I personally see it as a “Golden Age” (makes me think of Golden Axe), however I’m probably merely bias as a result of growing up with the games and them being a part of my childhood. I still enjoy sitting down with a lot of the older titles, and I still love everything about them, especially the music (Megaman X,and Sonic the Hedgehog 2 top of the list there). However, I agree that content-wise a lot of these games are lacking compared to today’s standards, yet so many franchises were born out the era and so many titles that I feel still hold their own against some of today’s top titles such as the various Lucas-Arts gems.

Anyway, I see the video game industry as being a very strange entity. In one sense these companies like Capcom and such put out these titles and games that we tend to form a bond with, be it out of nostalgia, or whatever, and then tend to make these same bonds with the companies and almost tacitly agree that they’re our friends or whatever. I think this is where a lot of the sense of entitlement comes from in fanboys. The industry is an odd entity because the consumer fails to see these companies in their true light, that is these companies exist to make money. Once again, this is where the fear that the market is going to be turned into rampant casual-ism is well founded.

Also, video games are just mere toys = / ? At best I would describe them as a unique experience somewhere between a movie and book, with a level of interactivity that is unfounded in either medium. Yep, that makes me feel like I haven’t wasted hundreds of hours of my life.

Peace,

The Sebor

Reply
JM Walker on May 6th, 2009 2:49 pm

I agree whole heartedly with your statements. I’ve met with the “posers” you mentioned in your article, they would rave about how they’d buy SMB, Pokemon red, and other old games over their more modern revivals simply because of phony nostalgia. Kids born in 1992 pining over Mario 3 and Sonic 2? That’s bullshit. “Hardcore gamers” go above and beyond in their idiocy.

Miyamoto is right, companies shouldn’t waste their time or energy trying to cater to their portion of the market.

Reply
The sound of logic on May 6th, 2009 3:10 pm

Muramasa, a “real” game for the Wii, just lost it’s publisher for a western localized version because “real” games like Mad World(66k copies sold) and GTA:Chinatown(less than 90k copies sold) just cemented the fact that games that don’t have words such as “party” and “minigame collection” in the title and are actually targetted for people who love “real” video games DO NOT SELL.
A fucking GRAND THEFT AUTO GAME doesn’t sell anymore. GRAND THEFT AUTO.

Wii fit has soon sold more copies than Sony has sold PS3’s. Ubisoft’s casual non-game series for the DS such as “Imagine Babiez” etc are among their most profitable IP’s ever.

Nintendo are swimming in money and are completely dominating the market, all thanks to a strong focus on “games” that are not targetted toward people who actually play “real” games.

What does that tell you about the future? Why would any video game company spend money on making non-casual games for the Wii or the DS? It’s financial suicide. And soon enough, no company will want to make “real” video games period because there’s way more money in non-games, party-games and mini game collections.

We used to think that these “casual” players would soon enough demand more out of their games and start playing “real” games but with the recent flops of games like Mad World and GTA:Chinatown Wars, we know that it isn’t true. They’re gonna keep playing their Wii Fit’s. Wii Sport’s and Wii Music.

Reply
Unit Reply:
May 6th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Muramasa Demon Blade is coming to the U.S.

“Ignition Entertainment is immensely proud for the opportunity to bring Muramasa: The Demon Blade to the legions of North American gamers yearning for top-quality, original action games on Wii,” said Ignition Entertainment’s
Shane Bettenhausen in the official announcement.”

source: http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2009/04/muramasa-the-de/

Reply
The N3 Newswire for May 6 | MonsterVine.com on May 6th, 2009 4:07 pm

[...] coming to a phone near you –Coming to E3 from capcom –Why there hasn’t been a true gaming golden age yet (SB’s pick!) –EA vs. the [...]
Pepe on May 7th, 2009 12:28 am

Yeah, pretty good : D

I do agree a lot with you, eventhough I do despise a little todays games. Especially since I’ve never been able to stand FPS’s : P .

But the main reason why I don’t like new games too much it’s because I would like to see the Developers use all that new potential in new gameplays… instead of pretty graphics.

But yeah, I love Guitar Hero and I love what the Wii is making with the market.

Just a last word: I must say that OoT has one of the best cameras in a 3D game ever. The only game that beats it, is Wind Waker. I didn’t like the camera of TP and… sadly, I didn’t like TP that much either (but I adore WW).

Reply
Guy on May 7th, 2009 6:52 am

Wow!

I can’t express how surprised I am to actually find an interesting and well written article via N4G. This was a great read, and I couldn’t agree with you more.

Except for one point maybe: After almost 30 years of gaming, I do think that games had a golden age, only I think it was 2006-2008. Check almost every genre and you will see that the best games came out in the last two or three years. (In 2018 I might change my mind, because I believe gaming is constantly evolving and we’re getting better and better games each year).

