2006 was a big year for video games.  7th gen consoles were all the rage and PCs with graphics cards capable of 3D gaming were more prominent than ever.  However, 2006 was also the year that began the long-term trend of decreased quality and variety of triple-A games. The industry had been in a "golden age" of sorts since the beginning of the 1990s.  That came to an abrupt end in 2006. There were some gems post 2006 like Bioshock, Skyrim, etc, but most tripe-A games have more of a "rushed" feel than they once did and/or are simply giving an existing concept a graphics upgrade i.e. every Call of Duty or Battlefield game released in the past decade.  I remember summer 2006 was somewhat of my own big "last hurrah" of my hardcore PC gaming career.  Once things shifted to focus on exclusively multiplayer shooters and MMORPGs, I have lost a lot of interest in it.

I still enjoy some games these days, but its nothing compared to what it was before 2006.  Why do you think this happened in 2006? 

I have heard a few reasons for this, which I've listed below.  The first is online piracy.  Today with video games being tied to a service like Steam or Origin, this isn't as big of a deal as it once was, but in the mid 2000s, pirating PC games was a pretty significant problem.  Another theory I've heard is the WoW effect. When World of Warcraft was released in 2004, it gobbled up a huge portion of the PC gaming market and since the game in essence can be played forever, it resulted in slumping sales of other triple-A titles.  Another factor was that game releases seemed to becoming a lot more buggy and riddled with problems.  This occurred as major triple-A developers were getting gobbled up by a few major ones like EA and Bethesda.  Many of the best games of the golden age were from smaller indie developers like Valve and id Software.

So what do you think?

The last great time for games, as you said, was summer 2006.

Fall/winter 2006 is when the PS3 and Wii came out and the 7th gen REALLY took off.

The last great time for games, as you said, was summer 2006.

Fall/winter 2006 is when the PS3 and Wii came out and the 7th gen REALLY took off.


What do you think it was about 7th gen consoles that hurt the overall gaming industry?

I personally think the 8th gen era has been a huge improvement across platforms but it still isn't what it was from ca 1990-2006.

2006 is when the peak of Nintendo DS truly took off. So I don't see how that could had been a bad year for gaming. Plus, 2006 was the final year 6th generation was still popular in the majority of households and parties.

The 7th to 8th gen has formed a trend with video games in terms of quality development. Either the games are rushed and buggy at launch and are in need of updates (in the 6th gen games didn't have updates and most worked on launch day) OR games take AGES to releases. In the 6th gen and prior games usually take 2 (and on rare occasions 3) years to develop. Games may also have a shorter amount of time and still perform well. But nowadays games are rushed onto market. And to avoid making rushed buggy games developers now spend years developing 1 game. Constant delays after delays. And even after the delays we still get subpar games like No Man's Sky or Mass Effect Andromeda.

Another is what you've mentioned. That a lot of the smaller devs are being eaten up by bigger companies. Nowadays you only hear about a handful of major companies. In the 6th gen and prior you heard about a ton of companies. Back then there were small indie studios, mid-sized studios, and major companies. Nowadays the mid-sized devs are gone and it's sad as these made up a big amount of the devs from the 6th gen and prior. Nowadays you're either a small indie team or a major AAA company. No more mid-sized games from mid-sized devs. You either make a small indie game that develops a niche following or a big open world AAA game.

To me the downfall of gaming ended when these things started to dominate the trends of the 7th and 8th gen. And of course there are things like microtransactions, devs literally just making only shooters, open world, MMOs, MOBAs, racers, and sports games nowadays, and the fact that devs now are playing it too safe and aren't taking risks.

Now I don't hate the 7th gen overall, but I can't stand the 8th gen outside of PC and 3DS.

I disagree with premise. The golden age ended in 2001!  :-X

http://i.imgur.com/Swb9gH4.gif

Just kidding. But leave 7th gen alone!  :\'(

As for AAA development, it's fewer and far between and of less diversity, because it takes a lot to make an AAA game these days. Developer teams went from being 20-30 people to 200+ people project, and costs have skyrocketed along with it. If you're going to be making a game with top-notch graphics and scope, your publisher will want you to bet on safe genres like FPS or established franchises.

There's still great mid-tier, indie, and niche games that are top-notch and innovative. Persona 5 comes in two weeks! My teenage dream!  :-X

I disagree with premise. The golden age ended in 2001!  :-X

http://i.imgur.com/Swb9gH4.gif

http://i.imgur.com/PijcGEU.gif


Just kidding. But leave 7th gen alone!  :\'(

As for AAA development, it's fewer and far between and of less diversity, because it takes a lot to make an AAA game these days. Developer teams went from being 20-30 people to 200+ people project, and costs have skyrocketed along with it. If you're going to be making a game with top-notch graphics and scope, your publisher will want you to bet on safe genres like FPS or established franchises.

There's still great mid-tier, indie, and niche games that are top-notch and innovative. Persona 5 comes in two weeks! My teenage dream!  :-X


I think the main issue is that devs just aren't really innovating with their games anymore. All I see are just graphical upgrades and not much on gameplay upgrades. Here is an issue with the manpower and sky rocketing costs. Take the game Witcher 2 and 3 were example. Big expansive games yet the game was WAY cheaper to make than the other buggy games that supposedly costed 50+ million dollars to make. Witcher 2 and 3 only costed 10-12 Million. So the issue of sky rocketing costs could be avoided, but companies like to use buzzwords like "big budget game" to generate hype when in the end it's meaningless.

As for the games releasing less often this I can somewhat understand. I just don't like it when a game is delayed again or announced WAY too early with a release date that wouldn't come for the next 3-4 years. And then on launch day the end result is disappointing. Also don't like the lack of variety in the AAA gaming space. I don't like the idea of turning from AAA games just to get some variety nowadays. As for having top-notch graphics and being safe with genres my only counter to this is to look at the previous gens. During the 6th gen everything was considered top notch at the time yet devs still made a ton of different genres. The combined total of all 6th gen games is around 5000 games which is the highest out of any generation. There were platformers, racers, fighters, MMOs, Shooters, RPGs, Adventure, Action and even games that can't be placed within a specific genre. Same applies to the 3rd to 5th gens as well in terms of variety and the (At the time) expensive top notch graphics and gameplay.

