I can't catch up with the past

I'm a gamer. You either identify yourself as a gamer or you don't.

I do.

I've been in a love-hate relationship with computer games since they first became available to me through the VIC-20 and the Atari 2600 Video Computer System Console. On the one hand, I love the way the games let you simulate battle without keeping track of mathematics or having to keep track of hundreds of counters, yet on the other hand the rules of the computer limit your ability to innovate or question the rules as implemented.

The classic example is in Computer Role Playing Games where either the storyline is on a "rail system" where you can only act towards the completion of the programmed plot, or the limitations of the mechanics don't allow you to innovate in your problem solving. For example, if you're playing a rogue in a D&D style computer game and you suspect that one of the King's council is actually going to betray him there is no way to (a) accuse him until the game lets you, (b) poison or otherwise dispose of him to protect the king, or (c) blackmail and/or collude with him to overthrow the monarch.

Or for a more simple example, in Neverwinter Nights (v1) the maps of the inside of buildings are completely different areas than the outside so you can't look out the window and see who is coming because even though you're supposed to be in the same area, you're not.

Anyway, limitations aside, I'm still amazed at the evolution of gaming. Text adventures and arcade shooters have evolved to an astounding degree in the past 30 years... at least on the outside.

But how much have the "GAMES" themselves evolved? Don't be fooled by smoke & mirrors. Yeah, thanks to the work of the graphics card industry, you can now get 3D models with astounding textures, and the computing power to render nearly photo-realistic environments. But if the game is still just a 3D shooter, is it really "better" than Duke-Nukem 3D? Do new weapons and better looking models really make a difference?

Eventually the rendering is going to be irrelevant and what will drive the success of a game will come down to three factors.

1) Marketing: There is a segment (a really big segment) that will buy anything if a hot commercial pushes it. They don't get repeat business this way, but sometimes can clear a lot of inventory.

2) Story: If the game is competently built, an excellent story will sell itself. Games with superb stories and these modern engines can essentially become interactive movies. Half-Life 2 has a great engine and an interesting story. It is essentially an action film where you play the MUTE hero and everybody else yaks all the time giving you the plot through voluminous expository speeches. I wouldn't pay $.50 to see it in theatres, but I happily dished out $50.00 to play the game.

3) Gameplay: If the story is crap and the marketing is crap - the game can still be successful if the GAMEPLAY is awesome & addictive. If you can tell me the narrative of Tetris, Bejewelled or Pac Man, well then you're some kind of very special idiot. Nobody cares about the story, they're just fun to play.

I was originally just going to post a link to the granddaddy of all adventure games , which - just like real casino games - you can now play ADVENTURE online!