Losing Interest In Games - A Natural Progression?

MotherInferior writes "I'm 27, soon to be 28. I used to fiend over the newest games and eagerly play whatever I could get my hands on. Team Fortress Classic, Civilization, WarCraft, these were all games that I could literally lose myself for days in. I still drool over the newest games at Best Buy, but now that I actually have the money to buy them, I find myself saying, 'Nah, I'll just play what I've got,' or 'Y'know, I'd rather design my own game then play someone else's.' Even still, I don't really play the games I have. What's up with that? I'm sure my mom would sagely say (with some satisfaction in her voice), 'Wellll, you're just growing up...' Am I not as capable of having fun as I once was, or what? Don't get me wrong, I still enjoy gaming, but I can tell there's some kind of trend happening. Will there be gaming Viagra in my future, I wonder?"

Comments

I know what you mean...

[Gyler St. James]

I feel like my gaming glory days are behind me. I see all the latest games that I *want* to play, but either I can't bring myself to play (let alone buy) or I find something else more important to do (like programming). I think it's just age. I've heard from others though that gamers that turn about 40ish seem to pickup gaming again (assuming their spouse, if they have one, let's them).

Re:I know what you mean...

[Yokaze]

> Here's sage advice from the worse movie in the world

The bible has now become a movie?

Re:I know what you mean...

[Hadean]

Sadly, I think he/she was quoting Hackers, not realizing (or remembering the full scene in the movie) that the actual quote is from the Bible. The scene has various students writing quotes on the blackboard:

Cereal Killer: When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things. What? It's Corinthians one, chapter thirteen verse eleven. Duh!

(Personally, I think the movie is fun to watch...)

Re:I know what you mean...

[torpor]

I used to be an avid gamer, but since I 'grew up' (left the 20's, so to speak) I've found that its just not worth it.

All that harping about how much time I was wasting in front of a computer, essentially producing nothing of any value whatsoever, has sort of accumulated, and now the utter waste of life that video gaming actually is has hit me.

Whatever, if you're having fun, you're having fun... but it doesn't take long until you start to realize that using a computer for video games is little more than wanking. And, everyone knows that the energy you use for that is usually better spent elsewhere ... ;)

Just get over it, is my advice. You don't have to be a gamer to enjoy life. You can enjoy life without getting involved in any 'virtual realities', and if you're feeling that, then go with it ... your life will get better as a result of not playing video games as a habit ...

Re:I know what you mean...

[zatz]

So what you are saying is that playing video games can prevent prostate cancer?

Re:I know what you mean...

[Decaffeinated Jedi]

I thought I might have outgrown games in recent years, but it turns out that my tastes had simply changed and I needed to find the right games. For instance, from the age of 10 to around 20, I couldn't get enough of the adventure genre. I played and loved just about anything that Sierra and LucasArts released. Heck, I webmaster a site dedicated to the Space Quest series. Around 1997 or 1998, though, I found that adventure games just couldn't hold my interest anymore. The puzzle-solving dynamic just wasn't particularly interesting to me, and the stories (by and large) seemed less appealing.

After a brief period of time spent with shooters like Quake and Unreal Tournament and real-time strategy games like Warcraft, I more or less resolved myself to the fact that I had outgrown gaming. The genres I had loved just weren't that fun anymore. Then, a few years later, I began to discover two genres that really revitalized my interest -- genres that hadn't really interested me in the past. These were stealth-based first-person sneakers like Thief and No One Lives Forever and good old-fashioned RPGs. Now, while I still don't find myself all that interested in adventure games, I still enjoy gaming in new genres.

If you feel like games just aren't that fun anymore, try something a bit out-of-the-ordinary. You might be pleasantly surprised.

Re:I know what you mean...

[kisrael]

There's nothing wrong with that conclusion as long as you assume it's not the only correct conclusion.

Two Reasons:
-Life should have an element of fun and joy lest it be drab and strictly utilitarian

-your line of thinking can enter into a spiral of nihilism. Oh, so you helped someone? So what, they're going to die anyway. Oh so you helped humanity? So what, we'll still probably kill ourselves en masse. Oh so you helped humanity not kill itself? So what, it all ends in the heat death of the universe anyway. Oh, so you helped find out that the transhumanists are right and we can conquer entropy as a species and achieved virtual godhood? Well, now you're smoking recreational drugs, and thus the circle begins anew.

