Reasons Why Younger Gamers Don't Get Older RPGs?.

[InSight]

Truth is: Your young gamers aren't going to pull themselves away from Fortnite, League of Legends, DOTA, Starcraft, or whatever recent online multiplayer; to play something that they're simply not interested in. Yeah you can force them by sitting by their side, walking them through it, but they'll just go back to Starcraft or Fortnite the next day.

It is a good reason, on the basis that they are multiplayer games. Multi=many/multiple/much ,thus more player provide more capacity be it more enjoyment/simulation/challenge its negatives not excluded, if 1000 points exist so would -1000.

If games are to provide enjoyment, multiplayer would provide more enjoyment for more player participate and in real-time compared to the indirect human involvement in single player games. For mankind is a social creature. Made in a way that the food made for others would be tastier then if made by oneself.
Mankind's mind is more advanced and varied than AI made in single player games, thus generally, are more interesting/challenging/re-playable.

All if not many games before the invention of computers required multiplayer, Role Playing Games not excluded and one is not playing RPG if multiplayer is not included.

 

[barricade]

5 pages of old people mumbling, caring so much about what my generation think, begging for answers, and wondering why we don't play their old games like it should be mandatory is somewhat hilarious lol.

anyway, this is pure gold:

If the younger gamer's brain has been wired to the point where we don't even read manuals anymore, then they'll never play a game like PST. And if they lack the mental capacity to play a game like PST.

hi. i'm 20. i played planescape torment when i was 19, it literally was the third crpg i've played, didn't read a single page of the manual (there's no need), and yet, i finished it without breaking a sweat. how is that possible?

see that chippy's comment? this is exactly what i was saying the other day. i have no idea where you old folks got this idea that old crpgs needed some special mental capacities or good gaming skills, you guys are so convinced old crpgs require high IQ it's unbelievable. about PST, as i was playing along, i felt like i was playing some casual jrpg i used to play when i was 9. no joke. there's nothing hard or challenging about PST, and it's not even as well written as any random novel, that game doesn't require anything special. still a good game tho.

i know it hurts, but you'll be fine i guess.

 

[Laz Sundays]

It's all about presentation, I believe. It is really hard to find a way and present the oldies in a good enough light to make them seem worthwhile.

Any game with depth requires your dedication, that is a fact. OTOH, many old games are no longer playable, which is a rather sad result of our technological advance. If something requires too much dedication AND isn't presentable (like what happened to me when I was trying to play original Wasteland or Daggerfall), we have to really REALLY believe that it would be worth our time to be able to pull through. And it just isn't in cases I mentioned. Some games are too old, man. It's not worth going past a certain point because a truly complex game needs a complex system running it. It just wasn't possible to have before latest decades. I know, I started off with some prehistoric examples here, hang on a bit.

I quickly realized that I could never go further than Pool of Radiance and made peace with the past. And, as years went on, I can freely say that I WILL NEVER AGAIN REPLAY the first Icewind dale or Baldur's. There is nothing more that I can gain from them, plus both of these have a much smoother and improved sequel. The oldest and/or crappiest looking ones that I can still play - Arcanum for example - I will play them forever out of stubbornness despite it's hideous, horrendous execution. I LIKE Arcanum on a very personal level and that will go with me to my grave, but the game looks and feels awful. Some older oldfag has the same attitude towards OG Wasteland, I'm sure of it. So, the oldest of these pioneer works inevitably get outdated. Progress is something that must happen, things are destined to be improved upon. Despite this, games that never got their upgraded successors do exist. There is no improved Gothics or Fallouts. There is no D&D based cRPG that does D&D justice that it deserves. Some oldies are all we got.

Therefore, I came to the conclusion that getting someone to play them after their time requires - a marketing expertise. You need to literally marinate someone to the best of your capabilities to make them give these a go.

Wait. Was it ever any different? Have you forgotten how hard it was to get anyone hooked on some of these games even during their time? There was alot less options back in the day, that's probably the only reason we ourselves gave many games a shot, only later becoming aware of their real value.. I now consider games to be a superior medium over movies or books, because you get to actually participate in it. But I will admit it here - I myself had to be marinated in order to give some games a chance.

When it comes to latest generations of gamers, the only way you could even attempt to make some depth-craving youngster to play an old rpg is if you somehow manage to (legally) get them in a "Cabin in the Woods" type of situation, and all therein is would be and old PC with ONE game. That's one way I guess. Recreate the old TIMES. You can have the internet and whatnot, the PC that can run old games ONLY is the key. And maybe, just maybe, you can hold their attention long enough to make them see the actual forest within the ugly trees. Look. It's not even their fault, it's just that we're human as f. I think rpg lovers are born in every generation, but I don't delude myself that I would be any different than this youth if I was born in these times, bombarded with information and having a sea of entertainment at my disposal whenever I feel like it. TRASHING YOUNGER GENERATIONS IS NOT A WAY. Making an effort to APPEAL to them - might be. Show them reviews, LetsPlays, let them see you playing and enjoying it. Make them see it on your face when you recall your found memories with those games and be honest about how old and imperfect they are. A natural spontaneous marination, if you will.

