Support NeoGAF

[DunDunDunpachi]

This thread was inspired by the following advertisement:

In my youth, it was rare for a single person (outside of rich kids or The Press) to see all the games available for their console(s) of choice. Playing them all was unheard of. Not even the unstoppable power of Blockbuster Video could supply enough rentals for the average kid to explore a console's full library.

It wasn't merely that we were poor kids. Internet shopping wasn't a thing. Importing games was something you did through a local shop or sometimes a magazine. The available video footage for games was a fraction of what it is now, so we scoured over pictures and TV commercials, hoping that the game was as good as it looked in the bullshots. Buying used games on eBay wasn't a thing yet.

So, we relied on the "experts". Those who'd played the most games generally carried more weight than those who hadn't.

I noticed this in JRPG circles particularly. If you hadn't played pretty much all the "influential" JRPGs up to that point in time, you ain't shit. Doesn't matter if you played it on an emulator for 20m. You have to play it or else you don't have a well-rounded opinion on the genre.

Experience carried weight on forums, too. During the heyday of "Top 10" lists, having a broad experience with a particular genre or console made your opinion more valuable than someone who'd only sampled the library. Consequently, more and more value was heaped upon the quantity of games played. Quality was always a factor, of course, but since there were so many quality games available, it seemed anathema to ignore a single one of them.

With the rise of emulation, retro gaming, and disposable income (below) it seemed like more and more people were able to accrue larger and larger collections. The floodgates opened. People could access all those thousands of games that had been denied them in their childhood.

And now we have reached the point where plenty of gamers own massive collections. This simply wasn't a thing among the general populace when I was growing up.

I think we've overvalued the total quantity of games played. The old logic of "most games played = most experienced" doesn't hold true, since there are now more videogames than a single human could reasonably play in a lifetime.

After the goldrush to "play it all", the dissatisfaction sets in. People complain about games being boring. They complain about not finding a single interesting game in their massive collection (whether on the shelf or in their Steam library).

Instead of playing game tourist -- hopping from game to game, consuming these products like a cheap pizza, guzzling down as many as we can -- what if we sought to be game advocates for our favorites?

The "fanboy who knows what they're talking about" has become rarer and rarer. I'm shocked by the number of popular gaming YouTube channels that are very shallow when it comes to actual game knowledge. This is especially true for game collectors who show off their games and spent 15 seconds on how much they love it before moving on to the next title. Fansites were once prolific but are now a thing of the past.

I would argue that game tourism is ultimately unsatisfying. It is a cheap diet of fried food and sugar. Hopping from game to game devalues each one and soon the thrill of a new game isn't as tasty.

Conversely, spending time with a game, replaying it, mastering it, unlocking its hidden nuances, and sharing that passion with your fellow gamers will always be interesting to me. I don't care if you've played every fighting game. I just care if you're knowledgable about the fighting game(s) you're passionate about. I don't care if you've played all the "best" shooters, as long as you're knowledgable about this particular shooter you're advocating for.

Often, we hold back because we fear that our lack of experience with the full scope of gaming history discredits our opinion. Quite the opposite: I think setting your sights too broadly robs you of having a genuine experience with the individual games in question. You are a tourist, only there for the sights, only there for a taste.

Instead of pursuing the fruitless goal of "playing it all", why not at least pursue the goal of becoming a subject-matter expert of your favorites? Isn't that more fun, anyway? Being an advocate for your own favorites -- as long as you are fair and honest with your conversation partners -- is the sort of conversation that matters. The era of Top 10 Lists is dead. The only people who still care are the people still playing tourist.

If there is any aim for my overlong explanation, please write a thread or make a post about a game you really, really know. Explain what makes it tick and why others should fall in love with it. The tourists are on the hunt for new games anyway. They may as well hear it from a fanatic who really knows the game in question. This is the sort of content sorely lacking across game forums and YouTube.

 

[Shifty]

Speaking as someone who grew up as the fifth-gen emulation scene (PS1, etc) was hitting its stride, I went through a distinct period of playing game tourist.
Most specifically with PS2 games- I dropped off of some absolute classics (Zone of the Enders 2!) during that time because the opportunity cost to pop in something new to try out was so low.
In retrospect, it was a dumb behaviour. It had that immediate popcorn satisfaction of seeing new stuff super often, but none of the deeper fulfillment that comes with really digging into a game you enjoy.

I doubt I could drop a good RTTP on any of the games I played at that point, but these days I'm much more into finding evergreen classics that I can revisit and enjoy again and again.
I've put out threads on the Thief series and Bangai-O in the past, but what to do next? Perhaps I should revisit Gunvalkyrie when I'm done with DMC5. Hmm.

