That 30% figure is actually from the primaries... it was 28%ish or so iirc. Turnout for the actual election was about double that. Still, I think your points are valid and having 40% of your eligible voters refrain from doing so says a lot.
So... did you quit because you played him and couldn't beat him? Or did you quit because you didn't want to play him? You should have just said, "I'll play a game of Starcraft with you, but only if you approve my PO's first."
I actually have an anecdote to the point you're making here... One of my friends used to have a game night at his house once a week and one of the games we used to play was called Carcassonne. I won't get into the details of the game (you'd be better off looking it up yourself anyway; it's been so long since I played I don't exactly remember all the rules), but basically it's a strategy game where each player takes turns to lay a tile down to form the game world. You want to control contiguous parts of the world via little player pieces you can set on the tiles, so tile placement is critical.
On this particular evening, three of us were playing. It was near the end of the game and the host was one tile away from winning. While neither myself or the other player really needed that tile, it was beneficial to both of us to block the host from being able to put something there (although it needed to be the exact right tile). In essence, he and I were conspiring/colluding to prevent the host from locking up that last tile and winning the game... EVEN THOUGH we never explicitly said anything or made any agreements whatsoever. It just happened to be in both of our best interests in terms of winning the game. So, eventually one of us got to block him and he ended up getting mad and accused us both of purposely working together (he later chilled out and apologized). I found it amusing as I had never encountered a scenario like this before (and have yet to encounter one again).
It seems to me the author of this article is just speculating on what goes through people's minds without actually having asked any real gamers. Personally, the thing I find lacking in most games today is good gameplay. Developers are so caught up with putting in fancy graphics and realistic physics and all this other dumb useless shit, when all that really matters is the gameplay. I can list dozens upon dozens of games from the NES/SNES era that I love and re-visit from time to time because they were truly fun to play, but nowadays it seems eye candy is the main focus with the gameplay being a distant afterthought.
There are still some good games being released these days, but it's honestly hard to find many titles I am willing to spend money on. Most companies don't do anything original anymore because they are scared to lose money, but playing the same, slightly different game for the thousandth time gets stale. The author seems to discredit people's complaints simply because "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME IN GAMING RIGHT NOW OMG", which is just sad. Everything is NOT awesome in gaming right now; there are many reasons to be dissatisfied with the overall state of the industry, particularly big-budget titles.
I am honestly more interested in indie titles right now, simply because of the risks they can afford to take. There are a lot of platforms for indie games at the moment and practically anyone can get in on it; the entry barrier is relatively low. Granted, there is a lot of crap there too, but the one thing you will see more of is innovation, which to me is what its all about.
Every game is too short, although we never finish the games we play.
I always finish games that are worth playing. If it's not worth my time, why the hell would I bother wasting more of my time just to finish it? A good game is like a good book, it draws you in and you find yourself having trouble putting it down every night even though you need to go to bed and wake up early in the morning.
Every game is too expensive, although we demand ever-increasing levels of interaction, graphical fidelity, and length.
Some things are not difficult to implement, but developers seem to waste a lot of time on useless bullshit. Old PC FPS's (DooM, Duke3D, Blood) had endless replayability simply because they shipped with or otherwise offered free level editors and the community was usually very lively, meaning you could go online and download thousands and thousands of user-made maps, thus extending the length of the game. I suppose there will always be those people who cry about graphics in games, but honestly developers should just stop worrying about them so much. If the graphics aren't realistic enough for you, GO OUTSIDE. The rest of us want to play a game that is FUN, not some artist's wet-dream imagining of a virtual world. The graphics should be just good enough to convey the information needed by the player to play the game (mood may be important as well, but you don't need a multimillion dollar budget to accomplish that!) Interaction is easy to implement, even Duke3D had a lot of it! You have a 'use' key, usually, so just add different actions for different objects in the game! This is not rocket science!
I think it's safe to say most developers have lost sight of what game development should be about. The big companies are at odds with themselves; you just can't have that many people working on a game without a myriad of conflicting interests and ideas, but ultimately it is going to boil down to money and what some bean counter has convinced the higher-ups of being most profitable for the game. Thus, they reallocate their resources and you get what we have today -- a bunch of overpriced crap and some idiot writing an article about how people should stop complaining because gaming is SO AWESOME today. Barf!