7th gen had problems, but ultimately was okay. 8th gen's problem is that it barely advanced past the 7th gen.

I disagree with premise. The golden age ended in 2001!  :-X


and you know 2001 was one of the best years in gaming history, and it was a lot more interesting than 2000 too.

I forgot you're the only person I know who isn't a fan of 6th gen gaming.

I think the main issue is that devs just aren't really innovating with their games anymore. All I see are just graphical upgrades and not much on gameplay upgrades. Here is an issue with the manpower and sky rocketing costs. Take the game Witcher 2 and 3 were example. Big expansive games yet the game was WAY cheaper to make than the other buggy games that supposedly costed 50+ million dollars to make. Witcher 2 and 3 only costed 10-12 Million. So the issue of sky rocketing costs could be avoided, but companies like to use buzzwords like "big budget game" to generate hype when in the end it's meaningless.

As for the games releasing less often this I can somewhat understand. I just don't like it when a game is delayed again or announced WAY too early with a release date that wouldn't come for the next 3-4 years. And then on launch day the end result is disappointing. Also don't like the lack of variety in the AAA gaming space. I don't like the idea of turning from AAA games just to get some variety nowadays. As for having top-notch graphics and being safe with genres my only counter to this is to look at the previous gens. During the 6th gen everything was considered top notch at the time yet devs still made a ton of different genres. The combined total of all 6th gen games is around 5000 games which is the highest out of any generation. There were platformers, racers, fighters, MMOs, Shooters, RPGs, Adventure, Action and even games that can't be placed within a specific genre. Same applies to the 3rd to 5th gens as well in terms of variety and the (At the time) expensive top notch graphics and gameplay.

7th gen had problems, but ultimately was okay. 8th gen's problem is that it barely advanced past the 7th gen.


They are innovating, though! Zelda and Horizon ZD are really innovative, at least in my opinion.  :-X

I agree you can still make great, cheap games, but then it wouldn't be "AAA" anymore now would it?  :P I thought AAA meant high budget, correct me if I'm wrong. There's an arms race to see who has the best graphics, best framerate, biggest worlds etc. This takes time and manpower to develop, and the costs only go upwards. The costs were much more controlled in the 6th gen, there's only so much you could have done with that hardware. It was much cheaper to develop an AAA game back then.

It doesn't help when the best selling games are the established franchises and the FPSes. The publishers are only following the market.

But personally, ever since I was old enough, I was always more into more niche and quirky games and didn't care much for AAA releases, so the lack of diversity in AAA games doesn't bother me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The fact that people always chase the games with the best graphics instead of the games that are the most fun is frankly the problem to me. ;D


and you know 2001 was one of the best years in gaming history, and it was a lot more interesting than 2000 too.

I forgot you're the only person I know who isn't a fan of 6th gen gaming.


2001 inclusive ;) Even you agree that 2002 is worse than 2001 in gaming, so where's the lie? :P

They are innovating, though! Zelda and Horizon ZD are really innovative, at least in my opinion.  :-X

I agree you can still make great, cheap games, but then it wouldn't be "AAA" anymore now would it?  :P I thought AAA meant high budget, correct me if I'm wrong. There's an arms race to see who has the best graphics, best framerate, biggest worlds etc. This takes time and manpower to develop, and the costs only go upwards. The costs were much more controlled in the 6th gen, there's only so much you could have done with that hardware. It was much cheaper to develop an AAA game back then.

It doesn't help when the best selling games are the established franchises and the FPSes. The publishers are only following the market.

But personally, ever since I was old enough, I was always more into more niche and quirky games and didn't care much for AAA releases, so the lack of diversity in AAA games doesn't bother me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ The fact that people always chase the games with the best graphics instead of the games that are the most fun is frankly the problem to me. ;D



Zelda and Horizon were great games. Although for me to really admit to there being a change I'd want to see more games like those two. Big Budget is similar to AAA, but they're not entirely the same. As mentioned Witcher 3 is a AAA title yet it had a budget that was WAY smaller than all the other open world RPG games. But maybe Witcher 3 is just a rare example.  As for niche and variety I was always a guy who loved all games from indie, mid-sized, and AAA. But as time moved on I've been getting annoyed with AAA and staying with indie. And the mid-size devs either end up dying or getting absorbed into the AAA companies. As for devs following the market this is something I hate, but I can't get too angry. When looking through game history you'd see that during the late 1980s/early 1990s platformers where the craze. 90% of them made just to make money on the market. And 90% of them sucked.  >:(  The FPS craze being a trend is normal for gaming. I just hate how long the trend has been going though. Innovation happens from time to time, but FPS games haven't really innovated for years now. A 2017 FPS game feels the exact same way as a 2007 FPS. Just with better graphics. Open world games have upgraded (compare GTA 1 to GTA 5 or any old open world game to Zelda or Horizon and you'll see a big upgrade), but FPS games haven't.


2001 inclusive ;) Even you agree that 2002 is worse than 2001 in gaming, so where's the lie? :P

http://i.imgur.com/PijcGEU.gif

and you know 2001 was one of the best years in gaming history, and it was a lot more interesting than 2000 too.

I forgot you're the only person I know who isn't a fan of 6th gen gaming.

I agree with the statement in bold.


2001 inclusive ;) Even you agree that 2002 is worse than 2001 in gaming, so where's the lie? :P

Whaaaaaat?  :o I'm triggered like Looney Toon  ;D. 2001 was a great year for gaming but.....

In 2002, you had these AMAZING games....
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit 2
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault
Metroid Prime
Battlefield 1942
Kingdom Hearts
Mafia
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell
Burnout 2: Point of Impact
WWE SmackDown! Shut Your Mouth
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

The last great time for games, as you said, was summer 2006.

Fall/winter 2006 is when the PS3 and Wii came out and the 7th gen REALLY took off.


I remember when The PS3 came out.

I'll just echo what others have said. The main reason I think the Golden Age of Video Games ended in the mid '00s is that, starting with the PS3/360/Wii era, it just takes too damn long to make games!

