I'm not sure that we disagree all that much. I only presented the idea that going outside of gameplay for even "important" information (but not crucial info) may be necessary, or at least excusable.

When you go back far enough, games simply did not have storage space for such information, whether in-gameplay or in-game. Today, in simpler games, all relevant info should be able to be imparted via gameplay design or an interactive tutorial. But I questioned whether this is practical for more complex games, where I suggested that additional info provided in-game but not in-gameplay is not unacceptable.

As for printed manuals, I don't know if anyone yet mentioned that they are (were), along with other ideas, positive methods of reducing piracy by providing an incentive to purchase a box.

I hate trying to get 32 bit only games to work in 64 bit windows

How about 16 bit installers for 32 bit games?

Always hate pixels. Since 320x200 was the only resolution. Never understend why a lot of a new devs think I want to cripple my eyes with pixels on my 40" 4k monitor. I don't even if they will pay me for that.

But aren't those "very large display with a black level that is a complete absence of light, and an extremely high contrast ratio"-cases rather rare? So that would mean that technically some limitations might still exist but practically, it's completely negligible. I also have to admit that I'm out of my depth when it comes to something like this, so I can't really argue that much here.

Well, you said that the objective difference between a tree from 1998 and one from today is that it is directly related to the ability of a player to immerse himself in a game. That as the game becomes less new and the ability to create visuals increases, the game becomes less impressive. I argue for the fact that there are people who are as immersed and as impressed by the game, whether they play it in 1998 or today (technical limitations, minus the visuals, excluded - I had already said that the ability to move everywhere and stuff like that does matter). Good examples of mine can be the new games that use "retro" graphics/visuals without the (other) technical limitations of the time. (Although the pixellated stuff often looks worse as those worked a lot better on the screens back then.) Unfortunately, there are no AAA/AA productions that use those styles.

I definitely do so as well since the consoles had a terrible influence on the games when it comes to controls, the UI etc (Diablo III was designed for controllers for instance). And even apart from that, I do think that stagnation is bad in general. By the way, the "Great Consolization" began earlier, in the times of the PS2/Xbox when games started being multiplatforms. Around 2008 was more the time when that phase was completed and only specific genres were exlusive to the PC.

Fallout and Fallout 2? I played those two for the first time this year as well. Gameplay like that isn't really that mainstream anymore these days. It works for what it sets out to do. My main problem was the issues with triggers/flags where some things just wouldn't work for whatever reason.
(I also still need to play Monkey Island (only played the third in the series) but the first one is being gatekept by the "enhanced" version which I hate. It should be abandonware though, so I will probably pick it up eventually. This visuals of the new one are atrovious in my opinion.)

Like I said, you have to separate the new technology into different pieces. Take the visuals out and we agree that it's objectively different. A tree is a tree, regardless of the numbers of polygons and the detailed textures.
Had to create two different posts and snip a bit as it got always stuck in "processing".

I actually don't consider myself an elitist, as I don't look down on the people that prefer more detailed graphics. I guess it depends on how you see superficiality. Is it a bad thing or not? If you go outside, just look at a few girls/women and you will see make-up, pretty much one of the symbols of superficiality. But, I actually do dislike a certain group, namely the people that are referred to as graphic whores who only care about the visuals and nothing else. I guess you could say that they are pretty much the opposite of people like me.

You are forgetting though that less details require imagination and is thus often more detailed as when it's presented to you. (Also, some of the anology doesn't work are physical objects are definitely different from something not physical which is always undefined in a way). For instance:

[url=https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/doom/images/3/35/Cacodemon_(DOOM).png]https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/doom/images/3/35/Cacodemon_(DOOM).png[/url]
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/doom/images/e/e5/Cacodemon2016.jpg

This is what I'm talking about. What is more scary? For me, it's certainly not the 2016 version. There is not much left for imagination and as such it's just: "Oh, that's all?" There is probably a nice phrase somewhere which says that the scariest things are always in our imagination. And if not for that, walking through a graveyard at night would be no problem for people, right?

While I don't claim to "understand" poetry, I would say it's a whole different beast. People who know how to write have a really nice flow when it comes to their texts. Poetry is that taken to one extreme where the form transcends the matter.

So I guess you hate 4k resolution even more? 4k has 129.6 times as many pixels as the resolution whose pixels you are complaining about.

If you don't like pixels, you are going to have to stay away from video games, as *all* of them have pixels, more recent games more so.

Edit: It occured to me that that's not strictly true. Some early arcade games used vector graphics displays, but said games are generally too old for this website, and if you were to play the game on a modern computer, the display would have to be emulated using, of course, pixels.

Crappy DRM such as Secu_ROM that prevents legit players from playing the game if they had 2 optical drives in their PC.

Well as far a PC games go needing CD/DVD to play the games.

Juggling discs/disk around.

>>>>This is what I'm talking about. What is more scary?

The second one. The first one is just a mess of pixels. If you're scared of low-res blocky pixels, then hey - whatever floats your boat.

People complain about crappy industry practices such as online passes, DLC fleecing and lootboxes but there is an old one that I think is worse than all of them. I mean strategy guides. There was a time when these were really pushed hard. Sierra made their games unfair and punishing just to sell the player a strategy guide that was advertised right inside the game, or get them to call some game hint hotline. Pretty shameless, but thankfully the internet killed that particular nonsense. Especially for a game that relies on its story and atmosphere, you really don't want to feel like the design is compromised to sell you an extra product.