Bonus, if u aren't already tl;dring:

An opinion on books

(sidenote: I have a very intelligent friend who never read a book in his life. Had no interest in reading books ever, is what he'll say. But he does get it, why books are good for us. Just that they aren't to him cause he doesn't believe them to be as necessary. He'll read all dialogues in an rpg to the fullest, it's not that he doesn't read anything at all. And this choice to not read books has never cucked him. On the contrary - swims on top of every debate with grace, often having strongest arguments and more depth without wasting words. Expresses his thoughts better than I ever will. So no, I do not believe that young people not reading is a prime reason, there's many ways to achieve depth. Confirmed by every hermit that went into a cave and came out of it enlightened, back in the days when it was popular af)

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Gregz solved it in page 1, it's the UI and QoL. The indie successes of the last decade killed the argument that it's graphics whoring, young gaymers are perfectly willing to play things that look like shit if they find it engaging. The secret is that they can only look like shit, not control like it.

 

[Hace El Oso]

we're human as f.

it was popular af

They don't even know they're retarded, poor things.

 

[Laz Sundays]

That makes perfect sense, ngl.

we're human as f.

it was popular af

They don't even know they're retarded, poor things.

I'm not even mad. I'm more amused by what you choose to be like. Hate leads nowhere, lad.

 

[Hace El Oso]

I'm not even mad

Contrary to myth, retards rarely get mad because it has become a lifestyle choice.

 

[Ladonna]

It's all about presentation, I believe. It is really hard to find a way and present the oldies in a good enough light to make them seem worthwhile.

Any game with depth requires your dedication, that is a fact. OTOH, many old games are no longer playable, which is a rather sad result of our technological advance. If something requires too much dedication AND isn't presentable (like what happened to me when I was trying to play original Wasteland or Daggerfall), we have to really REALLY believe that it would be worth our time to be able to pull through. And it just isn't in cases I mentioned. Some games are too old, man. It's not worth going past a certain point because a truly complex game needs a complex system running it. It just wasn't possible to have before latest decades. I know, I started off with some prehistoric examples here, hang on a bit.

I quickly realized that I could never go further than Pool of Radiance and made peace with the past. And, as years went on, I can freely say that I WILL NEVER AGAIN REPLAY the first Icewind dale or Baldur's. There is nothing more that I can gain from them, plus both of these have a much smoother and improved sequel. The oldest and/or crappiest looking ones that I can still play - Arcanum for example - I will play them forever out of stubbornness despite it's hideous, horrendous execution. I LIKE Arcanum on a very personal level and that will go with me to my grave, but the game looks and feels awful. Some older oldfag has the same attitude towards OG Wasteland, I'm sure of it. So, the oldest of these pioneer works inevitably get outdated. Progress is something that must happen, things are destined to be improved upon. Despite this, games that never got their upgraded successors do exist. There is no improved Gothics or Fallouts. There is no D&D based cRPG that does D&D justice that it deserves. Some oldies are all we got.

Therefore, I came to the conclusion that getting someone to play them after their time requires - a marketing expertise. You need to literally marinate someone to the best of your capabilities to make them give these a go.

Wait. Was it ever any different? Have you forgotten how hard it was to get anyone hooked on some of these games even during their time? There was alot less options back in the day, that's probably the only reason we ourselves gave many games a shot, only later becoming aware of their real value.. I now consider games to be a superior medium over movies or books, because you get to actually participate in it. But I will admit it here - I myself had to be marinated in order to give some games a chance.

When it comes to latest generations of gamers, the only way you could even attempt to make some depth-craving youngster to play an old rpg is if you somehow manage to (legally) get them in a "Cabin in the Woods" type of situation, and all therein is would be and old PC with ONE game. That's one way I guess. Recreate the old TIMES. You can have the internet and whatnot, the PC that can run old games ONLY is the key. And maybe, just maybe, you can hold their attention long enough to make them see the actual forest within the ugly trees. Look. It's not even their fault, it's just that we're human as f. I think rpg lovers are born in every generation, but I don't delude myself that I would be any different than this youth if I was born in these times, bombarded with information and having a sea of entertainment at my disposal whenever I feel like it. TRASHING YOUNGER GENERATIONS IS NOT A WAY. Making an effort to APPEAL to them - might be. Show them reviews, LetsPlays, let them see you playing and enjoying it. Make them see it on your face when you recall your found memories with those games and be honest about how old and imperfect they are. A natural spontaneous marination, if you will.

We had a teenage player here at the Codex (Admiral Jimbob) play through Wasteland here about 10 or so years ago, full "Let's Play", and he not only finished it, but actually said he ended up enjoying it immensely, after laughing at the graphics initially.

You make a good point that old games aren't for everybody, especially those who are used to today's comforts. But you miss another salient point; Only a subset of the population were gamers back in the 80's (even the 90's really), and only a subset of that subset were CRPG players. So expecting the multitudes that play new CRPGs to be remotely interested in the really old stuff is expecting a bit much. Even if the same amount exist today that used to play CRPG's (Pool of Radiance was considered one of the greatest CRPG hits of all time when it reached over 100k copies sold back in the late 80's. It ended up being quite a bit more than that, but 100k copies sold in today's triple AAA market would be the failure of the century) you would hardly hear from them, as having say 50-150k young players enjoying 1980's stuff wouldn't be a blip on the gaming market radar.

I will concede also that a lot of people that were playing the C64 version of a game would be envious of those playing the Amiga or ST version of a game (even though said game was usually exactly the same in mechanics and execution, apart from a few that had more on the 16 bit machines, and the odd, rare 8 bit version that had more). They looked better, shinier, used an exotic mouse, looked more like the arcade version, blah blah. That is just how it was for a lot of people. I even see this attitude with oldfags on forums today; Many of them turn to the shiniest version of a 1980's/early 90's game whenever possible. They could play the Apple II or C64 version, but usually opt for the Amiga, ST or (insert Japanese PC) version because graphics, sounds, whatever.