Better to get your cheerful nihilism on the ground floor, and find a balance between having fun and getting more obviously important things done.

Re:I know what you mean...

[christopherfinke]

Ozzy? Then wouldn't the quote be "Ommm d*** blke grmble lst I misb emy f***ing mumble grumble SHARON! thme mumblst..."

Re:I know what you mean...

[Metal_Demon]

I think you missed the point of the quote which I present to you in it's entirety:

"Nonononono. Truce, you guys. Listen, we got a higher purpose here, alright? A wake up call for the Nintendo Generation. We demand free access to data, well, it comes with some responsibility. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man I put away childish things. What... It's Corinthians I, Chapter 13, verse 11, no duh. Come on."

I believe the purpose of the was to actually point out that while Cereal Killer is not somebody who is taken seriously ALTHOUGH he is infact intelligent and even insightful. I think it's more of a don't judge a book by it's cover scene and not diminished by referring to us as the "Nintendo Generation".

Re:I know what you mean...

[Schemat1c]

It's been the oposite for me. I'm just turning 39 and I've loved video games since my Dad's friend showed us his amazing pong set back in the 70's. What I find myself losing interest in is passive entertainment such as TV and movies. I just get too bored just sitting there and not being involved. Unless it's an exceptional story or is actually teaching me something(which is almost never).

Besides I don't think playing video games is wasting your time. You are using your mind in new and creative ways, that can't be a complete waste. There are people that go to extremes and neglect other important parts of their life, but that goes with anything. I know people who have done that with cars, work, food, drugs, etc. As long as you keep a balance in your life it should be a positive thing.

It's called growing up

[ObviousGuy]

One other aspect of growing up, besides losing interest in childish things, is moving out on your own. Preferably somewhere where your mom won't be able to give you sage advice so easily.

Disillusionment with current crop of games

[Proud like a god]

I dont think your age has much to do with your disillusion, the more recent games just arent as innovative. Genres are already formed from the ground breaking classics, and now it's just a race for the best graphics.

Re:Disillusionment with current crop of games

[TwistedGreen]

Actually, I had a discussion on this topic with my brother the other day. It seems that the real advancements in gaming come only every few years... which coincides with the release dates for the established and experienced game companies like Id and Epic and Blizzard. These are the people who actually know what they're doing, while the rest just remake existing games with better graphics or a slightly different plot. It's rare to have a new revolutionary game company arise out of the blue. There aren't very many of these companies, and they can't be releasing new games every day. Thus, you have only sparse releases of good games which lesser companies will models in the years to come.

Unfortunately, many of the innovative game companies of old (Bullfrog, Sierra, Psygnosis...) are all but dead. Their hollowed-out carcasses have been commandeered by money-grubbing shareholders simply using their brand to try to absorb as much money as possible. None of the original talent on which the company was built remains. It's sad, really, but new talent will eventually arise.

Re:Disillusionment with current crop of games

[PainKilleR-CE]

It seems that the real advancements in gaming come only every few years... which coincides with the release dates for the established and experienced game companies like Id and Epic and Blizzard. [...] Unfortunately, many of the innovative game companies of old (Bullfrog, Sierra, Psygnosis...) are all but dead.

Look at the companies you mention as the current innovators, and then look at their titles over the past few years. Id: Doom, Doom 2, Quake, Q2, Q3, now Doom 3. Epic: UT, UT2k3, now UT2k4. Blizzard: Diablo 2, WarCraft 3.

These companies have succumbed to the lure of money as well. Instead of innovating, they let others do it, and then simply evolve. The UT line is trying to follow the sports-game model of yearly releases with modest improvements. Id has turned into a factory for new game engines, with other companies like Valve putting those engines to use to create the games people seem to enjoy (though Valve is creating their own engine now), and with Half-Life's success id has decided to build a more story-based game, reverting to the Doom label (and taking quite a bit of lead from the survival horror genre popular on consoles). Blizzard's Diablo 2 was an evolution of Diablo, which manages to be the only title of it's kind that really holds up well in the market. WarCraft 3 was a move in a direction that many others had taken, in a slightly different way, not only moving to 3D but to smaller numbers of units with hero units at the center (an idea used by many other RTS games earlier, but the smaller numbers of units can also be attributed to the limitations of Blizzard's 3D engines).