Back in the good old days (roughly 1986-2005 to me) you were pretty much guaranteed to get four or five major games every year. Take a year like 1988 for example. I mean, you've got the likes of Zelda II, Contra, and Super Mario Bros. 2 all coming out in the USA in the same calendar year? Plus Mega Man 2 and Super Mario Bros. 3 in Japan?! :o  1994 (Sonic 3 & Knuckles, Final Fantasy VI, and Donkey Kong Country), 1998 (Ocarina of Time, Crash 3, and Banjo Kazooie), 2001 (MGS 2, GTA III, Final Fantasy X), and 2004 (Halo 2, Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal, and GTA: San Andreas) also stand out.

I think that's the reason video gaming felt so epic growing up. Every time you looked around there was another AAA game that you had to beg your parents to buy you. Today, it can take as long as four or five years to make a single game. Hell, Final Fantasy XV took 10 years! Think about it like this. The entire original Sonic trilogy on the Genesis (1, 2, and 3 & Knuckles) all came out between 1991 and 1994. These days it would take probably 15-20 years just to play all three games.

Plus, we're a lot older than we were back in the day, too. I know I was in college by the mid '00s and didn't have nearly as much time to play video games as I did when I was a kid. That's even more true now. Even though I do have a PS4, I still prefer to play the games I grew up with because they are so much more simplistic. I don't really have the time these days to go through two hours of tutorials figuring out how to play the current hot MMORPG. Instead, I'd rather just slip Super Mario World into my SNES and relive my childhood. 8)

I'll just echo what others have said. The main reason I think the Golden Age of Video Games ended in the mid '00s is that, starting with the PS3/360/Wii era, it just takes too damn long to make games!

Back in the good old days (roughly 1986-2005 to me) you were pretty much guaranteed to get four or five major games every year. Take a year like 1988 for example. I mean, you've got the likes of Zelda II, Contra, and Super Mario Bros. 2 all coming out in the USA in the same calendar year? Plus Mega Man 2 and Super Mario Bros. 3 in Japan?! :o  1994 (Sonic 3 & Knuckles, Final Fantasy VI, and Donkey Kong Country), 1998 (Ocarina of Time, Crash 3, and Banjo Kazooie), 2001 (MGS 2, GTA III, Final Fantasy X), and 2004 (Halo 2, Ratchet and Clank: Up Your Arsenal, and GTA: San Andreas) also stand out.

I think that's the reason video gaming felt so epic growing up. Every time you looked around there was another AAA game that you had to beg your parents to buy you. Today, it can take as long as four or five years to make a single game. Hell, Final Fantasy XV took 10 years! Think about it like this. The entire original Sonic trilogy on the Genesis (1, 2, and 3 & Knuckles) all came out between 1991 and 1994. These days it would take probably 15-20 years just to play all three games.

Plus, we're a lot older than we were back in the day, too. I know I was in college by the mid '00s and didn't have nearly as much time to play video games as I did when I was a kid. That's even more true now. Even though I do have a PS4, I still prefer to play the games I grew up with because they are so much more simplistic. I don't really have the time these days to go through two hours of tutorials figuring out how to play the current hot MMORPG. Instead, I'd rather just slip Super Mario World into my SNES and relive my childhood. 8)



Do you own a PS3?  ???

The stars just aligned and everything happened for a reason!  :D  :D  ;D

I agree with the statement in bold.
Whaaaaaat?  :o I'm triggered like Looney Toon  ;D. 2001 was a great year for gaming but.....

In 2002, you had these AMAZING games....
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City
Need For Speed: Hot Pursuit 2
Medal of Honor: Allied Assault
Metroid Prime
Battlefield 1942
Kingdom Hearts
Mafia
Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell
Burnout 2: Point of Impact
WWE SmackDown! Shut Your Mouth
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind


Not as great as 2001, or even 2007 or 2009 for that matter.

http://i.imgur.com/Swb9gH4.gif

I agree with what everyone listed for the reasons why this took place. Oh, and speaking of a long time to make games, look how long it's taking Kingdom Hearts 3 to be released and the 2nd one come out over 10 years ago!

I agree with what everyone listed for the reasons why this took place. Oh, and speaking of a long time to make games, look how long it's taking Kingdom Hearts 3 to be released and the 2nd one come out over 10 years ago!


To compare from 6th gen to 8th gen here is a comparison.

Kingdom Hearts 1 released in 2002. Started development in 2000 and finished 2 years later.

Kingdom Hearts 2 released in 2005 (in Japan. 2006 in US). Started development in 2003 and released 2 years later.

Kingdom Hearts 3 isn't out yet (been 11-12 years since KH2 first released). And it lacks an official release day. Game started development back in 2013 and as of 2017 still doesn't have  a release date after around 4 years. Game probably won't come out until 2018 after finally getting a release date in E3 2017. Game probably may end up being in development for half a decade.

Games are taking forever these days.

Not as great as 2001, or even 2007 or 2009 for that matter.

http://i.imgur.com/Swb9gH4.gif

2001 and 2002 are pretty even when it comes to gaming with 2001 having a slight edge over 2002. I'll give you 2007 because 2007 was a great year for gaming but 2009?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D. Yeah no, 2009 was AND will NEVER.....EVER be considered a great or exceptional year for video games. Yes, 2009 did have some good games like Assassins Creed II, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Left 4 Dead 2, Borderlands, Resident Evil 5, Dragon Age: Origins but however 2002 is still a superior year to 2009 in terms of video games.

To compare from 6th gen to 8th gen here is a comparison.

Kingdom Hearts 1 released in 2002. Started development in 2000 and finished 2 years later.

Kingdom Hearts 2 released in 2005 (in Japan. 2006 in US). Started development in 2003 and released 2 years later.

Kingdom Hearts 3 isn't out yet (been 11-12 years since KH2 first released). And it lacks an official release day. Game started development back in 2013 and as of 2017 still doesn't have  a release date after around 4 years. Game probably won't come out until 2018 after finally getting a release date in E3 2017. Game probably may end up being in development for half a decade.

Games are taking forever these days.