 

[TwiztidElf]

Absolutely true.
As a pirate during the SNES/Megadrive generation (I was a kid with no money), I identified this in myself.
As the 16-bit era drew to a close, I realized that I'd actually 'played' nothing apart from Super Mario World.

When the Playstation came out, I made a conscious decision to make more selective purchasing decisions and enjoyed gaming so much more. FF7, Res Evil 1&2, Gran Turismo, MGS, etc, etc.
It was a gamer rebirth for me. I always look back at that as a major turning point in my enjoyment of gaming.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

eh i don't want to feel pressured to advocate. if other people don't enjoy a game, that is fine. i also don't want to come across as annoying. this is tough when people start talking SoulsBorne. i never want to really go off about those games bc they already have people sick of hearing about them & their fanbase.

i find game tourism fine tbh. during my emulation years i tore through a number of games i really enjoyed, games i missed when i couldn't afford so many, and when i only had 1 system. some games stick out better than others. it is your job as a consumer to educate yourself, maybe find people with good taste, and discover those games rightfully considered classic.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

eh i don't want to feel pressured to advocate. if other people don't enjoy a game, that is fine. i also don't want to come across as annoying. this is tough when people start talking SoulsBorne. i never want to really go off about those games bc they already have people sick of hearing about them & their fanbase.

i find game tourism fine tbh. during my emulation years i tore through a number of games i really enjoyed, games i missed when i couldn't afford so many, and when i only had 1 system. some games stick out better than others. it is your job as a consumer to educate yourself, maybe find people with good taste, and discover those games rightfully considered classic.

Game tourism is very fun, otherwise we wouldn't do it. I sometimes pull down stacks of cartridges/disks and play them all in an evening, which harkens back to my childhood days of my friends pooling our lawn-mowing money and renting 10 (10!!!!) games from the video store to binge on over the weekend/during an overnight stay.

I'm suggesting, however, that eventually the "tourist sights" lose their luster and tourism turns into an undefined dissatisfaction with the hobby if that's all a gamer is doing.

Also, don't think of it as "pressured to advocate". I'm just interested in hearing your opinion about a game you like. I totally get the apprehension about being annoying. I am no stranger to overlong posts and rants about my passions. However, that's how we keep threads alive.

Consider Daniel Thomas MacInnes , who faithfully posts lengthy reviews in the SEGA Saturn appreciation thread. That's the stuff that makes an online community interesting.

 

[Bryank75]

Surprised you didn't link it back to all the new Streaming services coming out. Streaming games is the ultimate in games tourism.
How long do people spend looking through Netflix and then not finding anything after 2 hours?

Streaming diminishes the value of games too much, people keep saying that because music and film are being streamed, that it should be the same for games.... but games cost 60 to 70 euro where I live.

They cost that much because they take 3 to 5 years to make and are supposed to last a lot longer on initial usage than a film or music .

Streaming cheapens gaming, it allows someone to say "look, I played all of these games" without really experiencing them or (something that is incredibly important to gamers) mastering the game.

Streaming will lead to gaming becoming disposable and cheap. There will be nothing of value because there will be no incentive to provide anything more than bubblegum crap.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Surprised you didn't link it back to all the new Streaming services coming out. Streaming games is the ultimate in games tourism.
How long do people spend looking through Netflix and then not finding anything after 2 hours?

Streaming diminishes the value of games too much, people keep saying that because music and film are being streamed, that it should be the same for games.... but games cost 60 to 70 euro where I live.

They cost that much because they take 3 to 5 years to make and are supposed to last a lot longer on initial usage than a film or music .

Streaming cheapens gaming, it allows someone to say "look, I played all of these games" without really experiencing them or (something that is incredibly important to gamers) mastering the game.

Streaming will lead to gaming becoming disposable and cheap. There will be nothing of value because there will be no incentive to provide anything more than bubblegum crap.

I didn't want to make it an antagonistic thread toward streaming. To be honest, I could've gone further and argued how digital gaming (Steam sales in particular) exacerbates videogame tourism but the point of the thread isn't to dunk on a platform or business model.

The rush to the bottom with mobile gaming is analogous to what you're saying about streaming.

That's why I have a lot of respect for the arcade model, warts and all. In an environment that could only be described as "videogame tourism", the game manufacturer needed to stand out through sheer quality and glitz, cutting out all the time-wasting stuff. The game manufacturer also had to walk a tightrope between making a game profitable for the arcade proprietor yet not unfair to the point where players didn't want to give it another try (this is treated without nuance when people say "oh, arcade games were only quarter munchers").

