... always denies other areas of innovation. The same way processors were thought not to scale down to x nm and we're at 20'ish nm now. The same way hard drives were thought only to have x capacity and we're now in the terabytes. If nand is really so limited then something different then nand will take it's place. But a few terabyte will be more then enough for 99% of applications and hard disks will be for packrats and those who need large amounts of longer term storage.
.... is hardware power allowed computers to create graphics that allowed cinematic elements to take over and because we as gamers love both cinema and games we are now highly confused consumer base when it comes to games. I admit to being spoiled by the likes of Call of duty 4 and mass effect but even I know that the awesome hollywood cinematic aspects do detract and take away resources from the game. Where we are just playing the same games with different stories and the gameplay isn't going anwyhere.
I still look at high watermarks for gameplay in Quake 3 and UT2004 and see that gameplay has frozen in time, instead of explore new game modes. Gamers have become satisfied with a basic level of gameplay and just swapping out models and narrative. Lets be honest we are all guilty here to some extent. No one really escapes and Jaffe is correct that story should serve gameplay.
Just because computers now have the hardware power to render cinematics and hollywood special fx doesn't mean they should dominate. Let us remember games like civilization 1 for instance. A game you can come back to and play many times. Most modern games completely lack the replayability element anymore because they are so cinematic focused. We've come to substitute gaming with a cinematic experience and it has had negative effects on games since there are not enough resources to go around so publishers and developers have to pick what they think will get them the most sales (hollywood or gameplay?) most go for shoving story into the game and cutting back on gameplay since most gamers are now older and don't really like gameplay anymore (it's true lets face it, whenever you hear and old codger complain about 'grinding' in an RPG or repetitiveness in battle systems, that's you decrying gameplay).
Another real issue is many modern gamers don't want to be challenged. It's too easy for all of us (and we've all done it) to be passively awed by the audiovisuals for that brief moment of stimulation but then you never pick up the game again. How many modern games have you actually replayed or gone back to? After the cinematic experience and rush is over you rarely go back. I still go back to older retro games from time to time.
I remember when replayability used to be front and center. Older gamers prefer more story driven games and less gameplay because they have 1) less energy and 2) are time constrained so they perceive marathon sessions as a 'waste of time' and 'grinding' because now they are part of the rat race. But there is still an element of them having 'grown out of' gameplay.
I am one of those people for who the last 10 years of gaming has been complete creative loss. I'm gameplay guy first and I positively hate the dumbing down of games to insert story and narrative and "the awesome button" where challenge and interactivity has been stripped away. You can especially see this in Deus Ex human revolution. I went and replayed Deus Ex the original before playing HR and I really do miss the gameplay first approach. The world in the original DX was just so much more compelling as a game despite it's aged graphics.
Modern games try to cater to all audiences and the easiest way to do this is just copy/paste from hollywood given the expensive nature of modern game development.
I think most people misunderstand Jaffe's argument, he's not saying story can't be done well or that games shouldn't have stories. But the story of a game should be in service to the gameplay. What a player is doing 90% of the game should take precedence over passive elements that are one time only (story/cinematics). There are only so many times you can watch a cinematic, but you can always replay a game like Civilization or alpha centauri and be sucked right back in and that's totally missing from our modern AAA hollywood infested games.
They are entertaining no doubt about it, people get emotionally attached the properties and characters. But lets' be honest shall we? We won't be saying "just one more t
... rethinking student selection. My god, there are too many people going to school who are not scholastically inclined nor have the work ethic. We instead of created a culture of stupidity and status seeking based on false promises of what can be expected out of an 'education'.
You're confusing the laws of large numbers with success. For every facebook there are millions of failures. These people simply take advantage of economies of scale. If you want the big money you have to be in a position of authority on incoming revenue over the business. It's better to be an owner then a worker. That's why the richest people tend to be owners or something close to it.
"Science fiction says so much and can be as compelling and moving as other forms of fiction."
The problem is their is way too much ambiguity in what is meant by "science fiction". The term "science fiction" is almost contradictory, since fiction by definition isn't science. Some things that were fictitious became realizable under our universes laws, but it does not mean any scientific extrapolation from the past or present will pan out in the future. (i.e. flying cars for instance).
"Anyone who thinks we're in 1984 hasn't read 1984."
I think you're using 1984 as a model of what would actually happen, in the real world data is collected out of view of human beings. Does anyone here think the internet is not a spying machine, really? Google, all those websites you visit? Every time you do something on the net you're leaving a trail for others to determine who you are and what your interests are. There doesn't need to be an overt system in place. How is stuff like foxnews not similar to 1984 where the propaganda coming out of these networks effects voters, their views, and elections?