None of the original talent on which the company was built remains. It's sad, really, but new talent will eventually arise.

This is the real truth of the matter. Eventually some relatively unknown company will come forth to take the place of id, Epic, and Blizzard. After all, id and Epic came out of the shareware scene and Blizzard was a console developer in their early years. Eventually someone will come seemingly out of nowhere to take the top of the pile in the PC game development world, and more than likely when that happens it'll be after releasing numerous moderately successful games just as it was with these three companies.

Re:Disillusionment with current crop of games

[PainKilleR-CE]

I think there's definitely room for the MMO genre to grow, but we'll see that growth become more rapid when developers more familiar with the original genres come into the MMO realm. Planetside could've been so much more if it had only been developed by someone else, like Valve, with a real idea of how to build a team-based FPS and scale that idea to MMO size. FFXI may be the first sign of that, although it could be argued that Ultima Online was built by the designer of Ultima, and therefore was the first (I'd just point out that that was done before people really realized how big an MMO game really could be).

Cavedog made the first movements towards MMO RTS, but at the same time didn't go the full distance to actually making it possible for thousands of players to battle each other at once (instead relegating the battles to smaller groups with the overall war being handled outside of the game), yet no one seems to have really picked up on the idea and made it reality (now someone will point out an MMORTS that I haven't seen before).

I believe that MMO could be the future of many genres, but I also believe that it will truly come into it's own from the more common sources, rather than from the companies like Sony just trying to cash in on the trend. I think the real breakthrough will come when someone comes up with a method for distributing the load between company servers and independant servers, reducing or eliminating the subscription fees, and giving players more reason than simple level treadmills to continue playing. Most current MMO games are made simply to keep people playing (and paying) rather than to provide interesting and entertaining gameplay, and I think that trend needs to be squashed before it really becomes as revolutionary as online multiplayer gaming itself.

Re:Disillusionment with current crop of games

[*weasel]

Personally I think 'advancements' and 'id, epic, and blizzard' should only be used in the context of graphical advancements.

Yes, Warcraft was a little rough around the edges, and Warcraft II polished that up. But what did War3 give us? heros? A mechanism introduced essentially in the war2 expansion and starcraft?

Diablo was a refreshing change of pace from the RPG-stale early 90s - but what was Diablo2 and what took them so long? Sure, it was fun like the original, but it wasn't so much an advancement as a souped-up 'update'.

Why did Blizzard can the original design for War3, with the hero-centric focus? To me, that sounded really cool. But Blizzard chose to rehash the tried and true with newer graphics and keep the heroes. They just aren't interested in being on the cutting edge.

Sure, people loved war3 and I don't begrudge them that. It just isn't so much an 'advancement'.

And Id and Epic... well hell - They might be fingered as the predominate cause of the deterioration of innovation. their progress is entirely iterative and they don't even bother wrapping a story around their products anymore.

Again, I don't mean to downplay their significance. Indeed the skill with which Id and Epic craft (and resell) technology is unparalleled.

Even Molyneaux (by way of Bullfrog) doesn't seem to be innovating. Black and White had a fairly innovative concept in the avatar, but that was long years ago, and prior to that was a veritable avalanche of incremental tweaks to Populous. His mindchild Big Blue Box still hasn't delivered their overhyped 'advancement' for RPG gaming.

In every interview, the founders of those companies nearly unanimously claim that advancements will always come from small teams - unheard of teams. And frankly, they're right. Look at the half-life mods: Natural Selection, Counterstrike, et al - They're massively more innovative than half-life itself. Look at how desert combat has all but become its own brand.

Quite simply, success itself is a barrier to innovation. After a big hit, you are economically incentivized to play it safe with future projects. There's more money riding on the development side and there's plenty of risk in releasing any game, let alone an actual gaming advancement. Plus, it's no longer just a handful of friends coding in their spare time - wasting weekends and vacation. It's the jobs of 6 other coders, a dozen office and technical support professionals, and 2 dozen artists on the line.

So while it's lamentable, I'm not surprised, nor do I particularly bedgrudge them, that success tends to cut off further innovation. But it's still a measureable and predictable effect.

Re:Disillusionment with current crop of games

[fireduck]

Look at the half-life mods: Natural Selection, Counterstrike, et al - They're massively more innovative than half-life itself.