How did these work, actually. As a swiss kid, those american hotlines mentionned in Sierra games never seemed real, they were a weird abstraction, an echo from a completely different universe. And still now, I can't wrap my head around it.

People actually called a hotline, of people paid to sit on a chair, to wait for calls, and to give clues for adventure games ? How many were working there ? What was the daily schedule ? Was it pre-formatted answers, or open conversations ? Did anyone, ever, in real life, truly call them for real ?

I've never called one but they were real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGi0PWXGgv4

You already made that point clear, and I haven't argued against it. I frankly find it very hard to believe--and in fact strongly suspect that we're not discussing the same concept. But other people aside, you claimed it of yourself, and I'm of course not going to accuse you of lying, lol. I do genuinely believe that yours is a rare quality, though.

The reason I use the term 'The Great Consolization of 2008' is because the last AAA game conceived and designed for the sensibilities of the PC market and coded for PC hardware was Crysis in 2007--if you don't count Warhead, or The Witcher: Enhanced Edition. Consolization no doubt began earlier, but 2008 is almost exactly when every PC series began getting console sequels (ported to the PC), and the difference in games before and after 2008 is in my opinion marked.

This is à propos. I am almost certain that I would have loved Fallout had I played it when fresh, for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post. But today, the overall experience is not impressive--and thus immersing--enough to facilitate a tolerance for lacklustre or questionable gameplay. I suppose it's no different than performing work or labor: As long as it's providing benefits, as long as one is profiting from it, one doesn't mind; but if that situation changes, suddenly the exact same activity becomes intolerable.

Mind, in line with this analogy: If one doesn't mind the work in and of itself, the generation of additional benefits is unnecessary. But such benefits would certainly serve to increase the enjoyment.

No, you can rest assured. The "enhanced" version has the original game as well--original graphics and original sound. I made absolutely sure of this before purchasing. I bought the 'Monkey Island: Special Edition Bundle' (first and second game) via Steam, back before I had discovered GOG.

Yep. And also abominable, and inexcusable, and a big middle finger to the original aesthetic.

See--now I'm pretty sure I've discovered the issue. You have been mistakenly using the wrong terminology. What you mean is that the two trees are subjectively the same. They are both perceived as trees. But they of course are objectively different.

What you are saying--correct me if wrong--is that the most technologically primitive, or excessively stylized, or photorealistic tree is ever and always merely a tree to you. This is where I would normally make some type of joke, but I'll move along.

But I do not believe such a 'type' exists. I truly believe this is a Straw Man pejorative created in the console scene as a disparagement of PC gamers. I simply do not believe there is anyone who "only cares about graphics".

They existed, and I did in fact call Sierra once, when I was around 12 years old. One time.

As far as my memory serves, it wasn't an open conversation. I suppose I would deem it similar to most tech support lines today, in which a person has a hierarchy of questions to ask, and an overall format to follow.

As I recall, I told the representative what my problem was, and he (or she...I don't remember) then gave a series of progressively less vague suggestions until I indicated that I had enough information to get along with.

I really do question though, the notion that Sierra deliberately designed their games as the engines for a hint-based money machine. The fact of the matter is that the average IQ of a computer owner was significantly higher when only "nerds" owned them (until the mid-90s in the U.S.). High difficulty was present in all genres, industry-wide. With a few exceptions, I have only played Sierra's King's Quest games (I plan to change that ASAP), but the only puzzle I know of that is truly ridiculous is the infamous Gnome's name in the first game.

Oh man, Ultima 7: The Black Gate is a fantastic RPG but having to mess with the config.sys and autoexec.bat files every time I wanted to play was such a pain.

Hm, maybe. Of course, due to how I am, I am meeting more like-minded people. That's just the way of the internet I guess, when communities are formed around certain concepts or thinking. That's why people like me are not that rare to me (aside from kids who really get into anything, doesn't matter when that game was released).

So the end of the transition period? It does make sense. Too bad that we probably won't get something like Crysis again, unless it's more of a vanity project or the market trends shift that way. As someone that believes that FPS "should" be played with K&M, it's definitely another reason I'm unhappy with the current state.

Well, it always depends on where your priorities lie. As someone who doesn't really value money, I wouldn't do any kind of work long-time, if I really disliked it, no matter the salary. So while I would be technically profiting, I would just go and nope out. (Then again, I probably wouldn't be in there in the first place, although I generally like working and as such, it is unlikely.)

I do know that, but like I said, I hate things being gatekept. It's just like how it's with the Beamdog games. You have to buy the awful enhanced version for more money, only to be able to play the original.

(By the way, I had reached the limitations of the forum. So for some reason both of my posts got merged and I was completely unable to edit anything, especially the typos.)

Hmm...it seems to be a difficult issue to pin down. Does it depend on the angle you view it from? The way I see it is like this: When you go outside, you see trees. The trees may look different but they are objectively all trees, they have the same essence and the same purpose of that essence (the individual purpose of the trees is of course different in that category). However, in games the type of tree pretty much never matters (beech, hazel etc). They are put there to serve their purpose of being a tree. As such, they are objectively the same, regardless of how that tree looks in regards to visuals.

It's hard to imagine but I do believe such people exist. At least I have read enough "disturbing" posts on popular internet forums (NeoGAF, ResetEra and the like). Of course, this being the internet, one can never be sure whether something that is written is genuine. However, I've never encountered someone like this in real life thus far.