 

[petran79]

I The game manufacturer also had to walk a tightrope between making a game profitable for the arcade proprietor yet not unfair to the point where players didn't want to give it another try (this is treated without nuance when people say "oh, arcade games were only quarter munchers").

Give any kid or adult playing new video games the task of reaching level 100 of Bubble Bobble with 1 credit. You can put 1000 coins in and still suck at the game

 

[hariseldon]

This is very familiar to me - I built a huge backlog, buying game after game but ultimately never really squeezing the most out of them. The backlog thread has given me an excuse to change that, and it's been hugely liberating. Spending real quality time with each game, taking the time to understand it, has been an absolute joy. Spending this time with KOTOR 1 and 2 for instance has given me a far better understanding of RPG mechanics which will carry to other games no doubt, but also has taken me out of that zone where the clunkiness bothered me. Now it feels natural to use the left mouse button to walk forward. Now the controls make sense. Now I feel immersed in that world, and I reckon this opens my mind to other games of the same era, games I missed back in the day or simply bought and bounced off. Taking the time to properly enjoy a game is a wonderful thing.

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

I avoided this thread for several days just because of its weird title, but i‘m glad i eventually clicked on it. I absolutely love your take / perspective on this and couldn‘t agree more. I personally fall into the „game tourist“ category and am experiencing the exact issues you mentioned. However, over the past couple of years i sometimes found some game series / genres that made me stick to them for a little longer, and everytime that happened i felt a much deeper appreciation and satisfaction for the medium/product. A good friend of mine only plays a handful of games for god knows how many years now and i truly envy him for that bc he seems happy as a gamer, whereas i‘m constantly chasing after the next title to play for 30min before abandoning it.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Speaking as someone who grew up as the fifth-gen emulation scene (PS1, etc) was hitting its stride, I went through a distinct period of playing game tourist.
Most specifically with PS2 games- I dropped off of some absolute classics (Zone of the Enders 2!) during that time because the opportunity cost to pop in something new to try out was so low.
In retrospect, it was a dumb behaviour. It had that immediate popcorn satisfaction of seeing new stuff super often, but none of the deeper fulfillment that comes with really digging into a game you enjoy.

I worked at Gamestop in the distant past and that's when I experienced the "tourism" the worst. I had access to pretty much any game and believe me, I took advantage of that. I could check out games (employee perk) plus I spent a lot of my paycheck on games. This was also during the heyday of console emulation on PC, where you could rip every single pre-'00 console library at the press of a button.

It felt so hollow. I played a lot of games so that I could tell my other nerds I played a lot of games. Looking back, I regret not investing much more time into specific games and genres where skills are rewarded. My head is full of JRPG storylines, most of which I'll never ever replay. Instead, I could've gotten into shmups sooner, or focused on a narrower range of racing games, or spent more time practicing Guilty Gear.

No use whining about it, but when I realized this several years ago it made me reconsider the sort of games I play going forward.

I doubt I could drop a good RTTP on any of the games I played at that point, but these days I'm much more into finding evergreen classics that I can revisit and enjoy again and again.
I've put out threads on the Thief series and Bangai-O in the past, but what to do next? Perhaps I should revisit Gunvalkyrie when I'm done with DMC5. Hmm.

I believe in you.

Give any kid or adult playing new video games the task of reaching level 100 of Bubble Bobble with 1 credit. You can put 1000 coins in and still suck at the game

Console and PC ports were a necessary balance to that problem. However, setting aside the monetary cost, I don't see an inherent problem with a game that offers more depth even after 1000 tries.

 

[Daymos]

I have been trying to do this for years. I've settled for JRPGs on NIntendo systems from 1985 to present (thank god dark souls counts now, and "woot!" to final fantasy and dragon quest on switch).. I still play mario/metroid/zelda/etc but I've been trying to narrow down my interests for a very long time. I currently own at least 50 games that I haven't finished that fit that criteria. I've been playing these types of games since the NES, many of them on playstation as well, but I feel like I have playstation 1-3 mostly covered.. and adding in ps4 is just too many games.

It's extremely difficult not to get distracted with the amount of cheap indie and classic titles though, the mega man nostalgia got me recently.

 

[petran79]

I worked at Gamestop in the distant past and that's when I experienced the "tourism" the worst. I had access to pretty much any game and believe me, I took advantage of that. I could check out games (employee perk) plus I spent a lot of my paycheck on games. This was also during the heyday of console emulation on PC, where you could rip every single pre-'00 console library at the press of a button.