Yes and no. Half-Life (and Valve's attention to it and the community over its span) really is the one of the biggest innovations for gaming in recent history. HL was the first "best" FPS, integrating innovative level design with a compelling story that made you want to go forward in the game. There's a reason it won every award it was nominated for (excepting game of the year, which went to zelda). It pushed FPS into the future.

Then Valve did the amazing thing of releasing the SDK and actively supporting independent developers. CS, Natural Selection, none of those mods would have been possible without Valve actively supporting them. Yes there were mods for Quake, but Valve obviously did something differently than Id and their mod scene exploded. in a way no other game before (or after, yet) has done. The fact that games running on a 6 year old graphic engine are still the most popular online FPS out there shows that Valve really hit upon something.

HL2 won't be as innovative and valve will likely enter the ranks of id, blizzard, epic, etc., as they churn out incremental advances. but to call HL not innovative is to miss out on the community that Valve helped spawn around the game.

Re:Disillusionment with current crop of games

[UnknownSoldier]

> can you call a game 'good' if nobody plays it?

Good != POPULAR.

If *you* had fun playing a game, it was good. PERIOD.

I had a co-worker who played Evercrack. I couldn't stand the game, due to the mechanics. After wasting a few years playing it, he finally realized it wasn't a "good" game, due to it's game mechanics. I told him, "If you had fun playing it, it was a GOOD game [for you], else why did you enjoy playing it for so long?!"

IAAGP&D (I Am A Game Programmer and Designer)

its natural

[fireduck]

by the time you're old enough to really have really disposable income, you usually have a job that takes up 40+ hours in a week. There's less and less time for games, so you're less likely to buy something new on a whim, more likely to stick with what you know (i.e., established franchises), and since quality game releases are few and far between, even more likely to just play what you've got.

The last game I actually purchased for my PC was War3 expansion. The next game I'm planning on buying is either Doom3 / HL2. Other games have slightly caught my interest (was eyeing galactic civilizations for a while), but I just don't have the time to get lost in a big game, unless it's something I really want to get lost in.

the same phenomena typically happens with music. mid 20s and you start listening to what you have rather than what's new...

Re:its natural

[meta-monkey]

In order to become Good, you have to play the games a LOT. When you don't have the time, you end up spending time on other things.

I think that's a big part of it. In the rare occaisons when I do have time to play games these days, I sure don't do it online. Back when I was an avid gamer, my game of choice was Tribes 2. I played that game for several hours, every day. I was pretty damn good, too. It was a rare game where I didn't end up at the top of the scoreboard at the end of the match. If you DIDN'T play that game for several hours a day, all the people like me who did would stomp you.

It's the same thing now. I wouldn't mind picking up UT2k4 or something for a bit, but I know that I don't have time to play more than an hour or two a week. So as soon as I set foot on a server, BLAM, some 14 year old with nothing else to do all day is going to blow me away, and then hurl some kind of unintelligible racial slur at me.

Now I find that when I do play just about anything, it's on my Xbox. Mod chips are great. Oh, and I also switched to the Mac, and already played the three games for it.

Time

[Robmonster]

For me its mainly a lack of time.

When I was younger I had oodles of free time so I was able to lose days playing the latest games.

Now I dont have the time to spare what with working, running a house, girlfriend... All the things you tend to aquire as you get older.

I still love games, but find myself trying to spend time finishing th eones I have rather than buying new games.

Re:Time

[Helpless Will]

I couldn't agree more.

I still classify myself as a gamer. I own an Xbox, I have a PC dedicated to gaming. I carry a GBA with me everywhere. (I carry a book too, but I digress).

Yet as each week goes on, I pull the GBA or the book out of the laptop bag less often. When I get home, I first sit down in front of the PC to help a friend out with a server somewhere, and if I have time afterwards then I'll play a game, maybe. The Xbox gets more use as a a DVD player than as a game system.

Don't get me wrong, they all get used often enough to justify their existence and expense, but as I've "grown up" the demands on my time, work, friends, car and home maintenance, obligations to other people, divergent other interests, they all take up time, and seemingly disproportionate amounts of time at that.