AAA games are too long? My experience with the latest so-called AAA games is that they are too short. It looks like the developers spend most of their time crafting magnificent graphics and then the rest of the game is an after-thought that you can finish in 10 hours or less. There are so many different things you can do to a game to add replay value, why on earth would you want to shorten a game people are shelling out $50 or $60 for?
Maybe I'm spoiled, but all of the old games I used to play I could play for weeks, maybe months, and still come back a year or two later and pick it back up. I am skeptical of the "gamers are losing patience" line; casual gamers, by their very nature, never had the patience to begin with and you can't really lump them in with the rest of us. Figure out your target market and make your game based on that, don't try to shoehorn your game into a market that doesn't want it.
Personally I look at it as survival mode... I've learned to be much more cautious while venturing into the depths and it would not be as fun without the threat of death; it's sort of like Nethack in that regard. Still, there should be a point to all the mining, maybe something like you need to collect enough of a specific ore so that you can build something to get off the planet, or you're trying to unearth some type of artifacts. The game still is technically in Beta though and I can't really knock it for being incomplete, but it is still a game in my eyes.
Dying in Minecraft when you are exploring a naturally-generated cave far away from your camp and are near the bottom of the world is frustrating, much more so than a "minor annoyance", especially if your diamond tools and armor end up landing in some lava. Why such hate for Minecraft? Go make your own game if you are so enlightened with what constitutes a game, I'm sure it would be the best thing since sliced bread.
Thank you! More people need to get over the whole "democrat/republican" thing because it distracts them from looking at issues that truly matter. As far as I'm concerned, there is too much money in this country and the politicians would rather obey the commands of those with money than of those from the general public. Our whole system is inherently flawed and littered with excess waste; we should just uproot the damn thing and start over!
Diablo added almost nothing to the gaming world? Wow, really? Thousands of people still play Diablo 2 to this very day and since it came out we have seen many new games referred to as "Diablo clones". If a game that has other developers trying to imitate it isn't precedent-setting, I don't know what is.
Don't forget Good Old Games: http://www.gog.com/en/frontpage/! They have a great collection of old PC classics and I'm pretty sure the older titles are updated to work on newer OS's. There are plenty of games on here that work with Linux, as well. Also, everything is pretty damn cheap, so you don't have to spend a lot of money to legally own these classics.
Actually you can buy the original game with the first two expansions for only $20 right now. Add that to the $40 Cataclysm and you're only looking at $60 for the original game and all the expansions, including a free month of game time. They also provide free trials for the game which last for 10 days I believe.
Guitar Hero and Rock Band are vastly different from Dance Central. My guess is strumming or drumming along to a track is much more preferable to a likely out-of-shape hardcore gamer than is copying an on-screen avatar's dance moves without any tactile feedback whatsoever. I still seriously doubt you'll see hardcore gamers picking this up. Maybe the casual crowd will take a liking to it, but as I already said before, that crowd has a Wii and I doubt they'll be shelling out $300 or whatever it is for a 360 and Kinect.
You are dealing with people that mostly wouldn't remember what an "ion" is. When you say "smashing iron", they think of banging two iron bars together.
Those are the kind of people we don't want coming to Slashdot anymore.
Yes, since millions of self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamers with an XBox are going to be frothing at the mouth for Dance Central. Give me a fucking break. I bet the thing flops because developers will almost exclusively target the casual audience, which the Wii already has under lock, and the casual audience by definition isn't going to care to replace their casual gaming system with another. Don't get me wrong, I think the technology is interesting (albeit without tactile feedback), but it's clear they are trying to copy-cat Nintendo's motion-gaming success.
Spectator mode helps a lot. Generally just start with one thing (i.e. try not to die) and then move your way up. Once you feel comfortable with the controls and weapons, start spectating the players that are handing your ass to you. Try to figure out what things they are doing that give them an edge over you and then practice doing those things on your own. I don't know if the game you're talking about has spectator mode, but Quake II had it and it was incredibly useful. Also, creativity pays off pretty well in these kinds of games if you can trap people or something similar.
When the graphics and characters are less realistic you don't expect the same level of human.. ness.
I have to disagree. Even a book, which has no graphics, can make you feel attached to its characters. The trick is capturing the character's essence with words and reflecting that in the graphics. I always feel that a character is more real when the story is well written, not because she may have big hooters or cool-looking equipment.
