Chuckpebble
Member
There was a scathing article I read last week about the PS4 unviel. Eh. But it did make a point that I agree with: the limitations of a medium encourage creativity.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
were older games more creative?
- Thread starter FloatOn
- Start date
Red Liquorice
Member
1. Limitation naturally breed creativity.
2. Culture and art are their most varied through the earlier stages before rules and expectations set in.
2. Culture and art are their most varied through the earlier stages before rules and expectations set in.
NowCutThatOut
Member
That just shows how a creative game was very creative.
There are more derivative games now but only because there are more games out there. Even back pre-graphics there are a huge number of unimaginative 'Adventure' clones.
Not in the sense that every game was but in general yes, clearly. In the early days mechanics were being discovered for the first times, costs were lower and there were less big publishers so - as with music and film before games - there was a greater emphasis on creativity.
Today that lies with smaller titles for the most part with big titles designed by committee, market tested, de-risked and from the start mostly focused on proven mechanics/tropes rather than trying to be creative.
Today that lies with smaller titles for the most part with big titles designed by committee, market tested, de-risked and from the start mostly focused on proven mechanics/tropes rather than trying to be creative.
we.are.the.armada
Member
"Creative" is also very subjective. You could be creative in aesthetics and/or narrative. Creative in gameplay mechanics. Creative in multiplayer approach. Creative in payment models.
I would argue that even AAA blockbusters rely on creativity to succeed, even if they are underpinned by the lowest common denominators of gameplay/visuals. They can be just as risky as well.
I would argue that even AAA blockbusters rely on creativity to succeed, even if they are underpinned by the lowest common denominators of gameplay/visuals. They can be just as risky as well.
LonelyGreyWolf
Banned
That has nothing to do with creativity, but no matter the case, imo those are all good things. Back in the old days we didn't even have side-quests by the way. OP is referring to the 80's. I guess maybe in some PC games you had side-quests. Also, there are plenty of games where you have to open the doors yourself, and if they do auto-open then there's a good reason for it.
You're talking about game design and imo auto-updating journals are amazing. Auto-opening doors? Few games have that, and it doesn't matter much. Auto-reloading guns? It's the same that it's pretty much always been. Some games like Battlefield 3 punish you when the game auto-reloads the gun by making the reload longer. Auto-changing guns? That's only logical. Auto-improving terrain? No idea what that is. Auto-building? Not sure what you're referring to; this could be a lot of things. Auto-aiming? Seriously? I could write a long wall of text on this but let's just say most games nowadays use it to a bare minimum; only to make the game less tedious. Auto-equipping best armor? I've played loads of RPG's and adventure games and never have I experienced such a thing. Auto-healing? What the heck is that? Do you mean regenerating health, and if so, note that it has improved shooters a lot, although it has no place in survival-horrors. Auto-saving? Well yeah, that's not a bad thing either.
But again none of this has anything to do with creativity.
I don't think they were anymore so than now, but the big difference now is that the retail arena is dominated by a few publishers who choose to iterate rather than innovate simply because it mitigates risk. You probably won't find anything creative on the store shelves these days. The creativity still exists in the smaller/midsized titles.
Nestunt
Member
Creativity evolution like science evolution or any evolution per se has to be analysed in a temporal macroscale
We are talking about a timeframe of roughly 20-30 years
That's not enough for constant tantalizing inovations. They arise. But increasing the games launched per year sample size does not cause artistic inovation
correlation and causality are different and history has shown us that the majority of great human findings have a lot of randomness even controlling for context
We are talking about a timeframe of roughly 20-30 years
That's not enough for constant tantalizing inovations. They arise. But increasing the games launched per year sample size does not cause artistic inovation
correlation and causality are different and history has shown us that the majority of great human findings have a lot of randomness even controlling for context
ScrabbleBanshee
Member
One only needs to load up one of those chinese "XX in 1" famicom cartridges to understand the vast amount of shovelware that existed at all points in console game history.
Where the BIGGEST downfall in game creativity has occurred has been in the PC space, back in the NES and earlier days the PC had mountains of really unique gaming experiences on it... it has really been commoditized by the dev companies attempting to mimic the console success story.
Where the BIGGEST downfall in game creativity has occurred has been in the PC space, back in the NES and earlier days the PC had mountains of really unique gaming experiences on it... it has really been commoditized by the dev companies attempting to mimic the console success story.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
It merely sounds like you had a very narrow circle and therefor missed tons of things. What of (J&C) RPGs, where do they fit in these phases? Or FPS that have generally been relatively big since Doom yet came in quite diverse varieties and still allowed other genres to exist widely enough to not have you calling it the FPS + era? Space sims? Tycoon games? Strategy games?