Team Fortress 2 was released in 2007 but had been in development since 1999 (so 8 years).

Not as great as 2001, or even 2007 or 2009 for that matter.

http://i.imgur.com/Swb9gH4.gif


2009....

HELL NAW!!!  ;D

Kingdom Hearts, Super Mario Sunshine, James Bond 007: Nightfire, GTA: Vice City, or Metroid Prime vs. Assassin's Creed 2, Modern Warfare 2, Halo 3: ODST, Resident Evil 5 (which was great), or Left 4 Dead 2? Granted, different genres and ratings of games, but 2002 had a lot more diversity unlike by 2009 when 7th generation was at its peak with the similar genre of games with everything being 1st person shooter or dark/violent. You're always gonna have your Madden and 2K games too.

2009....

HELL NAW!!!  ;D

Kingdom Hearts, Super Mario Sunshine, James Bond 007: Nightfire, GTA: Vice City, or Metroid Prime vs. Assassin's Creed 2, Modern Warfare 2, Halo 3: ODST, Resident Evil 5 (which was great), or Left 4 Dead 2? Granted, different genres and ratings of games, but 2002 had a lot more diversity unlike by 2009 when 7th generation was at its peak with the similar genre of games with everything being 1st person shooter or dark/violent. You're always gonna have your Madden and 2K games too.

I completely agree.  ;D

2001 and 2002 are pretty even when it comes to gaming with 2001 having a slight edge over 2002. I'll give you 2007 because 2007 was a great year for gaming but 2009?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D. Yeah no, 2009 was AND will NEVER.....EVER be considered a great or exceptional year for video games. Yes, 2009 did have some good games like Assassins Creed II, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Uncharted 2: Among Thieves, Left 4 Dead 2, Borderlands, Resident Evil 5, Dragon Age: Origins but however 2002 is still a superior year to 2009 in terms of video games.


Don't forget Bayonetta, Demon's Souls, Devil Survivor, Persona 4, Phantasy Star Portable, Monster Hunter Freedom 2, Street Fighter 4, Tekken 6, Halo 3: ODST, Braid, New Super Mario Bros. etc. W O W. It did that!! Unforgettable!

Don't forget Bayonetta, Demon's Souls, Devil Survivor, Persona 4, Phantasy Star Portable, Monster Hunter Freedom 2, Street Fighter 4, Tekken 6, Halo 3: ODST, Braid, New Super Mario Bros. etc. W O W. It did that!! Unforgettable!

LMAO, I can name even more good-great video games from 2002 but I'm not in the mood for that. 2002 >>> 2009 in video games.

Don't forget Bayonetta, Demon's Souls, Devil Survivor, Persona 4, Phantasy Star Portable, Monster Hunter Freedom 2, Street Fighter 4, Tekken 6, Halo 3: ODST, Braid, New Super Mario Bros. etc. W O W. It did that!! Unforgettable!


Over half of those games were great, but 2002 had more variety though. Maybe the M-rated games and shooters from 2009 were superior to 2002, but if that's all you're focusing on then that can't be the ultimate determining factor for a whole year in gaming. Variety is key first before anything else. A lot of the good 2009 games were so similar to each other.

The main real problem is just the lack of variety in video games. From the early 1980s to mid 2000s there was a ton of variety in games. Now it's just FPS and dark/gritty games. This is what is causing the issue for games to me. I also can't stand how long it takes to make games nowadays, but then again I suppose this is just a natural thing. However, I do miss when in years like 1998, 2001, 2004 etc etc there would be a nice collection of big hits. Now it's like you have to wait months over months just for the next hit game to arrive. And if you're not the kind of guy who likes things like FPS games or Sports/Racers than you pretty much dislike a majority of AAA gaming.

- Less Variety
- Games are either rushed to release and perform badly or they're delayed again and again just for the sake of refining

These two things are what ruins gaming for me sometimes.

The main real problem is just the lack of variety in video games. From the early 1980s to mid 2000s there was a ton of variety in games. Now it's just FPS and dark/gritty games. This is what is causing the issue for games to me. I also can't stand how long it takes to make games nowadays, but then again I suppose this is just a natural thing. However, I do miss when in years like 1998, 2001, 2004 etc etc there would be a nice collection of big hits. Now it's like you have to wait months over months just for the next hit game to arrive. And if you're not the kind of guy who likes things like FPS games or Sports/Racers than you pretty much dislike a majority of AAA gaming.

- Less Variety
- Games are either rushed to release and perform badly or they're delayed again and again just for the sake of refining

These two things are what ruins gaming for me sometimes.


It probably has to do with a lot of games having more clear, sharp graphics and more detail put into them. Which explains why GTA: III, GTA: Vice City, and GTA: San Andreas came out in 1 year spans except for 2003 compared to GTA: IV and GTA: V having a 5 1/2 year gap.

Over half of those games were great, but 2002 had more variety though. Maybe the M-rated games and shooters from 2009 were superior to 2002, but if that's all you're focusing on then that can't be the ultimate determining factor for a whole year in gaming. Variety is key first before anything else. A lot of the good 2009 games were so similar to each other.

That is so true.

Over half of those games were great, but 2002 had more variety though. Maybe the M-rated games and shooters from 2009 were superior to 2002, but if that's all you're focusing on then that can't be the ultimate determining factor for a whole year in gaming. Variety is key first before anything else. A lot of the good 2009 games were so similar to each other.


The only shooter I listed was Halo.  :o The others don't have so much as a single gun!

Except Bayonetta, she has guns on attached to her feet!

http://sega-addicts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/bayonetta.jpg

The only shooter I listed was Halo.  :o The others don't have so much as a single gun!

Except Bayonetta, she has guns on attached to her feet!

http://sega-addicts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/bayonetta.jpg


It's official. Bayonette started the shooter craze. There was a spark in shooters with games like Halo, but when shoe shooting was invented people just couldn't get enough of them FPS games (I swear this sh*t makes sense if you don't think too hard about it).  :-X

Video games are for boys only, so who cares?

Everyone started to have good internet access, so PS3 and Xbox 360 games don't feel as fun, especially since you're gonna be spending more time fawning over graphics and playing with friends. Plus, the various franchises from the 2000s that used to have games on console don't really have it on PS3 and Xbox 360.