It felt so hollow. I played a lot of games so that I could tell my other nerds I played a lot of games. Looking back, I regret not investing much more time into specific games and genres where skills are rewarded. My head is full of JRPG storylines, most of which I'll never ever replay. Instead, I could've gotten into shmups sooner, or focused on a narrower range of racing games, or spent more time practicing Guilty Gear.

No use whining about it, but when I realized this several years ago it made me reconsider the sort of games I play going forward.


.

I thought the same but the main problem was lack of information, bad ports, bad controllers and input lag.
I remember dabbling into fighting games (PC and Dreamcast), yet had no idea about fundamentals, plus gamepad controllers were far from ideal. Cheap computer keyboards could not even register simultaneous buttons.
Essentially I played those games the same way you'd play the jrpgs. Save state scumming to beat the final boss via PC emulation or not trying at all.
Had no idea about parrying in 3S or cancelling in Garou. Not even 360 degree grappling moves or shoryukens.

I only invested in Virtua Tennis, having both the DC and arcade cabs available.
Some arcade cabs of fighting games I found even more inaccessible than the home versions due to the arcade stick layout.

Only much later when I bought an arcade stick and later a 6 button gamepad did I begin to grasp fighting games and shmups. I could have saved 7 years at least. Would have been a better player. Now I dont have the memorization reflexes for all those setups

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I thought the same but the main problem was lack of information, bad ports, bad controllers and input lag.
I remember dabbling into fighting games (PC and Dreamcast), yet had no idea about fundamentals, plus gamepad controllers were far from ideal. Cheap computer keyboards could not even register simultaneous buttons.
Essentially I played those games the same way you'd play the jrpgs. Save state scumming to beat the final boss via PC emulation or not trying at all.
Had no idea about parrying in 3S or cancelling in Garou. Not even 360 degree grappling moves or shoryukens.

I only invested in Virtua Tennis, having both the DC and arcade cabs available.
Some arcade cabs of fighting games I found even more inaccessible than the home versions due to the arcade stick layout.

Only much later when I bought an arcade stick and later a 6 button gamepad did I begin to grasp fighting games and shmups. I could have saved 7 years at least. Would have been a better player. Now I dont have the memorization reflexes for all those setups

The lack of info is a biggie. Magazines and the burgeoning online scene weren't singing the praises of those types of arcade games. They were often viewed as outmoded games belonging in the dustbin of history.

That wasn't helped by companies like Sony who appeared to discourage/block traditional arcade stuff on the PS1.

 

[Virex]

I'd rather be a drive by shitposter with some top end bants while at the same time still playing a lot of games and getting my full money's worth out of a game before I move to the next one.

 

[Raven117]

Ever since childhood, I finished every game I bought (because I didn’t have a ton of money for games.... the selection for each was of critical importance). I’ve carried that philosophy through adulthood. But now. I’m selective because I don’t have a lot of time..... it’s more valuable than the cash

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

And now we have reached the point where plenty of gamers own massive collections. This simply wasn't a thing among the general populace when I was growing up.

Dude, the video game industry only started in the 70s and didn't really become an industry like we know it until the early 80s. Having a massive collection growing up wasn't possible because there wasn't a massive collection to own! (at least if you are over 30).

I mean, what kid is going to have a massive collection of games that cost $90 in 1990? My C64 collection (mostly pirated, as were the times then) was massive though. I also grew up in a house with over 4,000 books, so it isn't like massive collections are new because of the internet. You're just older, there's more video games, and you have the money to afford more of them.

Fansites were once prolific but are now a thing of the past.

You know, I never noticed until you just said it, but you are absolutely right. They've been replaced with GameFAQs and Wikia sites.

I would argue that game tourism is ultimately unsatisfying. It is a cheap diet of fried food and sugar. Hopping from game to game devalues each one and soon the thrill of a new game isn't as tasty.

Couldn't disagree more. I'm a game slut, and my black book comes in twenty-eight volumes, like an encyclopedia. It's all in how you approach it. I own about 3,000 games and I guess I've probably played double that many in my life, and I love each and every one of them. I could spend hours talking about any of them. Want to hear all about Lemmings Paintball? Mickey Mouscapades? Twinkle Star Sprites? Rakugaki Showtime? I could talk about these games for hours (though Mickey Mouscapades would mostly be cursing).

And truth be told, many of my favorite games of all time are not games I would've picked first, or second, or even third. They were risky little titles that I bought out of curiosity and fell in love with them when nobody else was giving them the time of day. I could only take that risk because I wasn't limiting myself to a few games. I buy two games a year and if one of them sucks, I've ruined half of my year's gaming. I buy 150 games a year (and I do) and if 75 of them suck, I still bought 75 that were great. And I buy FAR less than 75 sucky games in a year.