Nobody ever slapped kids around when I was in marching band. We got yelled at and directors threw shit around, sometimes they made us run if we hadn't been practicing or whatever, but nobody was ever physically injured. Thanks for assuming people were being physically hurt, though.
Anyway, all I was saying with my previous post is that parents shouldn't freak out when their kid gets disciplined. Almost every kid needs a good spanking every now and then. Or in the case of teenagers, maybe a few laps around the school.
Fuck off, you worthless tool. You should do prison time for being such a fucking idiot. I'm sick of dumb motherfuckers like you spouting off with your "don't hit my kid!" trash. Sometimes the only way a kid will listen is after s/he's discovered there are consequences to being a little shit and those consequences, depending on the offense, involve pain. You seem to think all the parents that physically discipline their children are out there seriously injuring them, which is retarded (most of them get spanked or some variation of that). I would much rather have parents that are willing to physically discipline their children when it's called for as opposed to lazy parents who just let their kids do what they want. With the former, you get a generation of people who are intelligent, well-adjusted, and respectful of others; with the latter, you end up with a generation full of the spoiled, stupid, annoying, snot-nosed brats that the "don't hit my kid!" crowd raises. YUCK!
The first year I was in high school, our marching band was a national competitor and nationally recognized primarily because our band director was a hardass and discipline was of the utmost importance; we won the state competition that year and came in second place in nationals. Unfortunately, he was retiring soon. The next year was a transition year and he spent the season handing the reins over to the assistant director. The assistant director wasn't a hardass and did not value discipline. During my 4 years there, I watched the program go from a prestigious organization to a complete fucking joke. During my senior year, as a section leader, I was most disgusted because the new director refused to discipline the incoming freshman and instead catered to them and pampered their asses. The marching band program there has since gone downhill and they are lucky to even make it to the national competition. Very sad.
School employees are afraid to discipline students, even when they absolutely deserve it, because of IGNORANT, RETARDED ASSHOLES like you who might fly off the handle and start suing everybody in sight. Discipline is a valuable skill and your kids need to learn it. You are doing a disservice to your children by not disciplining them and a disservice to society because those children will be shitty people when they grow up. If you love your kids, I hope you love them enough to discipline them. Won't you think of the children?
I think the main issue is that most developers focus more on making an attractive game as opposed to something groundbreaking. It seems to me they don't have faith that their game ideas will be able to sell on their own, so they gussy them up... or maybe it's because they know people will buy the pretty-looking game. Either way, I won't say that there are no good games these days, but I do believe we have been in a bit of a drought.
A lot of people say that games today are better than they were in the past. In some regards, yes, they have improved. However, the things that improved aren't necessarily essential to the game, but just make it easier for the player to enjoy them. You have the same basic game, but with a few extra features and some bells and whistles. Boring!
I think part of what made games so good in the NES/SNES days were the facts that it was still a new medium and the technology wasn't that powerful. Because of that, developers had to know that their game ideas were good enough to sell on their own merit. In addition, because of the technological constraints, they needed to be more creative in everything they did. They still tried to mislead the consumer with box art, especially in the Atari days, but I believe that just goes to show how much they cared about appearances even back then.
Having said all that, I must ask... how can you honestly say what you did about Final Fantasy 4? That game was the perfect evolutionary leap in the Final Fantasy time-line. It was the best possible result of working from what came before it. The music is superb, the gameplay is superb, the graphics at the time were superb (and still look great), the characters had the right amount of depth, and the story worked very well. Every now and then I pick up one of my old SNES RPGs (Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, FF4, FF6, SMRPG, Zelda: LttP, just to name a few.) and start a new turn just because they're such good games. I admit it's different experiencing those games through the lens of an adult instead of a child, especially having already played through them as a child, but they are the classics for a good reason -- they're amazing games. Hell, I still load up Duke Nukem 3D every once in awhile. Or maybe Blood, that game is fucking badass. Shadow Warrior is pretty good too. I was pretty partial to the Quake series, especially Quake II... I loved me some RailWarz!
Anyway, yes, there were a lot of bad games back then, too, but that's to be expected. The difference is that there were a lot more gems back then. Even the mediocre games were fun enough to play through once!
Many, but not most, young kids fresh out of school "get it". They are worth hiring. Many, but not most, old timers with decades of experience don't "get it", and by that point they probably never will.