Video games are for boys only, so who cares?


Starting to sound somewhat like those people who claim that games are just for specific demographic only like little kids or man-children. Although with the current overly macho nature of games nowadays I wouldn't say you're wrong. Games are either heavily geared to the male demographic or they TRY to make it appeal to other audiences, but this effort goes unnoticed as the dev teams barely did anything worth noticeable in terms of their efforts.

Starting to sound somewhat like those people who claim that games are just for specific demographic only like little kids or man-children. Although with the current overly macho nature of games nowadays I wouldn't say you're wrong. Games are either heavily geared to the male demographic or they TRY to make it appeal to other audiences, but this effort goes unnoticed as the dev teams barely did anything worth noticeable in terms of their efforts.


Where is the lie though? Men are over-represented in the industry. Gaming practically gave birth to dudebros. ;D And before someone pre-empts my post by saying it started in 2007, no, it started in 2000/2001.  :-X :-X

Where is the lie though? Men are over-represented in the industry. Gaming practically gave birth to dudebros. ;D And before someone pre-empts my post by saying it started in 2007, no, it started in 2000/2001.  :-X :-X


Never said it was a lie. As for men being over-represented in the industry that started before 2000/2001. The Dude-bro effect was already in place by the late 1990s. Not 2000/2001. This went back to the 1990s around the 5th gen and its more mature PS1 titles. Heck the target for the PS1 were teens and Sony even used that as a marketing point. However, the dudebro effect wasn't in full force until later on.

Never said it was a lie. As for men being over-represented in the industry that started before 2000/2001. The Dude-bro effect was already in place by the late 1990s. Not 2000/2001. This went back to the 1990s around the 5th gen and its more mature PS1 titles. Heck the target for the PS1 were teens and Sony even used that as a marketing point. However, the dudebro effect wasn't in full force until later on.


I felt like it started with the Xbox and GTA3, although I guess there were hints of it before. ;D

I've literally been driven away from gaming due to how unrepresented women seem in the gaming industry.

I felt like it started with the Xbox and GTA3, although I guess there were hints of it before. ;D


You said you were a fan of japanese games, right? I think the reason gaming change and the dude-bro nature are the results of western dominance in gaming. From the early 80s to mid 90s Japan pretty much ruled the game industry. Pop culture in japan always seems to have a more poppy and colorful vibe to it which is what I think translated to the more colorful games during the era. However, by the late 1990s-mid 2000s there was a slight change. It was more of a balanced mix of Western and Japanese hit games while before it was mainly japanese games that were hits. During this time the western side began to gain more ground and eventually take over. Which is then when there were more Western hits than japanese. Whenever it came to western centric games you'd notice that there were a lot more gritty and boy-ish games being made than the more upbeat colorful japanese games.

And look at what japan is giving us now despite the Western gritty game hype. Kingdom Hearts 3, Mario Odyssey, Persona 5, Sonic Forces, Neir, Shenmue 3, Resident evil 7, Splatoon 2, Gravity Rush 2, and Zelda Breath of Wild. Notice how all of these games are 2017 Japanese games yet they are more colorful (exception be RE7) and more varied in gameplay from just shooting (only RE7 is a FPS as all the others in different genres from platformers to RPGs).

From the end of the 6th gen to all of the 8th gen the Western industry had left Japan behind. But it seems that japan might make a slight comeback.

I've literally been driven away from gaming due to how unrepresented women seem in the gaming industry.

There are definetly some badass female leads in some video games.

There are definetly some badass female leads in some video games.


But only men play them, specifically because they like "bewbs."

But only men play them, specifically because they like "bewbs."

That's not true. There are girls who play video games. Also, not all male video gamers are slobs and not all female video game characters have "bewbs" (well, you know what I mean).

There are definetly some badass female leads in some video games.


They're usually over-sexualized though (Bayonetta) or made to look weak at annoying times (Lara Croft getting raped?!), and that's already with the minimal representation they have!  :-X

There are some games with strong leads though, like recently Final Fantasy XV. But that game is sh*t so... does it really count?


You said you were a fan of japanese games, right? I think the reason gaming change and the dude-bro nature are the results of western dominance in gaming. From the early 80s to mid 90s Japan pretty much ruled the game industry. Pop culture in japan always seems to have a more poppy and colorful vibe to it which is what I think translated to the more colorful games during the era. However, by the late 1990s-mid 2000s there was a slight change. It was more of a balanced mix of Western and Japanese hit games while before it was mainly japanese games that were hits. During this time the western side began to gain more ground and eventually take over. Which is then when there were more Western hits than japanese. Whenever it came to western centric games you'd notice that there were a lot more gritty and boy-ish games being made than the more upbeat colorful japanese games.

And look at what japan is giving us now despite the Western gritty game hype. Kingdom Hearts 3, Mario Odyssey, Persona 5, Sonic Forces, Neir, Shenmue 3, Resident evil 7, Splatoon 2, Gravity Rush 2, and Zelda Breath of Wild. Notice how all of these games are 2017 Japanese games yet they are more colorful (exception be RE7) and more varied in gameplay from just shooting (only RE7 is a FPS as all the others in different genres from platformers to RPGs).

From the end of the 6th gen to all of the 8th gen the Western industry had left Japan behind. But it seems that japan might make a slight comeback.


Yeah, that's true. Japanese games tend not to be so ostentatiously "masculine" like Western games, who seem to make a point of going "raaahhhh! Guns, muscle-men and violence!" ;D I'm here for Japanese gaming dominance!  :-X

The main real problem is just the lack of variety in video games. From the early 1980s to mid 2000s there was a ton of variety in games. Now it's just FPS and dark/gritty games. This is what is causing the issue for games to me. I also can't stand how long it takes to make games nowadays, but then again I suppose this is just a natural thing. However, I do miss when in years like 1998, 2001, 2004 etc etc there would be a nice collection of big hits. Now it's like you have to wait months over months just for the next hit game to arrive. And if you're not the kind of guy who likes things like FPS games or Sports/Racers than you pretty much dislike a majority of AAA gaming.