Buying fewer games concentrates your efforts on only the biggest AAA titles and mostly sequels. Just remember, Sony didn't bring Demons' Souls to America. Atlus (the niche publishers known mostly for JRPGs) did, and it was HUGELY successful on the back of the amazing word of mouth it was getting from import gamers like me who were loving the Asian version. And Dark Souls came about because Bandai saw how successful Demons' Souls was in Japan and overseas. Basically, we would not have the souls series right now if not for the gamers who play everything. It was too niche to appeal to the general gamer who only buys a couple games a year. You're welcome.

I think setting your sights too broadly robs you of having a genuine experience with the individual games in question. You are a tourist, only there for the sights, only there for a taste.

I fundamentally and strongly disagree with this sentiment.

Instead of pursuing the fruitless goal of "playing it all", why not at least pursue the goal of becoming a subject-matter expert of your favorites?

I do both.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Dude, the video game industry only started in the 70s and didn't really become an industry like we know it until the early 80s. Having a massive collection growing up wasn't possible because there wasn't a massive collection to own! (at least if you are over 30).

I mean, what kid is going to have a massive collection of games that cost $90 in 1990? My C64 collection (mostly pirated, as were the times then) was massive though. I also grew up in a house with over 4,000 books, so it isn't like massive collections are new because of the internet. You're just older, there's more video games, and you have the money to afford more of them.

You know, I never noticed until you just said it, but you are absolutely right. They've been replaced with GameFAQs and Wikia sites.


Couldn't disagree more. I'm a game slut, and my black book comes in twenty-eight volumes, like an encyclopedia. It's all in how you approach it. I own about 3,000 games and I guess I've probably played double that many in my life, and I love each and every one of them. I could spend hours talking about any of them. Want to hear all about Lemmings Paintball? Mickey Mouscapades? Twinkle Star Sprites? Rakugaki Showtime? I could talk about these games for hours (though Mickey Mouscapades would mostly be cursing).

And truth be told, many of my favorite games of all time are not games I would've picked first, or second, or even third. They were risky little titles that I bought out of curiosity and fell in love with them when nobody else was giving them the time of day. I could only take that risk because I wasn't limiting myself to a few games. I buy two games a year and if one of them sucks, I've ruined half of my year's gaming. I buy 150 games a year (and I do) and if 75 of them suck, I still bought 75 that were great. And I buy FAR less than 75 sucky games in a year.

Buying fewer games concentrates your efforts on only the biggest AAA titles and mostly sequels. Just remember, Sony didn't bring Demons' Souls to America. Atlus (the niche publishers known mostly for JRPGs) did, and it was HUGELY successful on the back of the amazing word of mouth it was getting from import gamers like me who were loving the Asian version. And Dark Souls came about because Bandai saw how successful Demons' Souls was in Japan and overseas. Basically, we would not have the souls series right now if not for the gamers who play everything. It was too niche to appeal to the general gamer who only buys a couple games a year. You're welcome.

I fundamentally and strongly disagree with this sentiment.

I do both.

By the mid-90s, we'd already passed through several generations of gaming on the console side and the home computer side. Unlike today, there was no "retro" market artificially valuing these games higher. Earthbound was a $10 bargain-bin title (to cop an infamous example). It wasn't a matter of cost. It was a different mentality of how games were approached.

Missing out on fun games would be the dark side of narrowing your focus too much. There's no point in disagreeing with your experience because that's where you've settled, but I don't see why buying fewer games screws you over or "concentrates your efforts only the biggest AAA titles". Nah, that only holds true if you choose to continue buying those sequels. I've abandoned countless franchises that no longer hold my interest.

The two games a year vs 150 games a year is not a relevant comparison. Your buying habits only matter at the beginning. A player such as yourself with a large collection could buy zero new games and you wouldn't "ruin your year's gaming" unless of course you have bad taste and your collection sucks too.

I was one of those early adopters who imported an Asia-region copy of Demons' Souls. I'm familiar with the community and I wouldn't describe it as "gamers who play everything". A lot of that early community was comprised of crusty, dissatisfied gamers who were thrilled there was finally a different kind of action-RPG instead of yet another musou or Devil May Cry clone.

I'd love to hear more about Rakugai Showtime if you have an interesting opinion to share, but that can only be the case if you've spent more than a cursory amount of time with the game which -- logically -- becomes less and less likely the larger the player's collection becomes.