I am an outlier in that I prefer playing the old games on a real C64, with real disks, with real disk drive sounds (but with jiffydos speed, I'm not entirely insane), real C64 sounds etc. Or games I played on Amiga on a real Amiga. Don't ask me why, that is just how it is. But I can understand people that want to make everything as comfy as possible and have as many bells and whistles as they can, as this amounts to most people.

 

[Laz Sundays]

I'm not even mad

Contrary to myth, retards rarely get mad because it has become a lifestyle choice.

The hell do you want? I wasn't picking on anyone. I am old, foreign, and tired atm. I speak as best I can in a language that I'm not born into, in a way I learned to speak it. You know nothing about me and you never will. You're insisting on being rude, like being unpleasant will ever be deemed as smart. I'm a retard, yes. Carry on, while I mute you

 

[Bad Sector]

Bioshock really did have dated graphics and was bad an immersive sim, that's not wrong.

I brought up the "Bioshock is bad as an immersive sim" part mainly to avoid having people going "but Bioshock sucks, why do you even bring it up?" - but it looks like that backfired :-P Anyway, in 2007 Bioshock's graphics weren't dated - ignoring Crysis (which was an extreme outlier), most games at the time had similar graphics. Its water effects specifically were praised.

An issue is that lexicographic preferences are a thing for too many people. It's something that people who happen not to have any such strong preferences find difficulty believing.

FWIW i do not have difficulty believing it - after all the examples i brought were to support the notion that people can skip older games because of the graphics. I do find it weird though since, as you wrote, older graphics isn't something that bothers me (i can play classic Tomb Raider next to Cyberpunk 2077 just fine :-P).

Though i don't know if that really has anything to do with age as i know people older than me who skip games due to their graphics.

Graphics is probably a misleading word. The real issue is probably later cohorts being more likely to find, as a dealbreaker, lack of style. Which is not graphics, but correlated with graphics.

Yeah, it is graphics vs. visuals - Extra Credits had a nice video on the topic and while i do not like their videos, especially nowadays, back when they first started they had some nice topics and this was one of them. Graphics is about the technical side, visuals is about the artistic side (which can, especially during 80s and 90s, be affected greatly from the graphics).

I try to be consistent when using these two but it can be hard when discussing with others or quoting others who use the word "graphics" to mean either (or sometimes even stuff like animations or physics). The "Bioshock has dated graphics" bit was like that because i explicitly remember whoever wrote it (on Reddit) to use the word "graphics".

3D graphics age terribly in general, due to technical advances that prompt the player to compare the older graphics with those of recent games.

3D graphics used to age much faster during the 90s and early 2000s, but by late 2000s the differences are lesser and lesser. You can tell something like a game with Doom or Ultima Underworld's limitation with a single look from a distance even when squinting, but distinguishing between a typical AAA game released in 2009 and a typical AAA game released in 2019 - assuming a similar visual style, not comparing Mario with Call of Duty :-P - will have you look for things like how precise the shadows andSSAO are or how much resolution the textures have.

Even within 3D graphics, the 2.5D type that relied heavily on 2D sprites within the environments has aged better than the fully 3D type

I think that is down to personal preference - like LarryTyphoid i'd rather have full 3D visuals (models, etc) to sprites myself, though unlike him i prefer textures to be filtered.

 

[JarlFrank]

Recently, early 3D graphics have been starting to be seen as "retro" in the same way as pixel art, and quite a few indie devs have intentionally used a low-poly aesthetic. This kind of stuff is ridiculously popular with zoomers, too, and it was associated with the "analog horror" boom that happened around last year. The "PS1 aesthetic", it's typically called.

There seems to be some group of people nostalgic for the 3D graphical capabilities of the original Playstation and desirous of games with similar graphics, but these are people who played PS1 games as children, and therefore millennials rather than zoomers. Since zoomers were born starting in 1995, even the oldest zoomers wouldn't suffer from nostalgia for the PS1 or its graphics.

I never owned a console, but I am somewhat nostalgic for the "PS1" look of early 3D. There's just something to it that is incredibly atmospheric.

And it's funny because at the time I much preferred 2D games over 3D and never understood why 3D was so popular, considering 2D games were much more beautiful.

But nowadays, I get it and developed a fascination for early 3D and vertical level design. Games like Thief, Quake, Unreal, Tomb Raider are peak in this aspect.
Not only is the level design of these games top notch, the atmosphere is also incredibly dense due to the low poly graphics and low res textures leaving a lot for the imagination and giving everything a surreal, dreamlike feeling.

 

[Bad Sector]

"PS1" look of early 3D [...] Games like Thief, Quake, Unreal, Tomb Raider

FWIW the "PS1 look" people refer to isn't just the low poly stuff, but also all the PS1 limitations that created glitches like texture warping from affine interpolation, lack of zbuffer that caused overlapping triangles/objects, etc :-P. Also add some CRT TV filters in the mix too.

(i've mentioned it before i think, but i found it funny when i saw my Post Apocalyptic Petra game - which was made for DOS and has affine interpolation and lack of zbuffer - being added to several "games with PS1 aesthetics" lists despite not being made with PS1 in mind at all and it just happened to have visual glitches you'd find in PS1 games :-P)

 

[Laz Sundays]

It's all about presentation, I believe. It is really hard to find a way and present the oldies in a good enough light to make them seem worthwhile.