"Furthermore, capitalizing the letter T in truth suggests interest in something other than science."
Did what you just write absolutely exist? There is only a binary option, yes it does, no it doesn't. Because if you can't make a decision you can't take any action. Decisions force the idea upon us that absolute exists (otherwise no decisions are possible). So there are most certainly things we can know in an absolute way. Sciences move away from truth into probability is not how we experience the world. You wouldn't say "I'm not sure if I really exist (small t truth)". You are *certain* in an absolute mathematical way that you do exist.
Oh I know this but the problem is you need killer apps that draw people away from other platforms. There is no compelling reason to use linux (i.e. greater performance, etc).
... the most boring part of the computer for 90% of the population. You have to have something your end customers actually care about. I look at things like steam and I don't know why Linux devs didn't think of creating a platform around linux to begin with. While power user computing is great for the power users, the great unwashed really just want something ridiculously simple and easy. There is really no real reason to use linux. If I were trying to sell linux, I'd create a plaform like steam and sell non-drm'd software. Open source really has to start 'charging' for it's software if it hopes to be sustainable in creating apps/things people want in the future. Money is not a dirty word. You can still make money with open computing. With all the copyright bullshit linux could have a good opening if they'd just get on the ball and create a business out of it.
Linux suffers from being suffocated by geeks who really don't grasp that the user doesn't want to have to think, the user wants a magic box that adds value to their lives. This is why things like Steam took off and 'app stores'.
I'm thinking of something for the masses - the masses dont want hassle at all, they want something like chrome that just hides in the background and auto-updates without fuss. Tor still has 'barriers to entry' in terms of it's use. You have to download it, start it up, then you have to 'manually' turn on whether you become a node or not. For just private browsing that's still too many steps for the masses. You want to take all the decisions completely out of the loop and have custom stuff like you talk about for power users, even though it is 'simple' by our standards the point is to have a system default to being on without counting on the end user, since most are lazy/indifferent and hence it prevents things from becoming useful. Most people are stupid and I've learned over the years there is wisdom in taking them out of the loop for casual browsing.
... more then just a browser to get people to change. I've often wondered why TOR developers don't integrate something like bit-torrent like protocol combined with an anonymity service like onion routing and a browser all in one, anyone who is using the browser and wants to keep their privacy automatically becomes part of an anonymity swarm instead of having separate packages just have it all integrated and take the end user out of the loop. For most people that will do. For the power users they can download custom stuff like what is available now.
With all the bs going on with corporations owning the governments of the world and trying to take away peoples rights it's about time someone actually did something about it in terms of combining all the features into one complete package that grows more powerful/useful as people use it.
... embedded links that activate scripts/contact other adservers, etc. There is so much junk embedded in modern web-pages that most users have no clue how bad their client is being raped of accumulating identifiable information.
"Copyright isn't evil; it's just being abused heavily."
It's more then just abused heavily corporations have outright stolen the public domain, any attempt at reform will be blocked and consistently attacked again until it's back where it started. I really hate how ignorant some slashdotters are about copyright history.
Do you really think the people and companies behind the following will not attack and overturn reform at the first chance they get?
The real issue was never piracy it's about dev's having a dumb captive audience that will pay for the same games over and over again. Any devs who whine about piracy when you look at sales numbers of skyrim of Call of duty are idiots.
"These are adventure games, not heave heavy hardcore action games."
This is the refuge of the people who have no ability to think about games intelligently. It's using vague language to get around the fact that zelda isn't fun as other games that use the exact same style. Just saying these words MEANS NOTHING. The games geometrically and mathematically are practically the same. Many of the 'action games' you so look down upon do all the things zelda does and does them better. God of war had puzzles just like zelda, god of war had 'dungeons' (the temple). You're just trolling in the worst kind of way. I grew up on zelda and many of us older gamers know that game quality - yes including zelda aren't learning lessons on what makes games fun. Games that refuse to learn and grow from what other developers have learned over the last 10 years begin to stagnate.
The problem is they aren't learning from what other games have done well in the same genre they are just doing the same thing they've always done. The combat in wind waker was going in interesting directions with being able to do more interesting things to enemies but then they stopped. Maybe you want the game frozen in time but many of us older gamers who grew up with zelda know the series has stagnated. You're just having a knee jerk reaction because you refuse to look at these games critically. I WANT nintendo's games to be top tier but sadly they are losing it because they refuse to learn from other games, anyone who says differently can just look at what happened to starfox. Starfox was trashed from a great franchise to an also ran.
