Opinionated Gamers, Old vs. Young: Who is More Entitled?

Which age is right, which age is wrong, How do I say that we need to move on? We all have our separate opinions, but which one is the right one?

Before you dive into this article I just want to give you an idea what I mean by old and young.

Old is when you were a child or teenager at the time of 8-bit or 16-bit consoles. Think the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive or NES/SNES era, maybe even Commodore 64.

Young is when you were a child or teenager when 3D games were here. Think Sony PlayStations, Microsoft Xbox (not One but the first one), Nintendo GameCube and N64 type eras.

Gamers who are children or young teenagers (below 14) now, and are growing up with the Xbox 360, PS3 (and now Xbox One and PS4) are included in the group Young. However they will be dubbed as baby gamers for the purposes of this article.

Right are we all understood? Great, let’s dive head first into this.

Who Gets the Bigger or Louder Say?

The Debate

There’s been a debate raging between gamers for as long as I can remember so, this is nothing new. It’s got everything to do with who gets the biggest say between gamers and their ages. Do the older gamers get a bigger say about what should happen in the gaming industry because they used to play 8-bit or 16-bit 2D platformers? Do the young gamers get a bigger say because they were the reason 3D gaming became a thing? Do baby gamers have the biggest say because they are the future of gaming? Because they will shape what gaming will be like in the future, how it will be perceived?

As I said, this debate is nothing new. I simply wanted to share my feelings as a young, 20-year-old, gamer who grew up in the PS2 and Xbox Original era. There is no one, of any age, who is right, or better. No one gets a bigger say. No one has a better opinion, but let’s think why some age groups think they are better. Well, my opinion of why at the very least.

The Righteous Wiseman

There are older gamers out there who believe they have the only say. That they have the ultimate power for what games should be like. Gamers who were... say, under 15, when Thief first came out, World of Warcraft, or even Half Life. On the console side, they played the 2D platformers, like Sonic. Scrolling beat-em ups, like Streets of Rage. Fighting games like Punch-Out.

The Original Sonics are the best.

Some of them believe games should go back to how they were when they were kids: they have to be brutal, unforgiving and have no saves. They believe that those sorts of games are the only way to game, and that everyone should love them.

This has nothing to do with if I like the game or not, I personally love Sonic (lately it has gone down a very steep hill). But why do some older gamers feel the need to tell us young gamers what we should and should not play, or like? Is it because they grew up with these games? So they feel if they had to play them, that we must play them also? By "had", I mean if they wanted to play games, they had no other choice than to play what they had. This isn’t inherently bad.

So the above is the stereotype, but these come from where right? Of course the older gamers how have legitimate complaints are voicing opinions like,  hit a button and go, no 100 hoops to jump through. To be able to be in the privacy and comfort of your own room. Having no forced multiplayer, no constant "sharing" via social media. And nobody knowing what you're playing and doing 24/7. Along with no constant patches, updates, DLC, etc. Thank you Fathoms_4209 for bringing this up.

I agree with Fathoms

Why do we have multiplayer thrown at us all the time, along with patches, DLC and social media? Can we not just enjoy a nice single player game? Ok, so this is slightly off the topic. There are games for you, The Last of Us being one of the best examples for this in really recently times.

Can we all be Happy?

Old gamers want their super-tuff-no-save 2D platformers, but I want my not-too-hard, always save FPSs. Ok not me per say, but some baby gamers find the 2D games to be terrible, a waste of time and boring. And that’s fine to. Let’s just have both, with games like Super Meat Boy, Spelunky or VVVVVVVV (how many Vs does the game have?) older gamers have their platformers.

I have yet the play Spelunky as I feel 2D platforming games are a bit saturated. But there are still some great ones out there, and which are going to come out.

With the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises, and now Titanfall, baby gamers have lots to choose from for their FPS gaming.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 had some amazing moments, but marked the beginning of the downfall of Call of Duty for me.

Baby Gamers Baby Crying

Baby gamers want JUST Call of Duty (or that fish game, CoD is it?). I mean look at the sales, it shows it’s the best game ever created right? Wrong. There are lots of baby gamers who use the, “it sold more than your game” argument to prove that the game is better. Sales do not equate to quality.

It’s apparent that the quality of Call of Duty, or even Battlefield, has been decreasing. They are getting more and more buggy. But their sales are rising. Why is this? Is it because baby gamers just want the same thing over and over? Well that’s just the thing, there is more and more outcry about how all games are becoming Call of Duty. Even the likes of racing games, other FPS games or even 2D platformers--but why is this?

Each Call of Duty sold more and more, but are they getting better a better?

Online Ranking Systems

Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare brought online ranking systems to the forefront of how a multiplayer shooter should be. With its successes, many games started copying it. Which is fine; if something does well why not take its ideas? It works with the Batman Arkham games. They don’t do anything new, but they put a fresh spin on ideas.