Any game with depth requires your dedication, that is a fact. OTOH, many old games are no longer playable, which is a rather sad result of our technological advance. If something requires too much dedication AND isn't presentable (like what happened to me when I was trying to play original Wasteland or Daggerfall), we have to really REALLY believe that it would be worth our time to be able to pull through. And it just isn't in cases I mentioned. Some games are too old, man. It's not worth going past a certain point because a truly complex game needs a complex system running it. It just wasn't possible to have before latest decades. I know, I started off with some prehistoric examples here, hang on a bit.

I quickly realized that I could never go further than Pool of Radiance and made peace with the past. And, as years went on, I can freely say that I WILL NEVER AGAIN REPLAY the first Icewind dale or Baldur's. There is nothing more that I can gain from them, plus both of these have a much smoother and improved sequel. The oldest and/or crappiest looking ones that I can still play - Arcanum for example - I will play them forever out of stubbornness despite it's hideous, horrendous execution. I LIKE Arcanum on a very personal level and that will go with me to my grave, but the game looks and feels awful. Some older oldfag has the same attitude towards OG Wasteland, I'm sure of it. So, the oldest of these pioneer works inevitably get outdated. Progress is something that must happen, things are destined to be improved upon. Despite this, games that never got their upgraded successors do exist. There is no improved Gothics or Fallouts. There is no D&D based cRPG that does D&D justice that it deserves. Some oldies are all we got.

Therefore, I came to the conclusion that getting someone to play them after their time requires - a marketing expertise. You need to literally marinate someone to the best of your capabilities to make them give these a go.

Wait. Was it ever any different? Have you forgotten how hard it was to get anyone hooked on some of these games even during their time? There was alot less options back in the day, that's probably the only reason we ourselves gave many games a shot, only later becoming aware of their real value.. I now consider games to be a superior medium over movies or books, because you get to actually participate in it. But I will admit it here - I myself had to be marinated in order to give some games a chance.

When it comes to latest generations of gamers, the only way you could even attempt to make some depth-craving youngster to play an old rpg is if you somehow manage to (legally) get them in a "Cabin in the Woods" type of situation, and all therein is would be and old PC with ONE game. That's one way I guess. Recreate the old TIMES. You can have the internet and whatnot, the PC that can run old games ONLY is the key. And maybe, just maybe, you can hold their attention long enough to make them see the actual forest within the ugly trees. Look. It's not even their fault, it's just that we're human as f. I think rpg lovers are born in every generation, but I don't delude myself that I would be any different than this youth if I was born in these times, bombarded with information and having a sea of entertainment at my disposal whenever I feel like it. TRASHING YOUNGER GENERATIONS IS NOT A WAY. Making an effort to APPEAL to them - might be. Show them reviews, LetsPlays, let them see you playing and enjoying it. Make them see it on your face when you recall your found memories with those games and be honest about how old and imperfect they are. A natural spontaneous marination, if you will.

We had a teenage player here at the Codex (Admiral Jimbob) play through Wasteland here about 10 or so years ago, full "Let's Play", and he not only finished it, but actually said he ended up enjoying it immensely, after laughing at the graphics initially.

You make a good point that old games aren't for everybody, especially those who are used to today's comforts. But you miss another salient point; Only a subset of the population were gamers back in the 80's (even the 90's really), and only a subset of that subset were CRPG players. So expecting the multitudes that play new CRPGs to be remotely interested in the really old stuff is expecting a bit much. Even if the same amount exist today that used to play CRPG's (Pool of Radiance was considered one of the greatest CRPG hits of all time when it reached over 100k copies sold back in the late 80's. It ended up being quite a bit more than that, but 100k copies sold in today's triple AAA market would be the failure of the century) you would hardly hear from them, as having say 50-150k young players enjoying 1980's stuff wouldn't be a blip on the gaming market radar.

I will concede also that a lot of people that were playing the C64 version of a game would be envious of those playing the Amiga or ST version of a game (even though said game was usually exactly the same in mechanics and execution, apart from a few that had more on the 16 bit machines, and the odd, rare 8 bit version that had more). They looked better, shinier, used an exotic mouse, looked more like the arcade version, blah blah. That is just how it was for a lot of people. I even see this attitude with oldfags on forums today; Many of them turn to the shiniest version of a 1980's/early 90's game whenever possible. They could play the Apple II or C64 version, but usually opt for the Amiga, ST or (insert Japanese PC) version because graphics, sounds, whatever.

I am an outlier in that I prefer playing the old games on a real C64, with real disks, with real disk drive sounds (but with jiffydos speed, I'm not entirely insane), real C64 sounds etc. Or games I played on Amiga on a real Amiga. Don't ask me why, that is just how it is. But I can understand people that want to make everything as comfy as possible and have as many bells and whistles as they can, as this amounts to most people.

I am aware that RPGs in general are a niche, not a trend. As others pointed out, this thread is best answered by crappy UI and lack of QoL. You like the old games the same way that some people like vinyls, in their pristine state, that's nice to hear. In any case:

There is something that has always bothered me about IE games, specifically D&D ones. As a teen that loved D&D immediately, I loved the first attempts at cRPG.. it's the fact that they've stopped attempting that bothers me now. And I always wondered why, to later end up with the same conclusion - niche products reach a limit in demand. Your modern market radar comment is perfectly on point, the market of today just doesn't want the full complexity of a Dungeons and Dragons game in high enough numbers, and money listens. What Larian is doing now with BG3 is riding on a nostalgia bait, using a the power of the brand's name to get through to people. Generating hype. Which would be great if it wasn't a frickin' Larian, and if it wasn't a story-driven Baldur's Gate, imo.