Even pitting them in such genre varieties does them no justice since they could be so very different to each other.
Same for the guy who claimed it was all arcade ports or whatever. Arcades are games too anyway but great things spawned from games that would have never worked in an arcade environment, some that I mentioned already too.
Anyway, thanks to indies we're getting equal variety, but people obviously also want to see creativity from so called AAA products, by larger more experienced studios with more resources, like they used to do, even if the market was smaller and so were the studios and companies at the time. Kickstarter allows for some medium budget creativity these days but in general the bulk of the non indie industry appears to be far more stagnant these days, there's nothing wrong with saying that.
I don't think anyone said there were no clones back then either. But there were also prominent not indie made new ideas.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
How far back are we talking? As someone who gamed back in the '80s there were countless clones/ripoffs of Pac-Man, Frogger, and space shooters.
I think it's important to reiterate that I'm not talking about quality here. Just creativity.
There were lots of games made back in the day that had some of the most horrible gameplay I've ever experienced but in terms of idea/art it was as if the devs just sat around and dropped acid before they got to work.
Abadox on NES for example. A space shooter inside the human body? okaaaaaaaaaay
There were lots of games made back in the day that had some of the most horrible gameplay I've ever experienced but in terms of idea/art it was as if the devs just sat around and dropped acid before they got to work.
Abadox on NES for example. A space shooter inside the human body? okaaaaaaaaaay
Yes. That's not to say that games aren't creative now, just that there were a lot of factors in the past that either lead to increase creativity or at the very least, did not hinder creativity.
More publishers, more competition leading to increased diversity instead of the same Call of Duty being repackaged every year.
Smaller teams with less publisher oversight leads to greater input by a variety of different voices, not driven by marketing and the need to make a billion dollars in profit.
Smaller, local markets mean different territories developed largely for their own needs rather than a global market, leading to the spawning on new genres (JRPGs) and new twists on old ones (WRPGs).
Shorter development cycles with fewer moving parts meant that implementing new features was quicker and thus more experimentation could be performed without worrying about missing the next milestone.
A shorter history of games to draw inspiration from, so inspiration was drawn from outside the field, like books, movies, pen and paper roleplaying games, and even mundane jobs like managing a nuclear reactor.
Individual developers had more recognition and thus autonomy, meaning that they had the freedom to make the games they wanted to make and had the authority and power to quit games they didn't want to make without being blacklisted or start their own development company that gets bought by Ubisoft/EA/Activision within a year and killed within two.
Less people gamed, and the ones that did were more technically savvy, so if you could get a game like Ultima 7 to work on your computer, nothing inside the game was too complicated for you to handle.
Games didn't have to stick in stupid multiplayer modes to fight off used game sales, thus taking resources away from the rest of the game.
Ultimately, it comes down to smaller teams, less publisher involvement, and a more discerning audience.
More publishers, more competition leading to increased diversity instead of the same Call of Duty being repackaged every year.
Smaller teams with less publisher oversight leads to greater input by a variety of different voices, not driven by marketing and the need to make a billion dollars in profit.
Smaller, local markets mean different territories developed largely for their own needs rather than a global market, leading to the spawning on new genres (JRPGs) and new twists on old ones (WRPGs).
Shorter development cycles with fewer moving parts meant that implementing new features was quicker and thus more experimentation could be performed without worrying about missing the next milestone.
A shorter history of games to draw inspiration from, so inspiration was drawn from outside the field, like books, movies, pen and paper roleplaying games, and even mundane jobs like managing a nuclear reactor.
Individual developers had more recognition and thus autonomy, meaning that they had the freedom to make the games they wanted to make and had the authority and power to quit games they didn't want to make without being blacklisted or start their own development company that gets bought by Ubisoft/EA/Activision within a year and killed within two.
Less people gamed, and the ones that did were more technically savvy, so if you could get a game like Ultima 7 to work on your computer, nothing inside the game was too complicated for you to handle.
Games didn't have to stick in stupid multiplayer modes to fight off used game sales, thus taking resources away from the rest of the game.
Ultimately, it comes down to smaller teams, less publisher involvement, and a more discerning audience.