That "many, but not most" part really eludes you, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
That 30% figure is actually from the primaries... it was 28%ish or so iirc. Turnout for the actual election was about double that. Still, I think your points are valid and having 40% of your eligible voters refrain from doing so says a lot.
So... did you quit because you played him and couldn't beat him? Or did you quit because you didn't want to play him? You should have just said, "I'll play a game of Starcraft with you, but only if you approve my PO's first."
I actually have an anecdote to the point you're making here... One of my friends used to have a game night at his house once a week and one of the games we used to play was called Carcassonne. I won't get into the details of the game (you'd be better off looking it up yourself anyway; it's been so long since I played I don't exactly remember all the rules), but basically it's a strategy game where each player takes turns to lay a tile down to form the game world. You want to control contiguous parts of the world via little player pieces you can set on the tiles, so tile placement is critical.
On this particular evening, three of us were playing. It was near the end of the game and the host was one tile away from winning. While neither myself or the other player really needed that tile, it was beneficial to both of us to block the host from being able to put something there (although it needed to be the exact right tile). In essence, he and I were conspiring/colluding to prevent the host from locking up that last tile and winning the game... EVEN THOUGH we never explicitly said anything or made any agreements whatsoever. It just happened to be in both of our best interests in terms of winning the game. So, eventually one of us got to block him and he ended up getting mad and accused us both of purposely working together (he later chilled out and apologized). I found it amusing as I had never encountered a scenario like this before (and have yet to encounter one again).
Happy birthday!
thatsthejoke.jpg
I guess they didn't want to go the the last mile either.
It seems to me the author of this article is just speculating on what goes through people's minds without actually having asked any real gamers. Personally, the thing I find lacking in most games today is good gameplay. Developers are so caught up with putting in fancy graphics and realistic physics and all this other dumb useless shit, when all that really matters is the gameplay. I can list dozens upon dozens of games from the NES/SNES era that I love and re-visit from time to time because they were truly fun to play, but nowadays it seems eye candy is the main focus with the gameplay being a distant afterthought.
There are still some good games being released these days, but it's honestly hard to find many titles I am willing to spend money on. Most companies don't do anything original anymore because they are scared to lose money, but playing the same, slightly different game for the thousandth time gets stale. The author seems to discredit people's complaints simply because "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME IN GAMING RIGHT NOW OMG", which is just sad. Everything is NOT awesome in gaming right now; there are many reasons to be dissatisfied with the overall state of the industry, particularly big-budget titles.
I am honestly more interested in indie titles right now, simply because of the risks they can afford to take. There are a lot of platforms for indie games at the moment and practically anyone can get in on it; the entry barrier is relatively low. Granted, there is a lot of crap there too, but the one thing you will see more of is innovation, which to me is what its all about.
I always finish games that are worth playing. If it's not worth my time, why the hell would I bother wasting more of my time just to finish it? A good game is like a good book, it draws you in and you find yourself having trouble putting it down every night even though you need to go to bed and wake up early in the morning.
Some things are not difficult to implement, but developers seem to waste a lot of time on useless bullshit. Old PC FPS's (DooM, Duke3D, Blood) had endless replayability simply because they shipped with or otherwise offered free level editors and the community was usually very lively, meaning you could go online and download thousands and thousands of user-made maps, thus extending the length of the game. I suppose there will always be those people who cry about graphics in games, but honestly developers should just stop worrying about them so much. If the graphics aren't realistic enough for you, GO OUTSIDE. The rest of us want to play a game that is FUN, not some artist's wet-dream imagining of a virtual world. The graphics should be just good enough to convey the information needed by the player to play the game (mood may be important as well, but you don't need a multimillion dollar budget to accomplish that!) Interaction is easy to implement, even Duke3D had a lot of it! You have a 'use' key, usually, so just add different actions for different objects in the game! This is not rocket science!
I think it's safe to say most developers have lost sight of what game development should be about. The big companies are at odds with themselves; you just can't have that many people working on a game without a myriad of conflicting interests and ideas, but ultimately it is going to boil down to money and what some bean counter has convinced the higher-ups of being most profitable for the game. Thus, they reallocate their resources and you get what we have today -- a bunch of overpriced crap and some idiot writing an article about how people should stop complaining because gaming is SO AWESOME today. Barf!