This leads me back to criticizing IE, namely folks from the Obsidian. For some unknown ungodly reason, they thought that making an EXACT COPY of that clunky, godawful engine would make a Return. Instead of taking a road of total improvement and upgrade when they had their kickstarter chance, instead of taking what has been done right and expanding upon it - basically, instead of making a NWN 3D with ToEE combat and mechanics, and make it on an engine (and this example may trigger, but it's my firm belief it would be a great engine for cRPGs) like ArenaNet has for their Guild Wars 2 MMO, they just made another outdated crappy IE. Boggled my mind.

See, I don't want cRPGs to be shiny. But I don't want to see another IE game ever again. In essence - just want player choice, options, and content been improved in new editions. A rich world to dive into. Yet noone does this, they improve graphics and waste money on voiceacting. Maybe the world building should be a priority over story when making these. I would rather have a full 3d version of Forgotten realms map and rely on modules, modders and custom campaigns than developer telling their story and wasting all budget on it. We all have stories, they only need to give us the world, a background to play them in. Yes, it sounds like I'm saying that Bethesda approach(minus main story) would be ideal for cRPGs, and I am. Wasn't this the initial goal of making cRPGs? To make them as close to tabletop as possible? Maybe this is the direction that all these developers that failed need to get back to. To the roots. Make a world and make it good, add campaigns to it indefinitely. I wish to see the village I didn't save burned down. And I wish to see it prosper if I did save it. The old abandoned tower that gave me shelter that one night - I want to return to it and make it my home. Factions that I've joined to prosper and rise until they threaten the Crown. The believable world that reacts to player and gets changed by our passing through it. Such a world could accommodate all the stories we'd ever need.

 

[Not.AI]

waste money on voiceacting

Catch is that lack of voice acting is a dealbreaker for too many people. Like stylism. Indeed part of style, there being a graphical and nongraphical part. (Again consider FFVI but now the intro's sound and not just how it looked.)

The original cases that probably started it all, with fully voiced dialogue in many languages, were probably again Gothic 1 & Gothic 2.

Something a little popular but even if not a big hit at the time for historical reasons (Did they have any marketing?) often still does contribute to big trends all same.

Morrowind and later Oblivion did not have it. Voice acting is expensive particularly in that it forces writing to be done and finalized much earlier and any changes later must be redone, making the whole development process less iterative. Though iterative development is one of the main ways to reduce cost. AI voices might be the solution to this cost issue in the end.

The world building should be a priority over story when making these ... Make a world and make it good, add campaigns to it indefinitely. I wish to see the village I didn't save burned down. And I wish to see it prosper if I did save it. The old abandoned tower that gave me shelter that one night - I want to return to it and make it my home. Factions that I've joined to prosper and rise until they threaten the Crown. The believable world that reacts to player and gets changed by our passing through it. Such a world could accommodate all the stories we'd ever need.

Totally. A lot of what is going on is just that too many people working in games today don't really understand (or don't like...) their own medium.

If they could, it seems they would rather work in films. (But they can't!)

Why don't you like Larian? They are one of the few firms that do some of that interactivity you mentioned. I like Larian! (Divinity 1 & Divinity 2 were great.)

Gregz solved it in page 1, it's the UI and QoL. The indie successes of the last decade killed the argument that it's graphics whoring, young gaymers are perfectly willing to play things that look like shit if they find it engaging. The secret is that they can only look like shit, not control like it.

That's stylism. They can play Minecraft because the style is okay, and it lends itself to memes.

Regarding controls, nah. A lot of people, especially casual players, only play games that are essentially PC games with a controller, on consoles.

That is a terrible experience, but they still play those games and like that. Sure, controls matter, but controls don't look like a popular dealbreaker.

 

[The Wall]

Answer is simple: Zoomers are afraid of Daggerfall Imperial boobs. Boob slips to them are akin to jump scares

 

[octavius]

Just look at all the codexers that refuse to play any modern RPG, irregardless of how good it actually is. Reverse that and you probably get why a decent chunk of younger gamers don't try older games.
It's also not a gaming specific thing. Have you ever tried recommending older movies to people? Or a foreign movie with subtitles? Most people just can't get over these 1cm tall barriers, so they just decide to rot in their comfort zones.

There's also those who dedicate their lives to a handful of favourites.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Gregz solved it in page 1, it's the UI and QoL. The indie successes of the last decade killed the argument that it's graphics whoring, young gaymers are perfectly willing to play things that look like shit if they find it engaging. The secret is that they can only look like shit, not control like it.

I'm sympathetic to complaints about poor user interfaces, but this can't explain why some people are unwilling to play any older CRPGs while being willing to play recent ones, since the quality of UIs in CRPGs generally has deteriorated greatly over the last two decades or so. This followed a general incline in UI design as other CRPGs eventually copied many aspects of Dungeon Master's innovative UI after its release in 1987. Partly, this can be blamed on consolization, with PC releases often relying on the same user interface as the simultaneous console release, as witness for example the transition from Morrowind's splendid PC-designed interface in 2002 to Oblivion's clunky console-designed interface in 2006. However, user interfaces tended to become even worse than necessary for the convenience of console players, with perhaps the best example being Skyrim's UI, which is almost a joke, as though Todd Howard wanted to determine how horrible a UI could be while still being played by console-users who, unlike computer-users, had no means of modding it.


See also this previous discussion of the decline in CRPG user interfaces: https://rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/why-devs-are-so-afraid-of-proper-ui-today.124232/


Dungeon Master in 1987 created the "paper doll" inventory screen, seen below, and for its main interface ringed the central first-person view with controls and info relating to each party member, the party members in relation to each other (and individual party member facing!), the magic system for spellcasting, weapons/items held by each character for immediate use, and directional movement --- all contained on one screen!