There is much evidence you are completely ignoring in terms of Nintendo's game quality. What's keeping Nintendo afloat is demgraphic turnover (newer gamers who don't have a history of 20-25 years of games) and fanboys like yourself who have no ability to perceive the decline in game quality. Just look at your immature statement in your opening paragraph. You're being immature and a fanboy because you can't intelligently do any kind of game criticism.
"Does anyone else have a nagging feeling that Nintendo is doomed in the next console cycle?"
Problem with nintendo is game quality. They used to be 'must have' but beginning with the cube they put out real stinkers like Starfox adventures and assault. Totally ruined one of their KEY franchises by listening to stupid miyamoto over the starfox developer (you can google it). Metroid prime 3 was nothing to write home about and Twilight princess and Skyward sword can't keep up with other action games like God of war, devil may cry.
Nintendo's game development culture is stagnating under the reigns of developers who don't really get gaming and are doing 'the same old thing'. I knew nintendo lost it once I saw what they did to starfox and definitely when twilight princess was released with huge quality problems all over the map.
Nintendo isn't learning from other games that have 'done it better' and they desperately need to do it. They used to be a 'gamers' game company now they are just stuck in doing the same things they've always done.
Nintendo sadly is not intelligent enough as a company, they keep making dumb ass mistakes. The 64 with the cartridges, the lack of games and stupid 1.5GB mini-discs instead of DVD's (making porting more costly/hard for 3rd party game companies), then the lack of hardware power with the Wii which ensured no easy way to run multi-platform games. (pure idiocy).
As far as I'm concerned Nintendo is run by idiots at this point, and the Wii was a one hit home-run which will not be repeated again if they don't fucking hardware power + software support up. The Wii suffered again from lack of software that core gamers want, that's not a good thing to have as a game company.
At this point Nintendo should seriously think about multi-platforming it's games instead of trying to lock them down and make money on hardware. Gaming audiences now game on multi-platforms and the end is nigh for locked in hardware if you want to squeeze as much money as possible out of your software. Just look at all the big software companies - always releasing games on as many platforms as possible. Nintendo can't just keep it's software on it's own machines and hope to compete it needs software developer on the inside that makes games for other platforms because it's leaving money on the table for competitors.
"There's nothing wrong with being supportive of anti-piracy efforts."
Actually there is, copyright is a monopoly, it's not a law of nature. The fact that you all accept it is proof that piracy is a valid response. You are all proof brainwashing works. There is nothing natural about copyright at all and the whole idea that we need it or else people can't make money is a bunch of nonsense. It prevents us from discovering how to make money without it and people DID make money without it for thousands of years before it was invented.
You're not becoming elitist, what people who say "you're just getting old" are missing is the generational turnover. New kids did not grow up with 8-bit NES games many of them started on ps1/xbox1 or xbox360/ps3/wii so they don't have 20-25 years of gaming history of games played under their belt. It's not just you. The entire industry is in a creative funk because AAA game dev costs are through the roof and publishers are hyper controlling and hyper conservative.
The real issue is game devs don't know what makes for satisfying combat and that's why torchlight was 'just ok' not "OMG this is diablo 1 good'.
The real issue is game developers have stopped understanding why their games were fun and are just pushing clones. Starcraft 2 is a case in point - SC2 had to be the MOST CONSERVATIVE sequel in all of gaming history. I was so underwhelmed by the sequel to one of the greatest games of all time and it's not just getting old. It's the fact that developers don't understand the spirit of the game themselves because many of them weren't even on the original team that made starcraft 1 to begin with. People come and go in the game industry. That and the marketing and exeuctives has pushed 'streamlining' and 'chain games to online'. (No LAN in starcraft 2). They' are trying to slowly turn games into services (ala MMO's). Trying to monetize them in sick and unfun ways, witness diablo 3's auction house. Horrible idea but the modern game industry is a mafia like entity now and gamers are idiots for not caring and buying their games anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
... always denies other areas of innovation. The same way processors were thought not to scale down to x nm and we're at 20'ish nm now. The same way hard drives were thought only to have x capacity and we're now in the terabytes. If nand is really so limited then something different then nand will take it's place. But a few terabyte will be more then enough for 99% of applications and hard disks will be for packrats and those who need large amounts of longer term storage.