 

[Ban Puncher]

>not being a game connoisseur

You uncultured swine.

 

[ALIEN-gunner]

Even as a kid I just didn't have the time or patience to master any game. I've played many games, I've finished a few of them if they could hold my interest and have only repeated one or two games multiple times but only because they unlocked new stuff through the process. Now as an adult my patience is even shorter as is my tolerance for games that promise big but play small. So, I'd rather just quit after I'm no longer having fun and move on to something else. I don't believe in backlogs. They're just toys.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Even as a kid I just didn't have the time or patience to master any game. I've played many games, I've finished a few of them if they could hold my interest and have only repeated one or two games multiple times but only because they unlocked new stuff through the process. Now as an adult my patience is even shorter as is my tolerance for games that promise big but play small. So, I'd rather just quit after I'm no longer having fun and move on to something else. I don't believe in backlogs. They're just toys.

Mastering a game can be un-fun.

I think treating games like toys and not taking it too seriously is good. It helps inoculate the gamer against the urge to overzealously buy a ton of games.

 

[jshackles]

I became and absolute game tourist when I first discovered Steam. The sales, the cheap games, the bundles, watching my library count go up and up - it was all exhilarating. I was buying digital copies of games I already owned on other systems just thinking "I'll probably replay this game again at some point, and having it on PC would be nice". And then, never playing that game again. After I hit about 3,000 games in my Steam library I realized everything you typed out in the OP.

For the past 3 or so years, I've been very picky with my game purchases. In fact, in the past year I've been incredibly picky and will often find myself going back to play the games I promised myself I'd eventually get to. Now when I scroll through my list of digitally available Xbox games, I find that I've played (and typically beat) the vast majority of them. My Steam library is more or less sorted into "stuff I've beat" / "stuff I've played (but didn't beat) / "stuff I want to play" / and "stuff I know I'll never play", which makes it a lot more manageable.

I find that I'd rather engross myself in a game like Tales of Vesperia and take my time with it. I like to find all the hidden treasure chests, level grind, optimize my equipment as well as just relax and enjoy the story. A game like that, there is no sense in rushing through it, even if it's possible. I've made it a point not to look at help guides or walkthroughs online - if I get stuck in an area I should wander around, maybe circle back and talk to townspeople until I find the right path to get set on. Savoring the story as well as the gameplay is the point of it - and once I figured out that those were the aspects of RPG games that I truly enjoyed, that's when they became much much more meaningful to me.

Of course, everyone's tastes and preferences are different.

 

[goldenpp72]

Cool topic, not one I can relate to but a good read. As a financially limited kid even into my teens I felt I always had to get the most out of what I had.

 

[EverydayBeast]

I can’t speak for gamers as a whole, because these days I only really play one genre (FPS) and I can just say how I treat gaming, OP there’s a problem in the gaming world where shovelware builds up and gamers are prone to sales, collection building etc. (which is OK) generation to generation. Commercial gaming generates the most sales, the whole thing about those YouTube channels you mentioned is they’re privileged enough to make $ off of views.

I appreciate the OP taking a stand for gaming purity. There’s certain levels of gaming that can be better with knowledge, I believe.

 

[Dragon Lord]

Thank you very much for making this post, OP. Your observations are fascinating, and they make a lot of sense. I too have noticed that those taken most seriously in any in-crowd traditionally are indeed those with the most cash to burn.

I completely agree with you about quality vs. quantity. And in an age where cynicism is so prominent, it is refreshing when you meet someone who is just really genuinely passionate about a game they love. I think that's way more important than amassing a huge collection so as to be an "expert" in a position to criticize. I think what you say also applies far beyond the gaming world to music, TV, and other arts as well.

 

[Ballthyrm]

I think i want to be surprised by games. The more you play, the harder it becomes.
While i agree with you on many points, i tend to have a different way of going at it.

I give a game a 30 minutes window.
If it passes, i may play the first 2-3 hours.
If the game still hold my attention by then, then i start to look in the details.

You don't have to play everything , but you can at least try as much as you can.
This method of course punishes games with longer game loops, but TBH if your game has such long game loops, you better keep me entertained in the meantime.


At the end of the day hardly any game passes my first 30 minutes (let alone 15m).

 

[Vader1]

This is pretty much what I do. I just play the games that look most interesting to me

 

[Sqorin Hammerfarf]

Missing out on fun games would be the dark side of narrowing your focus too much. There's no point in disagreeing with your experience because that's where you've settled, but I don't see why buying fewer games screws you over or "concentrates your efforts only the biggest AAA titles". Nah, that only holds true if you choose to continue buying those sequels. I've abandoned countless franchises that no longer hold my interest.