 

[barricade]

hi. i'm 20. i played planescape torment when i was 19, it literally was the third crpg i've played, didn't read a single page of the manual (there's no need), and yet, i finished it without breaking a sweat. how is that possible?

Quick, some admin give this guy the

tag, before he starts shooting lasers with his eyes!!!1! :V

you just didn't get my point at all, but that's fine.

 

[Just Locus]

hi. i'm 20. i played planescape torment when i was 19, it literally was the third crpg i've played, didn't read a single page of the manual (there's no need), and yet, i finished it without breaking a sweat. how is that possible?

Quick, some admin give this guy the

tag, before he starts shooting lasers with his eyes!!!1! :V

you just didn't get my point at all, but that's fine.

Nah, i got your point, you don't need some high IQ or mental capacity, I'm pretty sure even the most mentally challenged gamers can skim through the deepest and most complex CRPGs and complete it no problem, as i said, it's simply an 'interest' thing, no one is "too dumb" to play a game, at least, not adults, this obviously doesn't apply to the mentally handicapped as well.

Gregz solved it in page 1, it's the UI and QoL. The indie successes of the last decade killed the argument that it's graphics whoring, young gaymers are perfectly willing to play things that look like shit if they find it engaging. The secret is that they can only look like shit, not control like it.

I'm sympathetic to complaints about poor user interfaces, but this can't explain why some people are unwilling to play any older CRPGs while being willing to play recent ones, since the quality of UIs in CRPGs generally has deteriorated greatly over the last two decades or so. This followed a general incline in UI design as other CRPGs eventually copied many aspects of Dungeon Master's innovative UI after its release in 1987. Partly, this can be blamed on consolization, with PC releases often relying on the same user interface as the simultaneous console release, as witness for example the transition from Morrowind's splendid PC-designed interface in 2002 to Oblivion's clunky console-designed interface in 2006. However, user interfaces tended to become even worse than necessary for the convenience of console players, with perhaps the best example being Skyrim's UI, which is almost a joke, as though Todd Howard wanted to determine how horrible a UI could be while still being played by console-users who, unlike computer-users, had no means of modding it.

The Thing is, If you make a good user interface, people won't notice you've done anything at all, but when you fuck it up it's very noticeable and irritating, one of it that comes to mind is Gran Turismo, and Call Of Duty WW2 etc etc, i just want an easy-to-look-at and stylized UI that gives me all the information in a digestible way and non-overwhelming way.

One thing I can suggest as a solution is to have it so they can change the interface whenever the controller is plugged in or not, as in, The interface is PC-friendly, then once a controller is plugged in, the game pops a message in that says "Controller is plugged in, Please Wait." and then the game loads in the Console-friendly interface, and not have it one way or the other.

 

[Artyoan]

Poor graphics, poor UI functionality. Lots of things can just feel unnecessarily clunky. I do think there is something to be said for today's youth not having that background imagination that can take shitty graphics and 'fill in the blanks' but I'm not sure how widespread that actually is. I don't see it as an issue of low IQ or low patience for reading. Though the fascination for watching streamers might hint at a push towards 'efficiency' gaming in terms of speed and not necessarily strategy. I think its mostly just graphics and sluggish/clunky gameplay.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

I'm not even mad

Contrary to myth, retards rarely get mad because it has become a lifestyle choice.

It's more like they're too retarded to know what it means.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

It's all about presentation, I believe. It is really hard to find a way and present the oldies in a good enough light to make them seem worthwhile.

Any game with depth requires your dedication, that is a fact. OTOH, many old games are no longer playable, which is a rather sad result of our technological advance. If something requires too much dedication AND isn't presentable (like what happened to me when I was trying to play original Wasteland or Daggerfall), we have to really REALLY believe that it would be worth our time to be able to pull through. And it just isn't in cases I mentioned. Some games are too old, man. It's not worth going past a certain point because a truly complex game needs a complex system running it. It just wasn't possible to have before latest decades. I know, I started off with some prehistoric examples here, hang on a bit.

I quickly realized that I could never go further than Pool of Radiance and made peace with the past. And, as years went on, I can freely say that I WILL NEVER AGAIN REPLAY the first Icewind dale or Baldur's. There is nothing more that I can gain from them, plus both of these have a much smoother and improved sequel. The oldest and/or crappiest looking ones that I can still play - Arcanum for example - I will play them forever out of stubbornness despite it's hideous, horrendous execution. I LIKE Arcanum on a very personal level and that will go with me to my grave, but the game looks and feels awful. Some older oldfag has the same attitude towards OG Wasteland, I'm sure of it. So, the oldest of these pioneer works inevitably get outdated. Progress is something that must happen, things are destined to be improved upon. Despite this, games that never got their upgraded successors do exist. There is no improved Gothics or Fallouts. There is no D&D based cRPG that does D&D justice that it deserves. Some oldies are all we got.

Therefore, I came to the conclusion that getting someone to play them after their time requires - a marketing expertise. You need to literally marinate someone to the best of your capabilities to make them give these a go.

Wait. Was it ever any different? Have you forgotten how hard it was to get anyone hooked on some of these games even during their time? There was alot less options back in the day, that's probably the only reason we ourselves gave many games a shot, only later becoming aware of their real value.. I now consider games to be a superior medium over movies or books, because you get to actually participate in it. But I will admit it here - I myself had to be marinated in order to give some games a chance.