.... is hardware power allowed computers to create graphics that allowed cinematic elements to take over and because we as gamers love both cinema and games we are now highly confused consumer base when it comes to games. I admit to being spoiled by the likes of Call of duty 4 and mass effect but even I know that the awesome hollywood cinematic aspects do detract and take away resources from the game. Where we are just playing the same games with different stories and the gameplay isn't going anwyhere.
I still look at high watermarks for gameplay in Quake 3 and UT2004 and see that gameplay has frozen in time, instead of explore new game modes. Gamers have become satisfied with a basic level of gameplay and just swapping out models and narrative. Lets be honest we are all guilty here to some extent. No one really escapes and Jaffe is correct that story should serve gameplay.
Just because computers now have the hardware power to render cinematics and hollywood special fx doesn't mean they should dominate. Let us remember games like civilization 1 for instance. A game you can come back to and play many times. Most modern games completely lack the replayability element anymore because they are so cinematic focused. We've come to substitute gaming with a cinematic experience and it has had negative effects on games since there are not enough resources to go around so publishers and developers have to pick what they think will get them the most sales (hollywood or gameplay?) most go for shoving story into the game and cutting back on gameplay since most gamers are now older and don't really like gameplay anymore (it's true lets face it, whenever you hear and old codger complain about 'grinding' in an RPG or repetitiveness in battle systems, that's you decrying gameplay).
Another real issue is many modern gamers don't want to be challenged. It's too easy for all of us (and we've all done it) to be passively awed by the audiovisuals for that brief moment of stimulation but then you never pick up the game again. How many modern games have you actually replayed or gone back to? After the cinematic experience and rush is over you rarely go back. I still go back to older retro games from time to time.
I remember when replayability used to be front and center. Older gamers prefer more story driven games and less gameplay because they have 1) less energy and 2) are time constrained so they perceive marathon sessions as a 'waste of time' and 'grinding' because now they are part of the rat race. But there is still an element of them having 'grown out of' gameplay.
I am one of those people for who the last 10 years of gaming has been complete creative loss. I'm gameplay guy first and I positively hate the dumbing down of games to insert story and narrative and "the awesome button" where challenge and interactivity has been stripped away. You can especially see this in Deus Ex human revolution. I went and replayed Deus Ex the original before playing HR and I really do miss the gameplay first approach. The world in the original DX was just so much more compelling as a game despite it's aged graphics.
Modern games try to cater to all audiences and the easiest way to do this is just copy/paste from hollywood given the expensive nature of modern game development.
I think most people misunderstand Jaffe's argument, he's not saying story can't be done well or that games shouldn't have stories. But the story of a game should be in service to the gameplay. What a player is doing 90% of the game should take precedence over passive elements that are one time only (story/cinematics). There are only so many times you can watch a cinematic, but you can always replay a game like Civilization or alpha centauri and be sucked right back in and that's totally missing from our modern AAA hollywood infested games.
They are entertaining no doubt about it, people get emotionally attached the properties and characters. But lets' be honest shall we? We won't be saying "just one more t
Not everyone is cut out for university, this is a fact of life.
... rethinking student selection. My god, there are too many people going to school who are not scholastically inclined nor have the work ethic. We instead of created a culture of stupidity and status seeking based on false promises of what can be expected out of an 'education'.
You're confusing the laws of large numbers with success. For every facebook there are millions of failures. These people simply take advantage of economies of scale. If you want the big money you have to be in a position of authority on incoming revenue over the business. It's better to be an owner then a worker. That's why the richest people tend to be owners or something close to it.
"Science fiction says so much and can be as compelling and moving as other forms of fiction."
The problem is their is way too much ambiguity in what is meant by "science fiction". The term "science fiction" is almost contradictory, since fiction by definition isn't science. Some things that were fictitious became realizable under our universes laws, but it does not mean any scientific extrapolation from the past or present will pan out in the future. (i.e. flying cars for instance).
"Anyone who thinks we're in 1984 hasn't read 1984."
I think you're using 1984 as a model of what would actually happen, in the real world data is collected out of view of human beings. Does anyone here think the internet is not a spying machine, really? Google, all those websites you visit? Every time you do something on the net you're leaving a trail for others to determine who you are and what your interests are. There doesn't need to be an overt system in place. How is stuff like foxnews not similar to 1984 where the propaganda coming out of these networks effects voters, their views, and elections?
"Furthermore, capitalizing the letter T in truth suggests interest in something other than science."