Reply
IronROB on May 7th, 2009 10:43 am

To be honest,IMO I believe there is no such thing as “one true golden age of gaming” or any other kind of ” one golden age” for that matter.

I believe that for most grown-up or adult gamers the “golden age” for them is the game(s) they started playing in the 80’s or the 90’s.
Its like that in many “golden ages”(movies,books,music and more), so in the far future, like maybe 2034, many of us will maybe consider this current era of gaming a “golden age”.

Reply
kurokotetsu on May 7th, 2009 12:39 pm

The first thing i love is the people bashing the article in a foolish manner, that seem to be unable to respond correctly to this piece.

I don’t know if there has been a “Golden Age of Gaming” but I have some complaints. There were a los games in the 8-16-bit era that although they required memorization, but even after taht they are pretty hard to beat. The Lost Levels is an example. And if we complain about the length of todays game it is because they could be longer, while the “good ol’ games” a lot of tiems couldn’t as they had more limitations.

Also I’m one of the OoT over Tp, but it is because OoT is far more innovative. Part of what makes that Zelda great (my favorite game indeed) is that it was a huge step, it was totally different to what we had seen before, while as you said TP is an improvemente. Originality is a factor that affects games a lot. That is why I also prefer Viewtiful Joe over the sequel, because it was more innovative and original. Yet I by far don’t dispise the refinement of the formula (Mario Galaxy, TP, etc.) as some gamers do, position I don’t understand.

Also I completlye agree that the cry of outrage about “casual” gaming is mostly just hot air. It really bores me to death.

Reply
me on May 8th, 2009 9:15 pm

Has nothing to do with being hardcore. This is the most ‘opinionated’ article I’ve ever tried to read. It makes no legitmate points. Only pretensious remarks about titles that were haphazardly chosen with total abandon of other titles that DO meet all the qualities of what would be considered a golden age of gaming. There are also games of this era that represent these qualities. I can agree with the general statement about a ‘golden age’ and highly agree the wrong point are made but there are no right ones here either. You seriously cannot take a few game names and throw them out there like these are ‘poster names’ for gaming in an entire era.

Also did you grow up with a NES? You played Zelda 800 times because its all you had. You didnt have money to go buy new games. You played what you had over and over and loved it. Maybe now with your Halo-machine and PSN Network or even I dunno… Internet where emulation is free and rampant you can come up with some logical argument about now v/s then in terms of quality, but you are hardly justfying then v/s now. Things were basic because they were freaking basic. Now you just cant compare things to games with multiplayer capability and wireless networking etc… wish people would actually just consider that for once with these dumb internet arguments that have zero point.

Reply
Anonymoose on May 14th, 2009 1:31 pm

1/10
also, sage

Reply
Watts on May 17th, 2009 2:19 pm

Interesting observations. I’m a “casual gamer” who’s been a casual gamer since, well, before you (the article writer) had been born: there’s more of us folks who enjoy games occasionally but don’t get into it maniacally than I think the “hardcore gamers” grok. The games I got into the most (and this will certainly date me) were Infocom-style text adventures (like “Trinity” and “Enchanter”), and a few of their later spiritual descendants from LucasArts (”Grim Fandango,” “Curse of Monkey Island,” et. al.), but just between you, me and anyone else reading this, I sucked at adventure games anyway.

That does bring up one mild counterpoint, though: it has to do with the creativity of games. I know it’s standard game-talk to think of “side scroller,” first-person shooter” and “text adventure” as genres, but that’s distinct from what non-gamers use the word “genre” for. “Zork” was fantasy, “Deadline” was mystery, “Suspended” was science fiction. With adventure games it’s easier to slot them into traditional genres, but you can do that with nearly any game that has a semblance of a story: “Legend of Kage” was a martial arts fantasy game, “Prince of Persia” was an Arabian Nights-style fantasy, “Xevious” was science fiction, “Commando” was military.

So what’s the point of that observation? Simply that it’s the *story* sense of “genre” that seems to have suffered just a little over the years. I think that can be “blamed” on the improvement of graphics technology: there was a definite push to try to get as photorealistic as possible, and this tends to self-select for specific genres. I’d actually suggest, though, that the 1990s weren’t a golden age as much as a dark period in that regard: it seemed, at least from a casual old fart perspective like mine, that everyone wanted to be the next “Quake” and this led to an awful lot of first-person shooters, and that lends itself very well to story genres that involve one guy with big weapons shooting hundreds of enemies.

If anything, I think the current era is actually breaking away from that — and I think, with all respect to the hardcore guys, it seems like the casual games like “Flower” are doing more trailblazing right now. But that’s filtering upward. Anyone who has nostalgia for 1980s games should fire up an emulator and actually *play* a few; it’ll probably cure the nostalgia right quick.