When it comes to latest generations of gamers, the only way you could even attempt to make some depth-craving youngster to play an old rpg is if you somehow manage to (legally) get them in a "Cabin in the Woods" type of situation, and all therein is would be and old PC with ONE game. That's one way I guess. Recreate the old TIMES. You can have the internet and whatnot, the PC that can run old games ONLY is the key. And maybe, just maybe, you can hold their attention long enough to make them see the actual forest within the ugly trees. Look. It's not even their fault, it's just that we're human as f. I think rpg lovers are born in every generation, but I don't delude myself that I would be any different than this youth if I was born in these times, bombarded with information and having a sea of entertainment at my disposal whenever I feel like it. TRASHING YOUNGER GENERATIONS IS NOT A WAY. Making an effort to APPEAL to them - might be. Show them reviews, LetsPlays, let them see you playing and enjoying it. Make them see it on your face when you recall your found memories with those games and be honest about how old and imperfect they are. A natural spontaneous marination, if you will.

We had a teenage player here at the Codex (Admiral Jimbob) play through Wasteland here about 10 or so years ago, full "Let's Play", and he not only finished it, but actually said he ended up enjoying it immensely, after laughing at the graphics initially.

You make a good point that old games aren't for everybody, especially those who are used to today's comforts. But you miss another salient point; Only a subset of the population were gamers back in the 80's (even the 90's really), and only a subset of that subset were CRPG players. So expecting the multitudes that play new CRPGs to be remotely interested in the really old stuff is expecting a bit much. Even if the same amount exist today that used to play CRPG's (Pool of Radiance was considered one of the greatest CRPG hits of all time when it reached over 100k copies sold back in the late 80's. It ended up being quite a bit more than that, but 100k copies sold in today's triple AAA market would be the failure of the century) you would hardly hear from them, as having say 50-150k young players enjoying 1980's stuff wouldn't be a blip on the gaming market radar.

I will concede also that a lot of people that were playing the C64 version of a game would be envious of those playing the Amiga or ST version of a game (even though said game was usually exactly the same in mechanics and execution, apart from a few that had more on the 16 bit machines, and the odd, rare 8 bit version that had more). They looked better, shinier, used an exotic mouse, looked more like the arcade version, blah blah. That is just how it was for a lot of people. I even see this attitude with oldfags on forums today; Many of them turn to the shiniest version of a 1980's/early 90's game whenever possible. They could play the Apple II or C64 version, but usually opt for the Amiga, ST or (insert Japanese PC) version because graphics, sounds, whatever.

I am an outlier in that I prefer playing the old games on a real C64, with real disks, with real disk drive sounds (but with jiffydos speed, I'm not entirely insane), real C64 sounds etc. Or games I played on Amiga on a real Amiga. Don't ask me why, that is just how it is. But I can understand people that want to make everything as comfy as possible and have as many bells and whistles as they can, as this amounts to most people.

I am aware that RPGs in general are a niche, not a trend. As others pointed out, this thread is best answered by crappy UI and lack of QoL. You like the old games the same way that some people like vinyls, in their pristine state, that's nice to hear. In any case:

There is something that has always bothered me about IE games, specifically D&D ones. As a teen that loved D&D immediately, I loved the first attempts at cRPG.. it's the fact that they've stopped attempting that bothers me now. And I always wondered why, to later end up with the same conclusion - niche products reach a limit in demand. Your modern market radar comment is perfectly on point, the market of today just doesn't want the full complexity of a Dungeons and Dragons game in high enough numbers, and money listens. What Larian is doing now with BG3 is riding on a nostalgia bait, using a the power of the brand's name to get through to people. Generating hype. Which would be great if it wasn't a frickin' Larian, and if it wasn't a story-driven Baldur's Gate, imo.

This leads me back to criticizing IE, namely folks from the Obsidian. For some unknown ungodly reason, they thought that making an EXACT COPY of that clunky, godawful engine would make a Return. Instead of taking a road of total improvement and upgrade when they had their kickstarter chance, instead of taking what has been done right and expanding upon it - basically, instead of making a NWN 3D with ToEE combat and mechanics, and make it on an engine (and this example may trigger, but it's my firm belief it would be a great engine for cRPGs) like ArenaNet has for their Guild Wars 2 MMO, they just made another outdated crappy IE. Boggled my mind.

See, I don't want cRPGs to be shiny. But I don't want to see another IE game ever again. In essence - just want player choice, options, and content been improved in new editions. A rich world to dive into. Yet noone does this, they improve graphics and waste money on voiceacting. Maybe the world building should be a priority over story when making these. I would rather have a full 3d version of Forgotten realms map and rely on modules, modders and custom campaigns than developer telling their story and wasting all budget on it. We all have stories, they only need to give us the world, a background to play them in. Yes, it sounds like I'm saying that Bethesda approach(minus main story) would be ideal for cRPGs, and I am. Wasn't this the initial goal of making cRPGs? To make them as close to tabletop as possible? Maybe this is the direction that all these developers that failed need to get back to. To the roots. Make a world and make it good, add campaigns to it indefinitely. I wish to see the village I didn't save burned down. And I wish to see it prosper if I did save it. The old abandoned tower that gave me shelter that one night - I want to return to it and make it my home. Factions that I've joined to prosper and rise until they threaten the Crown. The believable world that reacts to player and gets changed by our passing through it. Such a world could accommodate all the stories we'd ever need.

the entire reason PoE failed was because it was based on Josh Sawyer Fuck You Suck My Dick Rpg System and not AD&D or D20. That its, that is the entire reason. I said it would fail for this reason at the time, and I continue to believe it to be true. If he had used D&D, PoE would have been a huge success, all the other shit people go on about does not matter, or is of minor importance. The art work and UI are actually exceptional in PoE, its the shitty RPG system that makes the game such a mess and doomed it to failure before it even launched.