- Less Variety
- Games are either rushed to release and perform badly or they're delayed again and again just for the sake of refining

These two things are what ruins gaming for me sometimes.


and by the time you play the game, It will be too late cause you waited so long for everything else to arrive.  ::)

They're usually over-sexualized though (Bayonetta) or made to look weak at annoying times (Lara Croft getting raped?!), and that's already with the minimal representation they have!  :-X

There are some games with strong leads though, like recently Final Fantasy XV. But that game is sh*t so... does it really count?

Yeah, that's true. Japanese games tend not to be so ostentatiously "masculine" like Western games, who seem to make a point of going "raaahhhh! Guns, muscle-men and violence!" ;D I'm here for Japanese gaming dominance!  :-X



and don't forget Grand Theft Auto.

and by the time you play the game, It will be too late cause you waited so long for everything else to arrive.  ::)


https://i.imgflip.com/1mb2dl.jpg

I just hate it how it would take a game 5 years to make. I realize that in order to play a game I have to literally age 5 more years. Who knows where my life would be by that time! I probably lose interest in games before then.  >:(

and don't forget Grand Theft Auto.


That game is not at all targeted at women, haha. ;D

Video games are for boys only, so who cares?


Um.. not every video game is fan service for perverted men. There are some women who play them.

Um.. not every video game is fan service for perverted men. There are some women who play them.

FAKE NEWS from Lyin' NewYorkRaven (if you're actually a raven.... :-X). ONLY perverted men and wanna be rapists play video games.

https://i.imgflip.com/1mb2dl.jpg

I just hate it how it would take a game 5 years to make. I realize that in order to play a game I have to literally age 5 more years. Who knows where my life would be by that time! I probably lose interest in games before then.  >:(



How long do you think it should take?  ???

That game is not at all targeted at women, haha. ;D



at least you get to chase some prostitutes and then get arrested afterwards. ;D

How long do you think it should take?  ???


Lets see....hmm. Kingdom Hearts 3 doesn't have a release date yet and I've been waiting on that game since Kingdom Hearts 2 released back in 2006. So it's been over 10 years now. Final Fantasy 15 was in development since 2006 so I had to wait for that game. Zelda Breath of Wild was in development since 2011 and released in 2017 so we had to wait 6 years. Cyberpunk 2077 was announced in 2012, but probably won't come until 2019. AGH!

I honestly don't know how long it'll take for these games to come out.  >:(

FAKE NEWS from Lyin' NewYorkRaven (if you're actually a raven.... :-X). ONLY perverted men and wanna be rapists play video games.


I bet the pussy-grabber-in-chief's favourite gaming generation was 6th gen.  8-P

When did the Apprentice game come out?

I've literally been driven away from gaming due to how unrepresented women seem in the gaming industry.


I was thinking about this actually recently.  In the gaming world (it doesn't matter which genre), it's almost all guys.  I'm on some gaming forums and most of the time people just assume every poster is male and most of the time that assumption is right.  I am not sure why this is though.  What do you think it is about video games that make it such a male-dominated world?  Is it an actually difference in male vs female interests or is it more a cultural thing, like how most of the time its not accepted or encouraged for boys to play with Barbie dolls, maybe video games are kind of seen as a boys thing?

I was thinking about this actually recently.  In the gaming world (it doesn't matter which genre), it's almost all guys.  I'm on some gaming forums and most of the time people just assume every poster is male and most of the time that assumption is right.  I am not sure why this is though.  What do you think it is about video games that make it such a male-dominated world?  Is it an actually difference in male vs female interests or is it more a cultural thing, like how most of the time its not accepted or encouraged for boys to play with Barbie dolls, maybe video games are kind of seen as a boys thing?


It's a pretty testosterone, macho, environment! Especially how violent some games are. Just sayin'.

I was thinking about this actually recently.  In the gaming world (it doesn't matter which genre), it's almost all guys.  I'm on some gaming forums and most of the time people just assume every poster is male and most of the time that assumption is right.  I am not sure why this is though.  What do you think it is about video games that make it such a male-dominated world?  Is it an actually difference in male vs female interests or is it more a cultural thing, like how most of the time its not accepted or encouraged for boys to play with Barbie dolls, maybe video games are kind of seen as a boys thing?


I think video games were actually meant for boys like us.

80-90%+ of the people in tech are men. When men in STEM see a woman they smell meat: it's been their first opportunity in a million years to talk to a woman, which keeps even more women out of the industry. It's probably worse in the video game industry. I wouldn't be surprised if there are no women on some of the medium-sized development teams.  :-X Remember that ONE woman who was on the 50+ people Assassin's Creed development team became a gaming icon because she had bewbs? Incredible.  ;D

80-90%+ of the people in tech are men. When men in STEM see a woman they smell meat: it's been their first opportunity in a million years to talk to a woman, which keeps even more women out of the industry. It's probably worse in the video game industry. I wouldn't be surprised if there are no women on some of the medium-sized development teams.  :-X Remember that ONE woman who was on the 50+ people Assassin's Creed development team became a gaming icon because she had bewbs? Incredible.  ;D


https://media.tenor.co/images/ec6bb1f918d9537f476dac760e337bb6/tenor.gif

https://media.tenor.co/images/ec6bb1f918d9537f476dac760e337bb6/tenor.gif


Okay she wasn't the only woman but one of the three women. Gamers were OBSESSED with ha in the late 2000s. The gamer Megan Fox.

http://nerdreactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/jade-raymond-ubisoft-toronto1.jpg

Okay she wasn't the only woman but one of the three women. Gamers were OBSESSED with ha in the late 2000s. The gamer Megan Fox.

http://nerdreactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/jade-raymond-ubisoft-toronto1.jpg

That computer in the back on the desk though...............
http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/ll241/retro_chick05/RETRO.gif

I was thinking about this actually recently.  In the gaming world (it doesn't matter which genre), it's almost all guys.  I'm on some gaming forums and most of the time people just assume every poster is male and most of the time that assumption is right.  I am not sure why this is though.  What do you think it is about video games that make it such a male-dominated world?  Is it an actually difference in male vs female interests or is it more a cultural thing, like how most of the time its not accepted or encouraged for boys to play with Barbie dolls, maybe video games are kind of seen as a boys thing?