Walter Matthau
Member
The Saturn/PSX/N64 era is where creativity peaked
Dreamcast:
but then again this year we have:
Sir, your a being hunted
Monaco
Spy Party
Starbound
to name a few.
megashock5
Member
Hmmmm... probably why I'm nostalgic then.
Of All Trades
Member
I'd argue that while the opportunity for creativity was greater (largely due to smaller teams aiming at smaller audiences), the end result was just as often as not a creatively terrible decision that should have been removed (for example, Alone in the Dark, while hugely creative, had some really bafflingly poor design choices), and that the majority of titles released weren't really creative when considered alongside their peers in terms of common game mechanics. Every era had a huge amount of copycat games, and I'm inclined to say that right now the traditional method of breakout hit ->cheap clones ->saturation is at its lowest within the core gaming sphere.
I can wax nostalgic about the heyday of Bullfrog, Dynamix, and Looking Glass but at the same time Sierra Online and every other big publisher started churning out Myst/7th Guest clones that dominated the shelves at CompUSA. Or Warcraft/C&C clones. Or Doom/Duke clones. Go back farther and you have the SSI churning out 3+ AD&D Gold Box games for every Eye of the Beholder.
I can wax nostalgic about the heyday of Bullfrog, Dynamix, and Looking Glass but at the same time Sierra Online and every other big publisher started churning out Myst/7th Guest clones that dominated the shelves at CompUSA. Or Warcraft/C&C clones. Or Doom/Duke clones. Go back farther and you have the SSI churning out 3+ AD&D Gold Box games for every Eye of the Beholder.
Wyndstryker
Member
There was just as much shovelware in the older generations of consoles as there is now.
Creativity can spawn in two forms. One by finding unique ways around a limiting system, or two having such a large blank slate to do anything.
I'd say about the PS2/GC/XBox era we began to shift beyond the limiting system creativity to blank slate creativity and some developers have no clue how to make a transition.
Personally though, I find number one the better spawn of creativity as it forces the developer to think way beyond it's comfort zone. It's also why indie games tend to be a bit more unique because their limitations aren't technological, but more on staff and financial resource so they have to figure solutions out faster or even find ways to mask the shortcuts they took.
Creativity can spawn in two forms. One by finding unique ways around a limiting system, or two having such a large blank slate to do anything.
I'd say about the PS2/GC/XBox era we began to shift beyond the limiting system creativity to blank slate creativity and some developers have no clue how to make a transition.
Personally though, I find number one the better spawn of creativity as it forces the developer to think way beyond it's comfort zone. It's also why indie games tend to be a bit more unique because their limitations aren't technological, but more on staff and financial resource so they have to figure solutions out faster or even find ways to mask the shortcuts they took.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
They weren't necessarily more creative back in 'the day'(tm), but we did get more big-budget titles that weren't afraid to try something new and that wouldn't necessarily break the bank for the developer. Of course, indie games are more prominent these days and they tend to give us more interesting experiences, but the limited budgets of those titles prevents them from really filling that void.
GenericUserName
Banned
Yes. Due to stricter technical limitations (f'rex. the music and sfx team of old was between 2 and 3 people; today it's at least 6, more if using live orchestra), most of the creative input had to go in places like storyline, mechanics, plot, setting etc.
Nowadays, to make an all-round good game like in the old days you need a gigantic team. This means a lot of money, and a lot of very careful planning to get budget balancing right, which is very difficult to do. And a lot of money sunk needs a big return, else you've pretty much burned a bucketful of benjamins.
I'd say both Japanese and western games were more creative back in the day... especially thematically. Even in similar-playing genres: You'd have all sorts of crazy shit and surreal settings that you just don't really see very much of nowadays - Just for shooters alone compare the organic/tech hybrid of R-Type to the surreal landscapes of Terraforming to the traditional militaristic Area 88/UN Squadron to the traditional shiny metallic future of Gate of Thunder to the mythological look of Lords of Thunder.
Where are my unique characters too? Why are there so many ~30 year old white males with short brown hair? Why don't I see many anthropomorphic animals? Or cavemen with big heads? Or stylized surfer dudes? Or sleek, transformable robots? Or claymation creatures? Or whatever the hell Puggsy is supposed to be?
Even gameplay-wise, not everything was set in stone, and games wouldn't be relentlessly crucified for not following a set control scheme or game structure.
That said, there were tons of "me-too" fighters, side scrollers and shmups back in the day. But people were more likely to give a chance to gameplay outside of these paradigms.
nailbombxx
Member
I think most (retail) games are less creative in these days because it is more difficult to take risks with the huge cost of game development.