 

[Falksi]

Different hobby, but similar principle.

I've played in bands since my late teens until around 6 years ago and did half decent for someone based in a more rural area. One of my bands kicked up a stink in the north of England during the 00's and, whilst it wasn't anywhere near a consistent enough earner that I could even consider quitting my then day job, it served as a foundation to make some very nice extra side-coin.

But it did require a lot of commitment. We'd gig between 2 and 5 times a week, and squeeze rehearsals in between too, meaning most weeks would see anywhere between 3 and 6 nights dedicated to the band. There was no drive for fame - we weren't trendy, likeable or good enough - but we had a great setup upon the Northern circuit, and built up a great rapport with the audiences too. In short, we had a lot of fun making some good coin, but that required a lot of work.

Fast forward to the last band I played in 5 or 6 years ago, and I had already decided to take a break with a view to stopping playing, but some locals came knocking in need of a guitarist. What they were doing wasn't really my thing musically, but it seemed like easy money as they were playing the acoustic circuit (so that often meant turning up with minimal equipment, thus easier and less time-consuming) and it was only a 3-peice too (which obviously meant a bigger cut of the pay).

Anyway, their singer was a very talented and likeable lad around 12 years younger than me. He had one of the best voices I'd ever worked with, had a lot of charisma and confidence, knew how to dress and perform, but mostly he definitely had that X factor which exuded passion on-stage. Naturally he was a potential rockstar no doubt. And that was his 100% goal too, he wasn't content playing these local circuits for extra coin, he wanted to make the big time. "I hate my day job...music is all I want to do with my life!" something he'd spout regularly. So I thought the positives far outweighed the negatives and gave the band a shot for some fun, hoping I could guide him a bit in his quest for glory.

Seeing how driven he was, I suggested starting with 2-3 rehearsals a week (at early stages in bands I find it's better to learn/write away from each other a few nights a week to start with, as then when you come together there's plenty of things to try out). "I can only do Tuesday's & Thursday's" the singer replied. ........Ah...OK then....I mean you want to rule the world but only spend two nights a week committed to doing that? Erm..OK. But in the context of the band that was enough, so we set our nights and started rehearsing.

2 months later Mr "this is all I want to do with my life!" World Conqueror has only attended 6 out of the 14 rehearsals scheduled. It was enough to get us gigging, but obviously at this point I knew this was all a waste of time, however I wanted to collar the cheeky twat to let him know he was a faggot going nowhere. So I got a good mate who owned a prestigious venue to pretend to offer the band a gig, in the hope that it might wake the singer up a bit.

"Aup, I've had X band cancel on me this Sunday...any chance you guys can fill in?" Prestigious venue, decent pay on offer, enough in our bag to gig....should be a no-brainer.

"Oh er sorry, I can't do Sunday...Man City are on the telly and I'm going to the pub to watch them with my mum & dad"

I fucking PISSED myself. This kid's deluding himself that he's gonna be the best of the best, and yet his road to stardom needs to wait in line to watch a bullshit glory team which he's never actually ever seen in the flesh.

A pure and utter mong, completely detached from reality, no backbone at all, and the embodiment of the younger generation. He's done absolutely fuck all since, and he's exactly the type of bellend who'll tell you he loves RPGs, then bitch Baldur's Gate 2 is too hard to get into, and Skyrim is where it's at.

 

[Harthwain]

I've had a similar experience with my parents. Even though they were born in the 70s, they refuse to watch black and white movies, or even colored movies from the 60s and 70s sometimes. Some people are just really stubborn about refusing to engage with something they consider too old. Who can say why? Probably conditioning from television. It's more profitable for consumers to constantly engage with the newest thing. Even though it's really easy to watch old movies and play old RPGs for free (which you'd think would be an incentive), people just won't. They'll spend their money on the newest shit instead. And you can't even argue them out of this mindset.

It's all about a comfort zone. My mom likes to watch movies she knows. This includes some black-and-white movies, but she doesn't particularly cares for black-and-white movies as such. And nobody I know cares about really old black-and-white movies or silent films. My father has some nostalgia towards stuff he watched (The 13th Warrior), but he is also a fan of Avatar (enough so he is really interested when the next one premieres). Other than that he watches some news, sometimes.

I do watch movies and TV series that are considered to be classic (NCIS, Star Trek: The Next Generation), but that's about how far I am willing to compromise on this. I do plan on getting my hands on The X-Files at some point. I did watch some of it back in the day, but because of my hearing problems I couldn't get a lot from it back when it was airing on TV, so having it on DVD with subtitles will be much more comfortable to watch.

Having said all that, I doubt I qualify as "younger gamer" anymore.

Morrowind and later Oblivion did not have it.

Morrowind had voiced lines outside of "dialogue", which was good enough to create an atmosphere.

 

[thesecret1]

The Thing is, If you make a good user interface, people won't notice you've done anything at all, but when you fuck it up it's very noticeable and irritating, one of it that comes to mind is Gran Turismo, and Call Of Duty WW2 etc etc, i just want an easy-to-look-at and stylized UI that gives me all the information in a digestible way and non-overwhelming way.

There's also an issue of controls becoming stremlined later on. If you play the first Gothic, for example, it feels as though the controls were designed by an alien. It's completely unlike what you'd expect, and takes a good hour or two of getting used to. After that, though you sorta realize that the controls are actually perfectly fine, they were designed alright. It's just that they are unlike what you are used to from 99% of modern games.