Perhaps part of this is because many of the people who dominate the gaming industry these days (people in their 20's and 30's) grew up in a time when video gaming was even more segregated along gender lines than it is today?

I can only go by my own experiences, but when I was a kid in the '90s, very few girls played video games, or at least very few would say so publicly. That's just the way it was. I remember being in, like, 2nd grade and being shocked that this girl I was friends with was actually better at Sonic the Hedgehog than me, that's how rare it was (again, at least for me) to see a girl that actually admitted to liking video games. Girls in my class used to even make fun of us boys for how much we obsessed over games like Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter.

I do think that, over time, the stigma of video games being only for FPS-loving "Dudebros" will fade. In fact, it already is beginning to fade, as we saw a few years ago with the whole "Gamergate" fiasco, which was in large part a backlash against the shifting identity of what it means to be a "gamer" in the 2010's. The same thing happened with the perception of video games being "toys". Back in the '80s and '90s, video games were usually described as being for kids, and if you were over the age of, say, 16 and still playing them, you would often get mocked as being a "geek". These days, though, nobody thinks anything of it if they see a 30-year-old married man playing Halo online.

Perhaps part of this is because many of the people who dominate the gaming industry these days (people in their 20's and 30's) grew up in a time when video gaming was even more segregated along gender lines than it is today?

I can only go by my own experiences, but when I was a kid in the '90s, very few girls played video games, or at least very few would say so publicly. That's just the way it was. I remember being in, like, 2nd grade and being shocked that this girl I was friends with was actually better at Sonic the Hedgehog than me, that's how rare it was (again, at least for me) to see a girl that actually admitted to liking video games. Girls in my class used to even make fun of us boys for how much we obsessed over games like Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter.

I do think that, over time, the stigma of video games being only for FPS-loving "Dudebros" will fade. In fact, it already is beginning to fade, as we saw a few years ago with the whole "Gamergate" fiasco, which was in large part a backlash against the shifting identity of what it means to be a "gamer" in the 2010's. The same thing happened with the perception of video games being "toys". Back in the '80s and '90s, video games were usually described as being for kids, and if you were over the age of, say, 16 and still playing them, you would often get mocked as being a "geek". These days, though, nobody thinks anything of it if they see a 30-year-old married man playing Halo online.


Gaming has always been targeted towards males. I remember an history video on Pacman and how in 1980 Namco wanted to make a game that also appealed to woman since a lot of the games at the time were mainly targeted for men. So this means that as far back as the 70s/early 80s gaming has been this "boy thing". Now the Dudebro image of gaming will fade as time passes. It only really exists for people who play FPS games with macho men shooting aliens stuff.

Back in the 80s/90s gaming was always seen as a kid thing. Probably since Nintendo marketed the NES as a toy and not a game console (they did this help the NES from dying from the bad vibe that people had with game consoles back in the Video game crash of '83). NES was seen as a kids toy which is why people say that video games are for kids. Sega started breaking a few barriars with this with their more "We make games for the cool mature kids/teens" image. They made fun of Nintendo calling them a kiddy game company who makes games for your little brother. This was pushed further by the PS1. PS1 was probably the first console to feel like it was made for kids, teens, and adults. When they first started promoting it back in 1995 they were targeting the 18+ crowd. You had colorful kid games like Crash Bandicoot and Spyro, but then you'd have the more mature games like Tekken, Final fantasy, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Silent Hill etc. With the N64 still having the more kiddy image for 98% of their games. This continued in the 6th gen. With consoles like the Xbox which were literally just for the mature audience. The PS2 was more or less like the PS1 in terms of kind of games. Colorful wacky games like Jak & Daxter, Ratchet and Clank, Sly Cooper, Kingdom Hearts, Dark Cloud, or Maximo standing next to games like Final Fantasy X, GTA 3 & Vice City, God of War, Metal Gear Solid 2, Devil May Cry, and Max  Payne. The Gamecube is more of less like the N64 with its kinds of games. And it's lunchbox design gave it more of a kiddy image. Dreamcast was similar to the gamecube.

I missed this thread?

As far as the question of the topic, it can't be answered. Its a phenomenon. I'm going to agree with the assumption though since I believe 2005 marked the finale of video games. If 2006 is the actual end, that just backs up why 2005 feel like its the finale to me.

The Golden Age of Video Games died because, starting with 7th gen consoles, games began to become multi million dollar projects that took years to complete. Many companies that couldn't keep up with increasing monetary demands left the business altogether, while established companies started making more conventional games that were guaranteed to make the most money, thus curtailing the amount of unique and groundbreaking games we saw during the '80s, '90s and early '00s.

The Golden Age of Video Games died because, starting with 7th gen consoles, games began to become multi million dollar projects that took years to complete. Many companies that couldn't keep up with increasing monetary demands left the business altogether, while established companies started making more conventional games that were guaranteed to make the most money, thus curtailing the amount of unique and groundbreaking games we saw during the '80s, '90s and early '00s.


Interestingly written summary. I always feel like you know everything for a reason.

I thought it was 2007??  ???

That's just your opinion. I think the PS2 and the PS3 were the golden ages of gaming with games like GTA, Call Of Duty, the Sims franchise, Battlefield, The Last Of Us, Uncharted, etc...
Just because a game makes you feel nostalgic doesn't mean it's a good game.

times were changing and people wanted to move on to different consoles and electronics.

Technically you could argue 2007 was the end of the golden age. A lot of landmark games released that year, which would make it the last great year, but also popularized some bad trends like oversaturation of brown/grey shooters, DLC, microtransactions, etc., so it was the beginning of the end in addition to the last great year.

2017 is probably the first great year for video games since 2007.

Fake news the thread.

2017 was the greatest year in gaming since 2001. I just got Zelda in the mail!

2017 was a great year for video games.

Fake news the thread.

2017 was the greatest year in gaming since 2001. I just got Zelda in the mail!

I don't really recall any ~amazing~ games released this year except Horizon: Zero Dawn.