A friend has a problem with the mail server he's running for his website, and suddenly two or three hours of a Saturday have disappeared. Problem with the servers at work, or a highly placed user who can't seem to grasp that maintenace schedules mean the server won't be available that weekend and another hour disappears by the time you're done with that set of phone calls. Girlfriend is feeling needy or has had a bad day and wants to vent? Give up on getting anything else done for an incalculable amount of time.

A good game is as much a time commitment as any of the above, and I find my gaming is much more oriented toward things I can pick up and put down readily these days.

In essence, my point to the parent post / article is, don't worry, life will fill up with a lot more than you expect, and, eventualy, as Robmonster's indicated, they'll get back to being something that you do as you can, and enjoy when you do. Done to excess anything becomes dull after time, but life is self correcting in that regard.

-H

Rather design than play?

[texchanchan]

Congratulations! Sounds like you are moving up. This phenomenon happens in lots of areas of activity, not just gaming.

You have the urge to be proactive, not reactive. To produce rather than consume.

You don't have to totally give up $EARLIER_STUFF when you move on up to $NEW_STUFF. That's a common but erroneous belief. You're just adding some more activities that are way more satisfying to you as you are now, with your increased capacity for thinking, etc.

Do not fear that you are getting dull as you get older. Which is sharper, the mind that sees a game and says "Cool!" or the mind that conceptualizes it in the first place?

Any change like this generally requires some re-thinking of how you define yourself, but I think you'll like the new definition better.

Re:Rather design than play?

[Malfourmed]

You have the urge to be proactive, not reactive. To produce rather than consume.

To procreate rather than recreate.

Sad

[rqqrtnb]

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they quit playing."
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

It's sad to see an old gamer quit the hobby. Maybe someday you'll have more free time and some interesting game will catch your eye. Until then, good luck and have fun with whatever you do!

Minor case of burnout.

[Drakin]

Work, like in general, and just problems with sitting in front of the computer for who knows how many hours add up.

Find something to do that's differnt than what you normally spend time doing.

Sit and play with lego
Read a book
Work on a puzzle
Build a model
Walk around outside
Take some time and just wander around a nearby mall

Losing interest in Generation Zzzzz

[Jon Peterson]

It's tough isn't it? I remember when I was about 13 I started to get bored with my matchbox cars and racetrack. It used to be so much fun putting piles of books under the track so the cars would do little jumps, or seeing how big you could make the loop without the cars just falling onto their backs like little turtles.

Then it just started to get boring. I didn't want to play with my old toys any more. Oddly enough, this didn't cause me a huge friggin existential crisis. I didn't post to some Goddam website to find out if the other 13 year olds were suffering a similar confusing emotional trauma. Instead, I took the 'growing up' route, and simply grew up.

Why don't you try the same? Growing up isn't as hard as many people make out. Here are some key tips:

1. Don't idolise your lifestyle. Don't kid yourself that playing Quake II on the office LAN all night was actually some incredibly cool 'in the zone' moment of one-ness with the God of electronic entertainment. It was just being 24.

2. Realise that new things can be fun. If games no longer thrill you, try books, or maybe taking an art class. Perhaps gardening or cooking will be your new forms of relaxation in the daunting world of 'being older than you are right now'.

3. Don't make such a huge deal about it. That way, all the other people who don't give a shit, frankly, won't be disturbed. In time, you too will stop giving a shit, allowing you to simply do something new and different without worrying.

I too wish that computer games gave me as much fun as they did back when I played X-Com for 12 hours straight, or started dreaming about Baldur's Gate or Syndicate Wars.

But then, I wish getting that playing on the swings could keep me happy for 2 hours. I wish that colouring in a picture of a clown gave me a sense of achievement. I wish that I really did believe my lego men were still involved in a desperate war against my brother's lego men.

But, d00d, it ain't going to last, so stop asking where all the good times went, and find something new and fun to do. I mean, why do you think people end up having children?...

It's Normal

[DarkZero]

This is a phase that everyone goes through. Either because of something in your life (often something subtle) or just a batch of mediocre games that temporarily sour your opinion of the entire medium, you stop playing games for awhile. I did the same thing when I was around 17. I stopped playing games for about a year or two straight and missed out on most of the interesting games that were released for the original PlayStation. But it wasn't a part of "growing up", "putting away childish things", or some other moronic platitude that non-gamers would give you. It's just a temporary change in the way you choose to entertain yourself.