AAA games are too long? My experience with the latest so-called AAA games is that they are too short. It looks like the developers spend most of their time crafting magnificent graphics and then the rest of the game is an after-thought that you can finish in 10 hours or less. There are so many different things you can do to a game to add replay value, why on earth would you want to shorten a game people are shelling out $50 or $60 for?
Maybe I'm spoiled, but all of the old games I used to play I could play for weeks, maybe months, and still come back a year or two later and pick it back up. I am skeptical of the "gamers are losing patience" line; casual gamers, by their very nature, never had the patience to begin with and you can't really lump them in with the rest of us. Figure out your target market and make your game based on that, don't try to shoehorn your game into a market that doesn't want it.
Personally I look at it as survival mode... I've learned to be much more cautious while venturing into the depths and it would not be as fun without the threat of death; it's sort of like Nethack in that regard. Still, there should be a point to all the mining, maybe something like you need to collect enough of a specific ore so that you can build something to get off the planet, or you're trying to unearth some type of artifacts. The game still is technically in Beta though and I can't really knock it for being incomplete, but it is still a game in my eyes.
Dying in Minecraft when you are exploring a naturally-generated cave far away from your camp and are near the bottom of the world is frustrating, much more so than a "minor annoyance", especially if your diamond tools and armor end up landing in some lava. Why such hate for Minecraft? Go make your own game if you are so enlightened with what constitutes a game, I'm sure it would be the best thing since sliced bread.
...and making it popular isn't a significant achievement? I rest my case.
Thank you! More people need to get over the whole "democrat/republican" thing because it distracts them from looking at issues that truly matter. As far as I'm concerned, there is too much money in this country and the politicians would rather obey the commands of those with money than of those from the general public. Our whole system is inherently flawed and littered with excess waste; we should just uproot the damn thing and start over!
Diablo added almost nothing to the gaming world? Wow, really? Thousands of people still play Diablo 2 to this very day and since it came out we have seen many new games referred to as "Diablo clones". If a game that has other developers trying to imitate it isn't precedent-setting, I don't know what is.
Don't forget Good Old Games: http://www.gog.com/en/frontpage/! They have a great collection of old PC classics and I'm pretty sure the older titles are updated to work on newer OS's. There are plenty of games on here that work with Linux, as well. Also, everything is pretty damn cheap, so you don't have to spend a lot of money to legally own these classics.
Actually you can buy the original game with the first two expansions for only $20 right now. Add that to the $40 Cataclysm and you're only looking at $60 for the original game and all the expansions, including a free month of game time. They also provide free trials for the game which last for 10 days I believe.
Guitar Hero and Rock Band are vastly different from Dance Central. My guess is strumming or drumming along to a track is much more preferable to a likely out-of-shape hardcore gamer than is copying an on-screen avatar's dance moves without any tactile feedback whatsoever. I still seriously doubt you'll see hardcore gamers picking this up. Maybe the casual crowd will take a liking to it, but as I already said before, that crowd has a Wii and I doubt they'll be shelling out $300 or whatever it is for a 360 and Kinect.
Those are the kind of people we don't want coming to Slashdot anymore.
Yes, since millions of self-proclaimed "hardcore" gamers with an XBox are going to be frothing at the mouth for Dance Central. Give me a fucking break. I bet the thing flops because developers will almost exclusively target the casual audience, which the Wii already has under lock, and the casual audience by definition isn't going to care to replace their casual gaming system with another. Don't get me wrong, I think the technology is interesting (albeit without tactile feedback), but it's clear they are trying to copy-cat Nintendo's motion-gaming success.
Spectator mode helps a lot. Generally just start with one thing (i.e. try not to die) and then move your way up. Once you feel comfortable with the controls and weapons, start spectating the players that are handing your ass to you. Try to figure out what things they are doing that give them an edge over you and then practice doing those things on your own. I don't know if the game you're talking about has spectator mode, but Quake II had it and it was incredibly useful. Also, creativity pays off pretty well in these kinds of games if you can trap people or something similar.
I have to disagree. Even a book, which has no graphics, can make you feel attached to its characters. The trick is capturing the character's essence with words and reflecting that in the graphics. I always feel that a character is more real when the story is well written, not because she may have big hooters or cool-looking equipment.