There are a lot of games that I buy that are what I would consider risky purchases. This is mitigated somewhat by the fact that I generally like even bad games because my love of gaming is absolute, and the only games that I really hate are the ones that don't take risks or bring anything new to the table. I hate The Last of Us because I've already played that game before when it was parts of a dozen other (better) games and it pisses me off that they would take the infinite canvas of gaming to produce something so trite and expected, but I love Stretch Panic because it is weird as shit and you'll never play anything else like it even though it is objectively terrible.

Here's how I discovered my favorite game of all time, Seme COM Dungeons Druaga. Basically, I was living in Japan. Tales of Destiny was my favorite game at the time and Tales of Eternia had just released there. Being on a Namco kick, I ended up buying the Namco Anthology 2, which included a King of Kings remake which I thought was interesting, but needed a little something extra. Namco announced that it was creating four GBC games - a big deal because I don't think Namco had done any GameBoy games before. They were Mr. Driller, Tales of Phantasia: Narikiri Dungeons (woot!), Pocket Kings (a King of Kings sequel that looked good in Famitsu), and Seme COM Dungeons Druaga. I pretty much don't care for the original Druaga series, but I bought the other three games and really liked them. So I bought Druaga. Huge risk. I couldn't read Japanese, don't like Druaga, and really had no idea what the game was about nor any idea if I would even be able to figure out how to play it. Well, the game was amazing. It will forever be my favorite game of all time. No other game will ever replace it. And I had absolutely no reason to buy it. It was mild curiosity at best. It was probably the stupidest purchase I ever made, and my best one.

I was one of those early adopters who imported an Asia-region copy of Demons' Souls. I'm familiar with the community and I wouldn't describe it as "gamers who play everything". A lot of that early community was comprised of crusty, dissatisfied gamers who were thrilled there was finally a different kind of action-RPG instead of yet another musou or Devil May Cry clone.

I remember it differently. It wasn't really considered a different kind of action-RPG - it was considered a sequel to King's Field. It was the fans of that series that were excited for it and that were really pushing the game. After a while, maybe it developed a following for a different reason, but Demons' Souls initially caught on thanks to the incredibly dedicated and niche King's Field fandom. From Software was really only known for Lost Kingdoms on the GameCube, the Otogi games, and early PS2 games like Evergrace and Eternal Ring - but even with that relatively mediocre catalogue, From still had a fairly hardcore following because of King's Field and Armored Core.

I'd love to hear more about Rakugai Showtime if you have an interesting opinion to share, but that can only be the case if you've spent more than a cursory amount of time with the game which -- logically -- becomes less and less likely the larger the player's collection becomes.

I actually played it extensively, winning it with all the characters. But the interesting stories I'd tell about Rakugaki Showtime is less about the game itself and more about the circumstances under which I found a copy for my friend in Japan. I found it in some department store game section, no idea how valuable that game was to Western players. I call those types of places "Land That Time Forgot" stores. Their stock doesn't move and they don't really push their old stock out, so they end up having games years, even decades, later (often for full price). Back when we still had retail and the ability to browse, these LTTF stores represented the absolute best places to find rare and hard to find games in mint condition. So this story is less about how awesome Rakugaki Showtime is (and it's a pretty fun party game, but not Treasure's best effort) and more about how much fun and how rewarding treasure hunting in a retail store was before Amazon destroyed everything.

 

[LucidFeuer]

This is a lost cause because gamers, including older generations, are fucking stupid and naïve in front of the machinery they have in front of them.

You have to understand: gaming corporations (amongst other) have spend hundreds of millions in the last decade in neuro-marketing on the internet ie. hiring think-tanks, medias, influencers and hidden PR accounts/bots on forums, to completely manipulate the minds of younger generations into accepting 1. that piracy is evil, and it's okay to not posses or be able to sell/trade/lend what they buy 2. that corrupt corporate investor's interest is your interest 3. that 70$ games with 100$ season-pass and lootboxes/micro-transactions are okay 4. that yearly industrial production of vapid franchises with little to no art direction, innovation, game design, quality control or immersion is normal.

And in front of that, what do I often see? People who adopted the twisted rationale like parrots, constantly excusing corporations for their practices, continuing to buy over and over again the same franchise, DLC or online crap and somehow defending these self-destructive and toxic companies against their own gamer's interest. So nope, sorry I won't be an advocate of this degeneracy, I have a 10.000 games library and money to continue buying games to own, but people deserve the coming online-F2P streaming dystopia that is coming...