This is something that we all do on a regular basis, but we don't really notice it until it strikes a medium that we actually care about. Personally, there was a time when I watched at least a couple of movies on DVD every week, burning through them at about the same rate as most regulars buyers/renters do. But now I haven't watched a movie on DVD in a good three months or so, but I haven't even noticed it. Why? Because I don't visit six or seven movie sites a day, but I do visit Insert Credit, GameSpot, Video Fenky, GAF, The Magic Box, Penny Arcade, and Slashdot Games just about every day. If you're actually posting on this site, then I'm guessing that you have a pretty similar set of sites that you visit.

I'm guessing that you'll pick up something really good in about a year or two and then you'll be addicted again just like the rest of us. But then again, if you really are of the mentality that "games are kids stuff", then maybe you'll deprive yourself of them forever. I really don't see how Metal Gear Solid or Knights of the Old Republic are any more childish than any of the TV shows or movies that I watch, but that's just me. Maybe that's why I really don't see myself abstaining from video games as I grow up any more than I see myself suddenly abstaining from television, movies, or music.

Define what a game is. (beard-stroking post)

[Grabble]

I shall now indulge in reckless and flagrant navel-gazing.

Isn't a game simply a set of arbitrary objectives made difficult by arbitrary obstacles?... but made "fun" by gradual progression and feedback?

I believe that people like to use their minds and actually create "things to do" when there isn't any. When I was younger, I didn't have many obstacles, so I got my "work" on by subjecting myself to the purchased goals and obstacles, IE, a complicated game.

Now that I'm older, I've made my own game: my life. I've created my own "arbitrary" goals and have to work against obstacles to reach those.

At the end of the day, I'm tired from playing a game that's more important to me. Myself.

Yes. That's right. I'm tired from playing with myself.

My quaint little theory works best on brain games. For example, if I have to manage 20 people 40 hours a week, it's not likely I'll enjoy Railroad Tycoon 3 on the weekend. (But that could just be me.) On the other hand, a alpha-state twitchy game might be a nice break from analytical stuff.

I think there's a concept of "control" as well: in one's teens and early twenties, many aspects of one's life is beyond their control. That changes with age, usually and hopefully.

nah, it's you

[Ender Ryan]

I don't think it's that people lose interest as they get older, I think it's either you specifically are losing interest, or you are bored with the current state of gaming. That you are interested in making games yourself shows that you haven't "grown out" of gaming, unless the games you are interested in making are directed at kids or something.

Another thing that I have noticed now that I've "grown up" is that I simply have not enough time to play all the games I'm interested in. I'm 25 and work full-time and have a house and wife to attend to, family/friend obligations, etc., and I'm lucky if I get to game for 2 hours in as many weeks.

Sometimes I have wondered the same thing as you, "have I lost my interest in gaming," when I have several games I was excited about but I simply don't bother playing. Then I realized that the games I was interested in in the past have started to bore me.

It's the same as anything really. I'm also bored with stupid action flicks, pulp novels, and Star Trek. I'd much rather watch something with substance, action or no, read a long series of classic books(eg. The Foundation series), or non-fiction(eg. The Making of the Atomic Bomb - brilliant book BTW), and as for TV, I really don't care if I miss an episode of one of my favorite show(although I do enjoy 24 and haven't missed an episode, heh).

You get the point. Tastes vary over time. While you may always enjoy a good movie/book/game/etc., you won't want the same thing over and over. And then there's the time and social factors. Don't fret. Things change. Adapt.

Sticking with "Classics"

[fuzzybunny]

I'm going on 30--I nearly fucked up my college education by spending aeons of time on Netrek and progressed from that to C&C, to Red Alert, to Tomb Raider (my girlfriend loves to watch me play for some reason) to Half Life to Homeworld to Deus Ex to Battlefield 1942 (which I play pretty often.)

I was never too interested in always trying out the latest and greatest, but I notice increasingly that, once I've found something I enjoy, I tend to stick with it for far long--it just holds my attention better.

I don't know how people have time to always finish the newest games right when they come out and move on to something new--the only times I do that is when I find something episode-based or story-based (like Half Life), play it through once, then move on, but I take my time with that, sort of like reading a good book a bit at a time before going to bed.

Re:Same here

[DrSkwid]

Here's the ideal game for you.

Wanting what you got

[sjoperkin]

It's all about the fact that you now have the possibility to buy most of the games you want.