Nobody ever slapped kids around when I was in marching band. We got yelled at and directors threw shit around, sometimes they made us run if we hadn't been practicing or whatever, but nobody was ever physically injured. Thanks for assuming people were being physically hurt, though. Anyway, all I was saying with my previous post is that parents shouldn't freak out when their kid gets disciplined. Almost every kid needs a good spanking every now and then. Or in the case of teenagers, maybe a few laps around the school.
Fuck off, you worthless tool. You should do prison time for being such a fucking idiot. I'm sick of dumb motherfuckers like you spouting off with your "don't hit my kid!" trash. Sometimes the only way a kid will listen is after s/he's discovered there are consequences to being a little shit and those consequences, depending on the offense, involve pain. You seem to think all the parents that physically discipline their children are out there seriously injuring them, which is retarded (most of them get spanked or some variation of that). I would much rather have parents that are willing to physically discipline their children when it's called for as opposed to lazy parents who just let their kids do what they want. With the former, you get a generation of people who are intelligent, well-adjusted, and respectful of others; with the latter, you end up with a generation full of the spoiled, stupid, annoying, snot-nosed brats that the "don't hit my kid!" crowd raises. YUCK!
The first year I was in high school, our marching band was a national competitor and nationally recognized primarily because our band director was a hardass and discipline was of the utmost importance; we won the state competition that year and came in second place in nationals. Unfortunately, he was retiring soon. The next year was a transition year and he spent the season handing the reins over to the assistant director. The assistant director wasn't a hardass and did not value discipline. During my 4 years there, I watched the program go from a prestigious organization to a complete fucking joke. During my senior year, as a section leader, I was most disgusted because the new director refused to discipline the incoming freshman and instead catered to them and pampered their asses. The marching band program there has since gone downhill and they are lucky to even make it to the national competition. Very sad.
School employees are afraid to discipline students, even when they absolutely deserve it, because of IGNORANT, RETARDED ASSHOLES like you who might fly off the handle and start suing everybody in sight. Discipline is a valuable skill and your kids need to learn it. You are doing a disservice to your children by not disciplining them and a disservice to society because those children will be shitty people when they grow up. If you love your kids, I hope you love them enough to discipline them. Won't you think of the children?
I think the main issue is that most developers focus more on making an attractive game as opposed to something groundbreaking. It seems to me they don't have faith that their game ideas will be able to sell on their own, so they gussy them up... or maybe it's because they know people will buy the pretty-looking game. Either way, I won't say that there are no good games these days, but I do believe we have been in a bit of a drought.
A lot of people say that games today are better than they were in the past. In some regards, yes, they have improved. However, the things that improved aren't necessarily essential to the game, but just make it easier for the player to enjoy them. You have the same basic game, but with a few extra features and some bells and whistles. Boring!
I think part of what made games so good in the NES/SNES days were the facts that it was still a new medium and the technology wasn't that powerful. Because of that, developers had to know that their game ideas were good enough to sell on their own merit. In addition, because of the technological constraints, they needed to be more creative in everything they did. They still tried to mislead the consumer with box art, especially in the Atari days, but I believe that just goes to show how much they cared about appearances even back then.
Having said all that, I must ask... how can you honestly say what you did about Final Fantasy 4? That game was the perfect evolutionary leap in the Final Fantasy time-line. It was the best possible result of working from what came before it. The music is superb, the gameplay is superb, the graphics at the time were superb (and still look great), the characters had the right amount of depth, and the story worked very well. Every now and then I pick up one of my old SNES RPGs (Chrono Trigger, Earthbound, FF4, FF6, SMRPG, Zelda: LttP, just to name a few.) and start a new turn just because they're such good games. I admit it's different experiencing those games through the lens of an adult instead of a child, especially having already played through them as a child, but they are the classics for a good reason -- they're amazing games. Hell, I still load up Duke Nukem 3D every once in awhile. Or maybe Blood, that game is fucking badass. Shadow Warrior is pretty good too. I was pretty partial to the Quake series, especially Quake II... I loved me some RailWarz!
Anyway, yes, there were a lot of bad games back then, too, but that's to be expected. The difference is that there were a lot more gems back then. Even the mediocre games were fun enough to play through once!
Many, but not most, young kids fresh out of school "get it". They are worth hiring. Many, but not most, old timers with decades of experience don't "get it", and by that point they probably never will.
That "many, but not most" part really eludes you, doesn't it?
Too stupid; didn't read.