Did what you just write absolutely exist? There is only a binary option, yes it does, no it doesn't. Because if you can't make a decision you can't take any action. Decisions force the idea upon us that absolute exists (otherwise no decisions are possible). So there are most certainly things we can know in an absolute way. Sciences move away from truth into probability is not how we experience the world. You wouldn't say "I'm not sure if I really exist (small t truth)". You are *certain* in an absolute mathematical way that you do exist.
Oh I know this but the problem is you need killer apps that draw people away from other platforms. There is no compelling reason to use linux (i.e. greater performance, etc).
... the most boring part of the computer for 90% of the population. You have to have something your end customers actually care about. I look at things like steam and I don't know why Linux devs didn't think of creating a platform around linux to begin with. While power user computing is great for the power users, the great unwashed really just want something ridiculously simple and easy. There is really no real reason to use linux. If I were trying to sell linux, I'd create a plaform like steam and sell non-drm'd software. Open source really has to start 'charging' for it's software if it hopes to be sustainable in creating apps/things people want in the future. Money is not a dirty word. You can still make money with open computing. With all the copyright bullshit linux could have a good opening if they'd just get on the ball and create a business out of it.
Linux suffers from being suffocated by geeks who really don't grasp that the user doesn't want to have to think, the user wants a magic box that adds value to their lives. This is why things like Steam took off and 'app stores'.
There are already succesful disconnected 'pocket computers' remember, calculators, the original gameboy, gameboy advance, Nintendo DS, etc.
I'm thinking of something for the masses - the masses dont want hassle at all, they want something like chrome that just hides in the background and auto-updates without fuss. Tor still has 'barriers to entry' in terms of it's use. You have to download it, start it up, then you have to 'manually' turn on whether you become a node or not. For just private browsing that's still too many steps for the masses. You want to take all the decisions completely out of the loop and have custom stuff like you talk about for power users, even though it is 'simple' by our standards the point is to have a system default to being on without counting on the end user, since most are lazy/indifferent and hence it prevents things from becoming useful. Most people are stupid and I've learned over the years there is wisdom in taking them out of the loop for casual browsing.
... more then just a browser to get people to change. I've often wondered why TOR developers don't integrate something like bit-torrent like protocol combined with an anonymity service like onion routing and a browser all in one, anyone who is using the browser and wants to keep their privacy automatically becomes part of an anonymity swarm instead of having separate packages just have it all integrated and take the end user out of the loop. For most people that will do. For the power users they can download custom stuff like what is available now.
With all the bs going on with corporations owning the governments of the world and trying to take away peoples rights it's about time someone actually did something about it in terms of combining all the features into one complete package that grows more powerful/useful as people use it.
... embedded links that activate scripts/contact other adservers, etc. There is so much junk embedded in modern web-pages that most users have no clue how bad their client is being raped of accumulating identifiable information.
"Copyright isn't evil; it's just being abused heavily."
It's more then just abused heavily corporations have outright stolen the public domain, any attempt at reform will be blocked and consistently attacked again until it's back where it started. I really hate how ignorant some slashdotters are about copyright history.
Do you really think the people and companies behind the following will not attack and overturn reform at the first chance they get?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Term_Extension_Act
The real issue was never piracy it's about dev's having a dumb captive audience that will pay for the same games over and over again. Any devs who whine about piracy when you look at sales numbers of skyrim of Call of duty are idiots.
"and would most likely vote differently if they were in full possession of the facts"
See this on human reasoning, the enlightenment was wrong about the human mind and telling people 'the facts':
http://bit.ly/dYaWUc
"These are adventure games, not heave heavy hardcore action games."
This is the refuge of the people who have no ability to think about games intelligently. It's using vague language to get around the fact that zelda isn't fun as other games that use the exact same style. Just saying these words MEANS NOTHING. The games geometrically and mathematically are practically the same. Many of the 'action games' you so look down upon do all the things zelda does and does them better. God of war had puzzles just like zelda, god of war had 'dungeons' (the temple). You're just trolling in the worst kind of way. I grew up on zelda and many of us older gamers know that game quality - yes including zelda aren't learning lessons on what makes games fun. Games that refuse to learn and grow from what other developers have learned over the last 10 years begin to stagnate.