It just isn't that exiting anymore when you don't have to decide whether to buy QuakeIII or Unreal Tournament2003. You buy them both, and get the short end of the stick, because you don't have the time to play both, or find it hard to decide which one to play at any particular moment. A problem which increases in size the more games you buy.

For us with families, the time spent playing games gets ever shorter, which is why we put higher demands on the games we play. Which in turn leads to the conclusion that all of a sudden, games are no longer that good, because you cannot find the time to really get into more than a few games per season.

I buy fewer games nowadays, but instead I really try to play through them. This pays off most of the time.

Do you ever say this:

[Asprin]

Fifty bucks?!?!

....for *THAT*?!

That's a week of groceries for cryin' out loud! I'll wait until next year when it hits the $10 bargain rack at Wal-Mart.

I seem to remember going through that with beer, too. At some point, everything just started looking expensive.

Sincerely,
An old fogey


P.S. Just you wait you young buX0rz, pretty soon THE RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS, NIRVANA and PEARL JAM will be on the oldies stations. HAAAAA-HA-HA-HA!

Born again gamer..

[kilauea]

I went off games for a period - still bought some but rarely played and never completed. Turned out I was suffering from clinical depression and since recovering I have been right back into gaming and enjoy it as much as ever!
I am 31 btw...

all about time and getting people together

[kisrael]

For me, a soon to be 30-yr-old, it's all about two things: the time some of these games would like you to consume playing them, and then the increasing difficulty getting people together for the on-the-couch (as opposed to online) multiplayer games that I like so damn much.

Also, games get no respect from the world at large. Even though I'm mostly a social gamer, though I will play through the occasional one player adventure, my soon-to-be-ex-wife cited that as one of the (minor) issues, my devoting hours to gaming, despite her own f***ing introvert need to sometimes burn hours watching the crappiest of movies on TV to unwind/recharge.

Happens with music, too

[Chilltowner]

Back in one of my college anthropology classes, our professor noted sociological studies that showed people's music buying habits dropping significantly at age 25. Anecdotally, that seems to be true. The history of games is much shorter, so I don't think any similar studies have been done, but they both may be manifestations of the same root cause. That root cause, though, has not yet been revealed.

Some nature, some circumstance

[DuckDuckBOOM!]

I suspect your move away from gaming parallels my own, so here's what moved me:

• Time, or rather the lack thereof. A decade or so ago I usually had several hours a day to game & code. Now I'm working more, (usually) sleeping more, maintaining a home, getting laid regularly, and engaging in face-time with relatives/friends every week or two instead of every other month.
• Improving taste. I burnt out on FPSs and flash-bang-for-its-own-sake long ago. I burn out on MMORPGs (sp?) quickly through sheer monotony - another monster vanquished, [yawn]. Nowadays my main interests are sims and strategy games, and there are at best one or two good releases per year in those categories.
• New hobbies. I transitioned from flight sims to the real thing a couple years ago, and quickly discovered I'd much rather blow $60 on an hour in the air than on Final Fantasy Pi or whatever.
• Maturity; i.e., the realization that There Are Things In Life More Important And Rewarding Than Finding The Faerie Hat So Zelda Can Get Past The Pond Full Of Zombie Sharks. This is the only thing on the list I really regret. :)

Goddam you're a dullard

[Ender Ryan]

Perhaps his question made it to the front page because others here are interested in the same? Perhaps gaming isn't really synonymous with playing with matchbox cars?

Don't get me wrong, I understand perfectly well the gist of your post, but I think you are jumping the gun.

There are a lot of hobbies that people "grow out" of, such as playing with matchbox cars. However, there are some hobbies that can have more staying power, such as reading, movies, model trains, etc. People don't look at those things and say, "Grow up!" Gaming happens to be one of those new hobbies that people without prior exposure to don't understand and assume to be a hobby for young people, like comic books. But, apparently that isn't necessarily the case. Sure, there are a lot of *"losers" who still read comics and play games at 40, but with the advent of adult-oriented comics(ie. "graphic novels") and games, many older folk (ie. non-"loser" older folk) are continuing with those childish hobbies.

At 25, I don't read the same comics I did when I was 13(rather, I don't read any comics), but some new graphic novels (mentioned here on /.) have interested me.

