I'll trade you a penny

Disclaimer: I enjoy a good debate every now and again. All you normal people, please feel free to tune out. ;)

The issue of programmers whether they have "mad 'ol skool 'nix skillz" or are "journeymen" is of little import to me. Comparing past and present endeavours is pointless. It's like Damn! Why couldn't *I* have invented the light bulb? Cause someone already did it. And if he didn't someone else would. While Edison's achievement is to be applauded, it shouldn't elevate him into worship status. Similarly, while no doubt Tohru Iwatani was skilled enough to develop Pac-man. If given today's dev environment and was told to churn out Gran Turismo 4 in a few months. He would hopelessy be screwed. Pac-man is a drop in the bucket compared to how many people own a Playstation. Sony got a large chunk of non/casual gamers to get hooked. Which if you're a gamer - is a good thing. =)

There is a human quirk of perceiving "it was better back then". We all do it. Music was better "back then". The 80's kicked ass. So on and so forth. While I agree with your post and points regarding lack of innovation, Al. I don't consider the Golden Age of Gaming to reside with Pac-man or that generation's games. Pac-man while fun at the time is _fucking_ repetitive. Just like Pong. Just like all sports. Why do we keep playing them? Because they are fun. They are a leisure activity. They are something to do while we're bored.

Gaming can be considered "art". But I tend not to think of it that way. I don't see a reason why it needs to mature as an art form. If you make a game about "football in the groin" people will play it. I have absolutely no problem with that. Hell I'd pick up the controller and punt someone in the nuts myself! Keep the frou frou art critique in the museums and French cafes.

If you were actually a gamer you'd realize holy shit we've never had it so good! A total of 4 viable platforms: PC/PS2/Gamecube/Xbox and a slew of games. There's a lot of choice to be had. Simply because you've outgrown gaming or they don't make the kind of games you enjoy. Is no reason to jump on the "corporate america sucks, gimme the indie revolution now!" bandwagon.

I'm sorry to say. The dollar speaks. Arguably SEGA is the most current innovative game maker. Seaman, Jet Set Radio, etc. But if you look at the sales figures they sell low to moderately well. Does this mean gamers shun innovation? Nope. Just means the company missed the mark. Believe me, if it is *fun* people will buy it. Witness The Sims phenomenon - that one game boosted the percentage of women gamers by a lot. No small feat mind you.

2D fighters are an endangered species. The old school space shooters are almost extinct. I loved this shit. Would I like these genres back? Yes. Is it that big a deal to make me stop gaming due to lack of innovation in these genres? No. I've been through too many "holy shit that was fucking cool" moments in the past year of gaming to count. The average age of your gamer has increased from teens to mid 20's early 30's. People aren't stopping due to lack of imaginative games. Like I've been saying all along. If you think it's fun or worth your while, that's all that matters.

However, the large Metal Gear Solid paragraph has a few too many sweeping generalizations that I take issue with. But I'm gonna keep this post kid-friendly and refrain from turning it into an ALL CAPS profanity laden flame fest. :o) The point of this ramble is: Don't like the "sad" state of gaming? Simple. Stop playing. No need to cry lack of imagination. I can say the same about anime/movies, they've all been done before. I just don't really care. ;) That and if I said anime sucks ass I'd get a pretty nasty phone call from Ming. Then he'd force me to sit through a Kimagure Orange Road Marathon replete with A Clockwork Orange music and gadgetry. But he'd never do that. He's only capable of going to limbo. =)