Reply
Carnival of Video Game Bloggers, June 2009 @ The Collected Writings of James Newton on June 22nd, 2009 7:00 am

[...] presents Five Reasons There’s Never Been A Golden Age of Gaming posted at TrueGameHeadz .:For Gamers [...]
hurr on November 6th, 2009 9:59 am

delicous casual rage

Reply
By Azura on November 6th, 2009 11:00 am

It was a good read and I agree with you.

I enjoyed video games back in the 80s and 90s and I’m enjoying them today and I simply can’t understand why people are constantly wearing their nostalgia goggles.

The golden age of gaming, it’s just something made up by people wearing their nostalgia goggles. Interestingly, this term hasn’t been used much up until this gen of consoles.

With the bitter “hardcore” gamer who rejects anything that’s new the money lies with the “casuals”. Can’t blame any developer making this decision. I’d do it too. There’s no money to be made catering to the demands of a handful of whiney man children when they’re going to pirate it anyway.

Long story short, you’re absolutely right and it’s good to know that there are a few other people out there who are not wearing those nostalgia goggles.

Reply
peepee on November 6th, 2009 11:55 am

you are a moron
if memorization doesn’t count as making a game long, then take out cutscenes of all of your favorite games, and anything where you aren’t in the action, and aren’t being tactical, as apparently they don’t count towards a game’s length. Which really means you must play console shooters.

I know for a fact you sound like a Halo lover. Halo requires no tactics or thought, when you can just run and gun in and win. So Halo actually only has multiplayer, and it requires no tactics or memorization, so basically you love not thinking about how to overcome something. That’s what games nowdays do not have, is trial and error and LEARNING how to overcome obstacles, rather than just using the most powerful weapon.

Reply
Paul on November 6th, 2009 12:29 pm

The casual gaming one :
Yes, video game quality IS decreasing. There is literally no need for developers to make epic storylines, innovative gameplay and generally creative and interesting experience when Peggle makes so much money, and needs near no programming skills or experience, and can be made ever half-hour.

Reply
envinyon on December 2nd, 2009 11:12 am

Yeah, see, the “Golden Age of Gaming” was not during the 8-bit and 16-bit eras.

The Golden Age of Gaming was from 1997-2002.

All this article proves is that you are a 14 year old kid that knows absolutely nothing about gaming. You probably wrote this article after trying to play some NES and SNES games, but couldn’t do it because you’re such a casual.

Reply
Anon on December 2nd, 2009 2:34 pm

Good article, and I’m a shameless “retro gamer.” There were good games back then, but the era suffered from many problems that fans have forgotten about today.

However, I think you missed the big appeal of games from the 1990s. It’s not so much that games were different in the ’90s it’s that WE were different in the 90’s.

Most of us have stress from college, new jobs, social situations, or a lack of any combination of those things. Back when we played these games in our youth life was a lot simpler. Playing old games now is kind of a “time machine” to that mind set in way.

We were also too young to really understand what was wrong with these games and took them at face value – hell, we were just happy to be playing a game in the first place. Now we’re older and can notice the smallest of flaws of today’s games. We have money and resources to play whatever the hell we want. We just don’t appreciate the gaming experience like we did when we were younger, and that’s why that old generation seems so much better.

Reply
j on December 2nd, 2009 2:42 pm

This is awful writing, awful commentary, and meanders so badly that I don’t even know what you’re trying to convey other than 5 random gripes about gaming that don’t really add up to anything new or thought provoking in the least.

Reply
aefsrdtf on December 9th, 2009 8:47 pm

I agree and disagree with this article. First off, I don’t consider the “Golden Age” to be 8-bit or 16-bit personally. I in fact think that we’re at the end of it now. It was only a few years ago that the gaming industry started taking a nose dive from my POV (after the reign of the PS2 ended), and even though there are good games out there still, “casual” games are an issue.
I enjoy playing games like Guitar Hero and so on, but the sheer size of the casual audience is increasing the development of “casual games” at the expense of others, this is blatantly obvious. Focusing on graphics and ease of access is the new trend, and I can’t help but feel that storylines and settings are what’s suffering.

I was going to write more but I’m tired

Reply

Got something to say?

Five Reasons There’s Never Been A Golden Age of Gaming

Games were difficult back then.

Today’s games are too short.

> Continue Reading Five Reasons There’s Never Been A Golden Age of Gaming

Related Posts:

Comments

TrueGameHeadz TV Featured Video

Featured Articles

Recent Posts

Latest Reviews

Recent Comments

TGH Crew

Archives

Friends & Affiliates

What's your fancy?