The problem is they aren't learning from what other games have done well in the same genre they are just doing the same thing they've always done. The combat in wind waker was going in interesting directions with being able to do more interesting things to enemies but then they stopped. Maybe you want the game frozen in time but many of us older gamers who grew up with zelda know the series has stagnated. You're just having a knee jerk reaction because you refuse to look at these games critically. I WANT nintendo's games to be top tier but sadly they are losing it because they refuse to learn from other games, anyone who says differently can just look at what happened to starfox. Starfox was trashed from a great franchise to an also ran.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/gamecube/star-fox-assault
There is much evidence you are completely ignoring in terms of Nintendo's game quality. What's keeping Nintendo afloat is demgraphic turnover (newer gamers who don't have a history of 20-25 years of games) and fanboys like yourself who have no ability to perceive the decline in game quality. Just look at your immature statement in your opening paragraph. You're being immature and a fanboy because you can't intelligently do any kind of game criticism.
"Does anyone else have a nagging feeling that Nintendo is doomed in the next console cycle?"
Problem with nintendo is game quality. They used to be 'must have' but beginning with the cube they put out real stinkers like Starfox adventures and assault. Totally ruined one of their KEY franchises by listening to stupid miyamoto over the starfox developer (you can google it). Metroid prime 3 was nothing to write home about and Twilight princess and Skyward sword can't keep up with other action games like God of war, devil may cry.
Nintendo's game development culture is stagnating under the reigns of developers who don't really get gaming and are doing 'the same old thing'. I knew nintendo lost it once I saw what they did to starfox and definitely when twilight princess was released with huge quality problems all over the map.
Nintendo isn't learning from other games that have 'done it better' and they desperately need to do it. They used to be a 'gamers' game company now they are just stuck in doing the same things they've always done.
Nintendo sadly is not intelligent enough as a company, they keep making dumb ass mistakes. The 64 with the cartridges, the lack of games and stupid 1.5GB mini-discs instead of DVD's (making porting more costly/hard for 3rd party game companies), then the lack of hardware power with the Wii which ensured no easy way to run multi-platform games. (pure idiocy).
As far as I'm concerned Nintendo is run by idiots at this point, and the Wii was a one hit home-run which will not be repeated again if they don't fucking hardware power + software support up. The Wii suffered again from lack of software that core gamers want, that's not a good thing to have as a game company.
At this point Nintendo should seriously think about multi-platforming it's games instead of trying to lock them down and make money on hardware. Gaming audiences now game on multi-platforms and the end is nigh for locked in hardware if you want to squeeze as much money as possible out of your software. Just look at all the big software companies - always releasing games on as many platforms as possible. Nintendo can't just keep it's software on it's own machines and hope to compete it needs software developer on the inside that makes games for other platforms because it's leaving money on the table for competitors.
" because I won't buy a game that uses DRM like that on general principle"
But many people will sadly. The free market doesn't work because human beings don't work like the enlightenment thought they did.
http://bit.ly/dYaWUc
"We still live in a world of 8.3 filenames."
Short filenames are much easier to rename/manage then files with long names when doing any kind of serious work with files.
"it could mean I'm spending all day posting on Slashdot."
That's just another productive day for me!
"There's nothing wrong with being supportive of anti-piracy efforts."
Actually there is, copyright is a monopoly, it's not a law of nature. The fact that you all accept it is proof that piracy is a valid response. You are all proof brainwashing works. There is nothing natural about copyright at all and the whole idea that we need it or else people can't make money is a bunch of nonsense. It prevents us from discovering how to make money without it and people DID make money without it for thousands of years before it was invented.
... it's called the internet.
You're not becoming elitist, what people who say "you're just getting old" are missing is the generational turnover. New kids did not grow up with 8-bit NES games many of them started on ps1/xbox1 or xbox360/ps3/wii so they don't have 20-25 years of gaming history of games played under their belt. It's not just you. The entire industry is in a creative funk because AAA game dev costs are through the roof and publishers are hyper controlling and hyper conservative.
The real issue is game devs don't know what makes for satisfying combat and that's why torchlight was 'just ok' not "OMG this is diablo 1 good'.
The real issue is game developers have stopped understanding why their games were fun and are just pushing clones. Starcraft 2 is a case in point - SC2 had to be the MOST CONSERVATIVE sequel in all of gaming history. I was so underwhelmed by the sequel to one of the greatest games of all time and it's not just getting old. It's the fact that developers don't understand the spirit of the game themselves because many of them weren't even on the original team that made starcraft 1 to begin with. People come and go in the game industry. That and the marketing and exeuctives has pushed 'streamlining' and 'chain games to online'. (No LAN in starcraft 2). They' are trying to slowly turn games into services (ala MMO's). Trying to monetize them in sick and unfun ways, witness diablo 3's auction house. Horrible idea but the modern game industry is a mafia like entity now and gamers are idiots for not caring and buying their games anyway.