---

Zaldron said:

Ah, but is this lack a real tangible problem of the games themselves or the considerable inertia involved in shifting and attracting a modding community? I agree games such as Doom/2 and Quake were more replayable than some other critically acclaimed games, past or present, but I reckon they would be nowhere as interesting these days without the strong community you see here and everywhere else. Many game developers don't consider the option of releasing and supporting an SDK on the grounds of today's compartmentalization of modding communities into tightly-knit groups attached to specific games and companies. In a way, the highly replayable, highly supported, highly modular and highly famous games of the last decade/years have decimated the interest in customization, both developer and customer wise.

Anyone who thinks Doom would still be "loads" of fun without source ports or the massive amount of quality wads is a lunatic. It wouldn't be even half as fun as it currently is, it wouldn't even be a quarter of fun.

---

---

TheeXile said:
Lack of game replayability is like built-in obsolescence. We could always have lightbulbs that don't die, or nylons that don't break, or plumbing that doesn't leak, etc. But when players stop buying new games, manufacturers stop making money.

---

---

MikeRS said:

Obviously no one here, who has been playing Doom since 1993-94, has ever bought any other game, just because Doom is so replayable. It negates the need to ever buy any other game, it's even so damn good you never need to play another genre either!

Translation: your explanation is bullshit. Replayability does not prevent new games from being taken up, nor do new games have to replace the old ones. I enjoy Doom, and I enjoy Half-Life 2, is that a crime?

---

---

Super Jamie said:
He sure is! Here's his rocketeering company: http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/

And if you Google carmack rocket you'll find lots of news stories about him.

---

---

GhostlyDeath said:
and MikeRS, saying that people who started doom in '93 and '94 havn't bought a game is a bad statement and pretty much is false.

---

---

Graf Zahl said:
Movies aren't games.

Games with good stories may be fun to play again just for the story itself (e.g. Max Payne) but come on: What's there in Doom 3 or Quake 4 that makes it worth going through these ultra-linear games again? (aside from the Stroggification cutscene in Q4, of course ;))

---

---

Graf Zahl said:
Movies aren't games.

Games with good stories may be fun to play again just for the story itself (e.g. Max Payne) but come on: What's there in Doom 3 or Quake 4 that makes it worth going through these ultra-linear games again? (aside from the Stroggification cutscene in Q4, of course ;))

---

---

Graf Zahl said:
I don't understand why in modern games the story has to drive the gameplay. IMO it should just be a means to connect the 'game' parts. Something like a mission briefing outlining the objectives but then leaving the player to approach the following mission on his own terms. Games that work like this mostly play fine. But as soon as the story needs to be 'experienced' while playing a game is lost - because it kills all flexibility the player can have.

This already was a problem in Half Life although not one that destroyed the game. HL is a bit schizophrenic in its approach. There are parts that are painfully linear (and dull) but there's also other parts that show some incredible creativity in setting up situations and the puzzles to solve to go on.

---

---

exp(x) said:

Have you never played Deus Ex?

---

---

exp(x) said:

Have you never played Deus Ex?

---

---

Graf Zahl said:
What point? As I see it you had none.

---

---

Non-replayability is only intresting from a shortsighted business standpoint that says that people are more likely to buy new games if the old ones lose interest.

---

---

TheeXile said:

Except in an industry built on adolescents with nil attention spans, it's probably less shortsighted than you might think, unfortunately.

---

---

Graf Zahl said:

... only if you plan to lose your customers when they grow up...

---

---

TheeXile said:
Most people lose interest in games when they grow up anyway.

---

---

Enjay said:
Unfortunately, I can't find the link, but I read an article recently which identified men in their mid 30s as being a sizable chunk of the game buying population.

---

---

Enjay said:


Are you sure about that? I think that is probably an often perpetuated fallacy which feels right because, when gaming started seriously, older people "didn't understand these new computers". Lets face it, we all know people who still say stuff like that. So it's a common perception that only kids play games. However, the first gaming kids are now adults and do understand "those new computers". Unfortunately, I can't find the link, but I read an article recently which identified men in their mid 30s as being a sizable chunk of the game buying population.

---

---

TheeXile said:
It's still the dumb kids who keep the money flowing in, I think.

---

---

GhostlyDeath said:

Those dumb kids have no income. Their parents who are probably in their 30s buy the games.

---

---

Graf Zahl said:
stuff

---

---

Creaphis said:
eXile, you're not winning.

---

---

Yes, planned obsolescence is one of this world's evils, but aside from crap like sports franchises with yearly releases, nobody is trying to make games that quickly bore the player. That really isn't a viable business model. The game industry is trying to sell good games. They're just failing, you see.

---

---

Trasher][ said:
Interview with VentureBeat

---

---

hardcore_gamer said:


After reading this article i don't think we have much too worry about, the people who are crying about how this will destroy Id need too relax.

---