LightofRohan
Member
No.
In game design and mechanics? Probably, because they were pioneers with everything they did. So they had to be creative to even exist.
Artistically/story? Fuck no. Studios actually have artists/designers nowadays.
In game design and mechanics? Probably, because they were pioneers with everything they did. So they had to be creative to even exist.
Artistically/story? Fuck no. Studios actually have artists/designers nowadays.
I'm inclined to say yes, but part of the reason is that there was more unexplored territory back then. Most genres have become much more clearly defined in recent years, and there are both advantages and disadvantages associated with that. Similarly, lack of creativity in modern games is more a symptom of huge budgets and high risk of releasing anything, rather than any sort of inherent quality in the the industry "these days."
It's all in flux. Hopefully things will get a little fresher this generation.
It's all in flux. Hopefully things will get a little fresher this generation.
In terms of gameplay mechanics... Maybe on a literal level. I mean, a lot more games exist these days, thus more things have been done, thus fewer original things exist to do. But in practice, I don't think we're all that close to the limits of creativity yet, so having 'used up' 2% of ideas isn't really notably worse than having only used 1%. We've got a long ways to go.
To an extent perhaps. Growing budgets that require an even greater ROI means broadening the base is a priority. Ironically, this move has backfired for certain games and new ideas (or improving old ones) worth exploring have been rewarded.
To exemplify this, let me state games that go into both categories:
Games that failed (their predecessors) because it tried to satisfy everyone and in the process lost its idenity:
Killzone 3 (lack of identity etc)
Resident Evil 5/6
Mass Effect 3 (lacking the RPG elements that defined the first one; which instead of being improved upon were simply removed)
Dead Space 3 (from an intriguing plot (Marker) and survival horror to a third person co-op shooter with mind numbing story)
Games that were rewarded for their creative vision rather than chasing an arbitrary sales number:
Burnout Paradise (seamless online integration)
Demon's Souls (seamless online integration into the single player, art design and difficulty)
Dark Souls (same as above)
Journey (no killing, simplistic seamless online integration that somehow manages to be way more impactful than it would have looked on paper)
To exemplify this, let me state games that go into both categories:
Games that failed (their predecessors) because it tried to satisfy everyone and in the process lost its idenity:
Killzone 3 (lack of identity etc)
Resident Evil 5/6
Mass Effect 3 (lacking the RPG elements that defined the first one; which instead of being improved upon were simply removed)
Dead Space 3 (from an intriguing plot (Marker) and survival horror to a third person co-op shooter with mind numbing story)
Games that were rewarded for their creative vision rather than chasing an arbitrary sales number:
Burnout Paradise (seamless online integration)
Demon's Souls (seamless online integration into the single player, art design and difficulty)
Dark Souls (same as above)
Journey (no killing, simplistic seamless online integration that somehow manages to be way more impactful than it would have looked on paper)
old manatee
Banned
Level designs certainly were.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
It's easier to be creative when working with a brand new medium. Still though, the lack of funds/technology to work with definitely holds back your ability to do a lot of things. I'd say relatively speaking, they're no more or less creative.
Muffdraul
Member
I've been gaming since 1972, and I can tell you that innovation and new ideas have ALWAYS been hard to come by. Naturally there was relatively more innovation in the very early days, because there had to be. But as soon as Space Invaders hit, next thing you knew 90% of all new games coming out were shooters where the player was at the bottom of the screen shooting up towards targets. After Asteroids, there was a huge flood of games where you flew a little spaceship around the screen. After Pac-Man, it was all maze chases. And so forth. If it's really any worse today than it was 30 years ago, it's not by much.
Schweinehund
Member
Platformers were all pretty much the same.
I'd say newer games are more creative by far. The problem is that retail games aren't nearly as cheap to make as they were 20 years ago, so not a lot of publishers take the risk in publishing something new or risky.
I'd say newer games are more creative by far. The problem is that retail games aren't nearly as cheap to make as they were 20 years ago, so not a lot of publishers take the risk in publishing something new or risky.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
This is a big factor.
Genuine nostalgia can blind people to the fact that every generation has drowned in derivative knock-offs. However, due to the scale and lower cost of development, when an unusual and original idea came along it was far more likely to get funding equal to a popular derivative game.
So in effect, what would be "indie" games today, were mainline games in past generations.