I don't really recall any ~amazing~ games released this year except Horizon: Zero Dawn.


Didn't you play Persona for 200 hours or am I confusing you for someone else?  ???

Didn't you play Persona for 200 hours or am I confusing you for someone else?  ???

I definitely didn't play Persona for 200 hours :o. What is that game?

The 80's were. :P

The '80s was an entire decade not a year.

The '80s was an entire decade not a year.


OK, So I'll say that instead.

I definitely didn't play Persona for 200 hours :o. What is that game?


You don't even know what Persona is and you're judging 2017 in gaming?  :o

Persona is the first GIF I posted in this thread. How can anyone resist that art style? :D

http://i.imgur.com/Swb9gH4.gif

You don't even know what Persona is and you're judging 2017 in gaming?  :o

Persona is the first GIF I posted in this thread. How can anyone resist that art style? :D

http://i.imgur.com/Swb9gH4.gif

Hehe  ;D
But tbh that art style doesn’t really attract me since I’m not a big fan of anime.

2007 was was the last best year for gaming and 2010 was probably the last good year. The Wii was the last bastion of AA games, tho. The only thing that died in 2006 was the playstation brand.

The 6th gen was undoubtedly better, however. While the PS3 was well below the typical standards of playstation. The 360 wasn't anything more than mediocre either when put up against the SNES, PS2 and PS4.

The Wii was the only real continuation of the 6th gen with colourful games like Super Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Super Mario Strikers Charged, Metroid Prime 3, Okami, De Blob, Epic Mickey, Monster Hunter Tri, Muchroom Men, Deadly Creatures, etc.

Gamecube > Switch > Wii >>>> Wii U, > N6-bore.

Why did the golden age of video games end in 2006?

2006??

In my opinion it ended in 1985!! (They just kept getting worse)

That's just your opinion. I think the PS2 and the PS3 were the golden ages of gaming with games like GTA, Call Of Duty, the Sims franchise, Battlefield, The Last Of Us, Uncharted, etc...
Just because a game makes you feel nostalgic doesn't mean it's a good game.


Yes, I consider the Call of Duty era to be after the "golden age" of gaming, especially for PC.

2006??

In my opinion it ended in 1985!! (They just kept getting worse)


I would say mid to late 80's.

I'd say the "Golden Age" ended in 2007. Maybe even in 2009. The 2000s was the best decade for video games in my opinion.

I'm too busy playing games to think about it

I see technological changes played into this golden age changing. Also, tastes in the visual changed. Some see the 3D pictures as not their tastes.

I would say mid to late 80's.


IMO

Platinum Age: 1972 (Pong released)-1983 (Video Game Crash)
(A brief dark age follows)
Golden Age: 1985 (NES released)-1994 (Sega Saturn/PlayStation released)
Silver Age (what many of you consider the "Golden Age"): 1995 (Saturn/PS1 now in North America)- 2005 (PS3 and XBOX 360 released)
Bronze Age: 2006 (Wii released)-2016 (Nintendo Switch released)
VR age: 2017-present


Right in the middle of those ages you had shifts that improved upon what each age built upon, and IMO is the peak of each of those ages. 1977-78 gave us the Atari 2600 and Space Invaders, which started the video arcade craze, 1989-1990 gave is Game Boy, Mega Drive/Genesis, and Super Nintendo, which built upon basic 3rd gen technology, 1999-2000 gave us Dreamcast, PS2, and Gamecube, and 2012-2013 gave us PS4 and XBOX One.

But to answer the question, this was right around the time that social media games started to take off, the Internet had become an integral element with the 7th gen systems, and developers started to format their games for profit (and many more "interactive movies") as opposed to unique developments and pure gameplay, not to mention the FPS/MMORPG boom. That said, we have a lot of choice with regards to a variety of genres throughout gaming history, and I see a future with more VR-type gaming that was used in an early way in Nick Arcade's Video Zone round where motion amid a virtual screen will become even more prominent over the next decade or so.

But most people are most fond of what they grew up on. For Gen Xers, it's the "platinum age", and it shows with Howard's post. For early Millennials (and the XY cuspers), the "Golden Age". For late Millennials (and the YZ cuspers), that "Silver Age". For Gen Z, the "Bronze Age". Just like other pop cultural forms, there is that inevitable generational divide that seemingly occurs. Much like many old Baby Boomers said that the golden age of rock 'n roll ended with the Beatles, while others said it ended when disco or MTV took off.

I'd say the "Golden Age" ended in 2007. Maybe even in 2009. The 2000s was the best decade for video games in my opinion.

IKR. Even with some bad fads here and there. Many people to this day still play landmark titles from that era. A truly good era should have people playing the games years after its over.

IKR. Even with some bad fads here and there. Many people to this day still play landmark titles from that era. A truly good era should have people playing the games years after its over.


I agree the late 2000s were a solid time in gaming. A lot of revolutionary games came out then and they were a lot more innovative and fresh than what was coming out in the early-mid 2000s.

Good games are still coming out nowadays. I think we're entering a new golden age. All these open world games are changing things up, and we're in a new period of innovation.

I personally don't think gaming has had a go
I agree the late 2000s were a solid time in gaming. A lot of revolutionary games came out then and they were a lot more innovative and fresh than what was coming out in the early-mid 2000s.

Good games are still coming out nowadays. I think we're entering a new golden age. All these open world games are changing things up, and we're in a new period of innovation.


Personally, I liked the 2000's as a whole for gaming. I think that we're currently in the golden era of open world gaming, which Skyrim kind of started, but it didn't really take off until the 8th gen. Seriously though, has anyone tried Assassin's Creed: Origins? The AC franchise has finally become innovative again imo.

I think that 2012-14 was a pretty meh time for video game releases, although it still had some good releases as does every other time, but I believe 2015-present is superior regardless of microtransactions.

I would say mid to late 80's.


I would say until 1990, for the simplistic old school NES games. I the future generations as well, especially the N64 and Gamecube, PS1 and PS2.

Yes, I consider the Call of Duty era to be after the "golden age" of gaming, especially for PC.

Up until Black Ops, it was a pretty good franchise.

So, when did the golden age of video games begin? 1970's? ???