 

[zenspider]

I really appreciate this conceptb especially from a top-down perspective. Our hobbyist media is not only entrenched in the "gotta play 'em all" mentality, they advocate for it. There's always something else worth your time, and whatever's what's on the horizon will be better.

Personally, and from the "bottom-up" perspective, I don't think everyone can be an advocate/expert, but I do appreciate a good champion, especially outside of the AAA mainstream.

I go to bat for 'Into The Breach' for example, every chance I get. Now I only have 50+ hours currently and maybe 70% of the achievements (it's a really clever integrated unlock and progress system), so I'm hardly an expert, but I think I can clearly explain it's merits and appeal to fans and newbies of the genre.

 

[hariseldon]

I really appreciate this conceptb especially from a top-down perspective. Our hobbyist media is not only entrenched in the "gotta play 'em all" mentality, they advocate for it. There's always something else worth your time, and whatever's what's on the horizon will be better.

Personally, and from the "bottom-up" perspective, I don't think everyone can be an advocate/expert, but I do appreciate a good champion, especially outside of the AAA mainstream.

I go to bat for 'Into The Breach' for example, every chance I get. Now I only have 50+ hours currently and maybe 70% of the achievements (it's a really clever integrated unlock and progress system), so I'm hardly an expert, but I think I can clearly explain it's merits and appeal to fans and newbies of the genre.

I really bounced off Into The Breach hard - I suspect I'm missing the tactical subtleties (I couldn't seem to find a strategy that was better than just blind luck) - if you do fancy writing an idiot's guide to not being fucking shit at it, it might enable me to get some value out of the damned game.

 

[zenspider]

I really bounced off Into The Breach hard - I suspect I'm missing the tactical subtleties (I couldn't seem to find a strategy that was better than just blind luck) - if you do fancy writing an idiot's guide to not being fucking shit at it, it might enable me to get some value out of the damned game.

I would love to do that sometime! The best thing I could say quick is this: one of the strongest features of 'Breach' is that there is no luck. You have every piece of information available for what is going to happen the next turn except what is going to spawn.

Probably the most counter-intuitive element is that you're vying for position over damage, and prioritizing defense of the grid (most of the time) over your units.

EvE damage, knockback into hazards, and blocks are generally stronger moves than direct damage for most squads in the early game. You can build some killer units, or go for more synergy across your squad - this is crucial when you unlock squads with units that do not have a damage dealing option.

Ill try to come up with a more tantalizing beginner's guide - I think about this game a lot. I do think it is the most elegant and rewarding turn-based tactics game ever made, and worth a look this is a strong year for the strategy/tactics games genre.

 

[Hinedorf]

As a kid my information came from about 3 reliable sources. Nintendo power, GamePro, and Electronic Gaming Monthly. Every week my mother would go grocery shopping and this would be my opportunity to tag along as spend my entire time digging through any old/new magazines available. Kids just have no idea the access they have to their hobbies however I wouldn't trade my experiences growing up for anything.

If there's any game I am an expert of it would be Ultima Online. This was the first MMO to really be an MMO before MMO was A THING. I grew up a console gamer my whole life due to having poor blue collar parents who never owned a PC. That changed my Sophomore year of high school and I was so excited I had actually purchased the PC game Ultima Online before I even had a PC. We're talking 56k dial up modem days.

For the next several years none of my friends, family, nor parents friends were ever able to call our house because I was online playing this game from night and day when not in school.

It came with a cloth map where the lands were written in Runic lexicon that inspired me to go out and then learn Runic so I could read the map. I was a Great Lord 7x Grandmaster in skills, I owned a 4 story Tower and had hundreds of thousands in gold.

I made real life friends of all ages and was even seduced by older lady gamers. I lived and breathed this game for several years.

Unfortunately EA also saw fit to completely ruin what this game was and it was never optimized for anything outside of old CRT monitors which as screens grew in dimensions, empty space only grew on the game screen rather than expanding.

The saddest tale I could write would be that all of my information and experience would be fruitless as the game that was no longer is.

In closing, EA games hates video games and people.

Honorable Mention: Chrono Trigger - I still whistle the songs from this game regularly, still my favorite RPG.

 

[Kadayi]

Personally I kind of drift with games in terms of what takes my interest. I think also over time I've grown out of and moved beyond certain genres (Straight FPS really don't interest me all that much these days for instance). I applaud those bold pioneers who dedicate themselves to playing one particular game whether in the pursuit of excellence or in order to write guides, but it's not for me. variety is the spice of life.