But a lot of factors may be helping swing the pendulum back towards the center at least. Thanks to the sophistication of the indie scene, and the possible re-invention of the mid-tier game due to crowdfunding and independent developers.
Walter Matthau
Member
I think some of the people in this thread are under the impression that there are a finite number of game possibilities and somehow we've already tapped them. I don't agree with that at all. In my opinion the priorities have shifted these past couple generations away from finding that new idea to refining existing game experiences. The focus is now on graphics, story, style, etc. We get games like Red Dead Redemption. Big good looking games with tons to do and television/movie type scripting and soundtracks. The opposite of this would be a game like Katamari Damacy. A game that offers a completely new experience with a nonsense story and soundtrack. While I'm not criticizing RDR or Killzone or the new Tomb Raider, I believe those new ideas are still sitting out there and being overlooked in favor of a more cinematic experience with gaming territory that executives know the public is comfortable with based on sales history.
Vulcano's assistant
Banned
There's no way games from the 80's are more creative than games from the 90's. That aside, FPS from the early 90's are way less creative than FPS today. Having 5 COD clones is better than having 20 DOOM clones.
GenericUserName
Banned
Nuh-uh. Doom, RotT, Heretic, Strife etc. were a lot more diverse in terms of gameplay and setting than all the cookie-cutter mee-too CoD-esque covershooters of today.
Yes it was. Because Developers had to work around the limitations, because a flopped game wouldn't have hurt a company as much as today, and because the rules of what constitutes a video game was far more unknown that what today.
That is not to say there is no creativity these days, on the contrary, but the industry pushed for creativity in the past whereas now, it has become a risk.
That is not to say there is no creativity these days, on the contrary, but the industry pushed for creativity in the past whereas now, it has become a risk.
Playing PS:T this year for the first time has me like like this. And chrono trigger is still one of the best rpgs ever made.
There is still creativity now a days, but sometimes watered down because publishers want some of the pie other games have. The new Deus Ex HR, Witcher series, and the prospect of Thief 4, Torment, Wasteland and Shadowrun have me hopeful that developers are still willing to take risks and create great things. Even if they use an old franchise, doesn't mean it will sell well today. I was shocked HR sold as well as it did and The Witcher selling more and more makes me happy.
Walter Matthau
Member
Wolfenstein 3D was created 21 years ago. Of course an FPS today is going to appear more "creative" because tons of innovations in hundreds of FPS have been made during the course of that time period.
seriously I remember being in 2nd or 3rd grade and having a friend describe Wolf3D to me, I couldn't believe it was a real game. FPS games as we know them didn't even really exist before Wolf 3d.(inb4 someone mentions ken's labyrynth, and I'll take Blake Stone over a generic modern fps any day)
If you only look at AAA games then yes I think so. If you include indie games then no. In a time when all games were risks, you could develop the one you were inspired by. Now large companies avoid risk as much as possible.
The change in game design that bothers me most is everything that stems from the idea that everyone needs to be able to finish every game. Often times I feel like I see modern games take an innovative approach and then water it down so that people who are bad at games can still finish it.
The change in game design that bothers me most is everything that stems from the idea that everyone needs to be able to finish every game. Often times I feel like I see modern games take an innovative approach and then water it down so that people who are bad at games can still finish it.
I think they were more experimental, though that's largely down to two factors: The serious technical restrictions imposed on developers and the much lower cost of development (see: risk). That was fertile ground for lots of games that would not see the light of day in the current environment.
There's also the issue of the ADD gamer being courted by the industry today. The ones whose idea of the gaming industry is Angry Birds or Temple Run. Publishers desperately market and cater their games to this group, destroying the character and gameplay of established franchises to do so (or creating new IPs that are compromised from the start).
Lastly you have details like DLC that exacerbate matters by removing and monetizing content that would be in older games by default as unlocks, cheat codes, etc...
It wouldn't surprise me if the gaming industry devolves into a lite version of the movie industry, where innovation and creativity is found only in very niche titles.
There's also the issue of the ADD gamer being courted by the industry today. The ones whose idea of the gaming industry is Angry Birds or Temple Run. Publishers desperately market and cater their games to this group, destroying the character and gameplay of established franchises to do so (or creating new IPs that are compromised from the start).
Lastly you have details like DLC that exacerbate matters by removing and monetizing content that would be in older games by default as unlocks, cheat codes, etc...