YMMV, different strokes, etc. But please, don't be an old pompous scab telling us youthful folk how to live.

Paraphrasing:

People don't stop playing because they grow old, people grow old because they stop playing.

- someone less of a dullard than you

* - are they really "losers," I prefer not to label someone so harshly simply for continuing with something I consider to be somewhat childish. Perhaps they just didn't sell out and murder their inner child in order to be accepted as an adult. Or perhaps they are indeed losers and should be derided as such until their sad, lonely death.

Re:Games suck.. period

[Tyreth]

Your comment is pointlessly wrong on so many levels.

Games teach you skills, whether physical (hand eye coordination), emotional (confidence in ability to complete a task, or not), and mental (learn how to problem solve in ways others do not). You experience a wide variety of things you can never touch. The rewards are not immediate, but the fruit bear out in the long run.

I suppose you think reading is useless? After all, it's the same principle - reading a book does not affect THIS world. Not immediately, anyway. When you finished, there's no new car in the garage, no revolutions have been won or lost as a result, and the hungry are still hungry. But it has long term consequences, just like games. Games stimulate imagination, or they can stifle it. They have the power to improve or damage, just as much as anything else in this world.

Re:Are you f'ing kidding us with this?

[DLWormwood]

Listen. You losing interest in video games at 28 is a *good* thing.

*sigh* Yet another fool who equates video games with childishness.

Remember, video games were first introduced as bar/pub entertainment, as a replacement for pinball. Such establishments were where Pong was first introduced, and you can still find Merit kiosks on bar counters. And most of the surviving arcades in the States are "dating" destinations like GameWorks and Dave & Buster's which have things like Ladies Nights and ID check.

Video games ended up pigeon holed as "juvenile" like comic books and animation did. While I'm familar with the political history that doomed comics and cartoons to the children's ghetto, I'm not sure why video games shared this fate... Can any one offer any theories about this?

But I digress, besides the quote about "becoming old when you stop playing," there's another relevant quote. This one's by C. S. Lewis...

When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be grown up.

Re:Are you f'ing kidding us with this?

[ronfar]

Video games ended up pigeon holed as "juvenile" like comic books and animation did. While I'm familar with the political history that doomed comics and cartoons to the children's ghetto, I'm not sure why video games shared this fate... Can any one offer any theories about this?

At home I have some EC library editions of Tales from the Crypt, The Haunt of Fear and the Vault of Horror. In many of these issues there are letters sections, and some of the letters are from soldiers in Korea. These soldiers talk about how great EC comics are, etc, and usually the Old Witch or the Crypt Keeper replies by saying she/he is sending some free comics out to the unit.

So, some portion of the readership were not only adults, but adults seeing horrors that I hope I never have to see. However, when Congress and Dr. Frederick Wertham decided to go after comics, they treated them primarily as a passtime for teenage boys. This is because warping teenage boys is an easy charge to make, while warping hardened soldiers in Korea wouldn't stick.

Fast forward to the age of the SNES and Genesis. Video games were resurrected from the crash by Nintendo, which deliberately marketed their NES system in the United States as a toy to overcome the post crash jitters. (Remember the little robot that came out with it? That was purely as part of this marketing campaign, not because it was a good idea for a peripheral.) By the time the SNES comes along, the big games in the arcades are Street Fighter II and, cue sinister music, Mortal Kombat. (Oh, and by the time these reach the home systems, these horrible video disk games, notably Night Trap were being pushed for the Sega CD.)

Well, Congress's own Music Man, Senator Joe Lieberman, figures out a way to pull in the fretful soccermom's vote in his next re-election bid, "There's trouble, right here in River City, with a capital 'T' that rhymes with 'V' that stands for Video Games." It is in the interest of Lieberman and his ilk to portray video games as primarily children's entertainment, just as Nintendo had done to get away from the post-crash, "video games were a stupid fad," jitters to get places like Toy's R Us to carry their consoles.

So we get to today, when people forget that originally video games were in places like bars to entertain patrons and people start talking about that, "put away childish things, " nonsense. (Of course, we all know that the early Christians loved to party, especially the dour St. Paul. Remember if you are going to follow his 'childish things' advice that he's also the guy who basically believed "it is better to marry than to burn." No wonder he gets the nickname of Captain Fun. But I suppose this nonsense makes sense in the still heavily Puritan influenced United States.)