It wouldn't surprise me if the gaming industry devolves into a lite version of the movie industry, where innovation and creativity is found only in very niche titles.
eighty(one)
Member
Games were more creative in the 80's/90's.
You had the arrival of platform games involving plumbers, hedgehogs, earthworms, ninjas, bandicoots and more.
We were given new types of interactivity, there were simulation genres with varied games like: Gran Turismo, Oregon Trail and Simcity. We also saw the arrival of twitch based-non simulation, games born like FZero, NFS or Wipeout.
We had musical meets rhythm Parrapa Rappa's, Um Jammer Lammy's...stealthy Metal Gears and exploratory Metroids. Kickass combat with Contra, Megaman and Castlevania or spooky experiences from Resident Evil, Ghosts and Goblins, Silent Hill, Friday the 13th, Clocktower, Alone in the Dark.
Shooters emerged in first person formats: Goldeneye, Doom, Wolfenstein, Perfect Dark and more. Hell - Punch Out, Street Fighter, Tekken, Killer Instinct and Mortal Kombat were fantastic fighting games - all pioneered back then. Sports games like Madden, Mario Golf and more got a beginning, way back when.
There were many more types of experimental peripherals: NES trackpad, light gun, powerglove, rumble pack, gameboy camera...etc.
I dunno, a lot of series' we have today were created back then and have evolved fantastically. Yet, for all of the evolution, the ideas seem so by the book. The games of today's consoles just seem so samey. A new genre or series might emerge and then is sequelized to death: Halo, CoD and AssCreed come to mind.
But really look back at the SNES => N64 period, after games exemplified like Mario, Donkey Kong or Zelda OoT completely flipped from 2D into 3; have things changed that mch after?
(GPU and CPU allow more - but the core fundamentals of how a game plays, remain unchanged)
Yeah 80's and 90's for sure.
You had the arrival of platform games involving plumbers, hedgehogs, earthworms, ninjas, bandicoots and more.
We were given new types of interactivity, there were simulation genres with varied games like: Gran Turismo, Oregon Trail and Simcity. We also saw the arrival of twitch based-non simulation, games born like FZero, NFS or Wipeout.
We had musical meets rhythm Parrapa Rappa's, Um Jammer Lammy's...stealthy Metal Gears and exploratory Metroids. Kickass combat with Contra, Megaman and Castlevania or spooky experiences from Resident Evil, Ghosts and Goblins, Silent Hill, Friday the 13th, Clocktower, Alone in the Dark.
Shooters emerged in first person formats: Goldeneye, Doom, Wolfenstein, Perfect Dark and more. Hell - Punch Out, Street Fighter, Tekken, Killer Instinct and Mortal Kombat were fantastic fighting games - all pioneered back then. Sports games like Madden, Mario Golf and more got a beginning, way back when.
There were many more types of experimental peripherals: NES trackpad, light gun, powerglove, rumble pack, gameboy camera...etc.
I dunno, a lot of series' we have today were created back then and have evolved fantastically. Yet, for all of the evolution, the ideas seem so by the book. The games of today's consoles just seem so samey. A new genre or series might emerge and then is sequelized to death: Halo, CoD and AssCreed come to mind.
But really look back at the SNES => N64 period, after games exemplified like Mario, Donkey Kong or Zelda OoT completely flipped from 2D into 3; have things changed that mch after?
(GPU and CPU allow more - but the core fundamentals of how a game plays, remain unchanged)
Yeah 80's and 90's for sure.
Just skipped it all and hit new reply 
I think creativity is just as strong as in the dawn of video games. BUT I believe that imagination had been much stronger with the players in the early days.
Just look at Atari or early Arcade titles (say, Space Invaders or Centipede). The box art or the cabinet design depicted a theme for a game and you, the player with your imagination, added the missing dots between those few pixels and the grand story that wanted to be conveyed.
I guess today it is just another form of "diminishing returns", since video games, for whatever reason, seem to be caught up in striving for realism/impressionism. You and your imagination is more and more not part of the equation...
I think creativity is just as strong as in the dawn of video games. BUT I believe that imagination had been much stronger with the players in the early days.
Just look at Atari or early Arcade titles (say, Space Invaders or Centipede). The box art or the cabinet design depicted a theme for a game and you, the player with your imagination, added the missing dots between those few pixels and the grand story that wanted to be conveyed.
I guess today it is just another form of "diminishing returns", since video games, for whatever reason, seem to be caught up in striving for realism/impressionism. You and your imagination is more and more not part of the equation...