As this ranking system got more popular, other genres started to use it. Look at the Forza Motorsport series, most notably Forza 3. This version in the series introduced an online ranking system, which works much like Call of Duty: compete to gain points. Get specific levels you get bonuses, like cars or XP boosts, or a reduction on cost of parts. Look at Ace Combat: Assault Horizon--many calling it Call of Duty in the sky. I tend to agree with them, but it was an enjoyable game. Which brings me to my next point.

Ace Combat changed, but was it for the better?

Gamers Both Want Change and Loath Change

An example of wanting and liking change, Deus Ex: Human Revolution. The game is different from the originals by adding a cover mechanic, the praxis points and the ability to lift only very specific things. But they kept the core of what Deus Ex was, the ability to play the game how you wanted.

An example of going against change, Thief (the new one). Again the game is different from the originals by adding a cover mechanic, adding a leveling and upgrade system. Also only allowing you to jump or climb at specific points. They also kept the core of what Thief is, the ability to play the game how you wanted. Ghosting or more aggresive stealth (of course the only option is stealth).

How is this different from Deus Ex? Not letting you jump all the time? Why would you want to? Would Garrett really bunny hop? Have they not kept the core of what Thief is? The similarities between how Eidos Montreal made the Thief and Deus Ex reboots are close. They both add a hub type world, they restrict what you can do without making it feel like you can’t do anything. And, above all, they both made mistakes but, overall are fantastic. Are they not? If you don't like them, tell me why.

With both of these games they tried something new and both had different outcomes on what people thought. They both made mistakes, but both kept to what the series is known for. Young gamers really like the games, but some old gamers do not.

Deus Ex: Human Revolution, the Detroit hub world.

Whose Voice is for Change?

It seems like there are plenty of voices for change, but there are plenty against. It sounds like to me that most of the noise for change is coming from my era, the PS2 era. But that may be me being a little bit biased. What do you think?

Baby gamers are saying we need more FPS games. Older gamers are saying, with any reboots they need to be made exactly the same as the originals. But the PS2 era gamers are saying we need hybrids of each.

Who’s Right?

There is no right and wrong. There are currently games for everyone and anyone, games for all ages, all gamer styles. They are not all old 1980s games, there are plently of older style games which have come out very recently.

Whose Voice is the Truth?

After going off track, let’s bring it full circle. Your voice is the truth, but only for you. My voice is the truth, but for everyone! Ok, everyone who agrees with me. If you are reading this thinking, "God! SpazldNinja has written utter rubbish!" Please write a counter argument telling me why. I always love to hear both sides.

I honestly think that this whole my voice is the best attitude is rubbish, everyone is correct for themselves, and the sooner everyone accepts that, the quicker we will all get along.

Generalising the Minority

Of course for anything said I am generalising. For the purposes of this article, I had to. The people arguing like this are the minority, they are just a bit more vocal.

Back to Entitlement

No one has the entitlement to be the only correct voice. No one has a louder voice. Everyone is equal. So with that cheese out the way, let’s get into the meat of this. I've said this about 10 times by now right? Sorry.

If everyone thinks they are the only truth, then are we not all wrong? After saying your voice is the truth, I am now saying you are wrong, why? For me, if you say Call of Duty: Ghosts is the best game, I will say you are wrong. That means you are wrong, right? Wrong. But... what? You are right for you, and that is all that counts. So, again, your truth is the truth for yourself, and not fact.

What Does your Voice Say About You?

Instead of thinking that your voice is correct, think about how your voice comes across to others. Does it make you seem like you’re arrogant? Does it make you come across as a person with an opinion, who also respects others? Does it say that you’re immature and dumb, even when you aren’t?

Do you think I’m right or wrong? How did I come across to you in this article? What do you think? Have I respected your age group? Let me know in the comments below.

Disclaimer

If anything in this article offends you, please let me know. Then I can explain that I didn’t mean to. I will then add to the article explaining why I have said what I did.

All of this was from my head, if I got anything wrong, please let me know.

Featured Correspondent

-- Games are a passion as well as a hobby. Other writing of mine found on on www.etnl.co.uk

Published Mar. 20th 2014
  • Si_W
    I've been gaming since the days of Jet Pac, 3D Ant Attack, Trans Am, Manic Miner, etc on the ZX Spectrum and I just do not get this sense of entitlement that ANY gamer has.

    I'm a long-time battlefield fan (since BF2 only though, so don't shoot me...) and I don't understand all the complaints about BF4. I like it and I'm ok with the fact that I couldn't play it throughout December and half of January. It's fine now, I just did something else.

    What does annoy me is this constant need to sink more hours into the game than anyone else and then have the gall to say a game is rubbish (this is obviously the polite version) when you've totalled a couple of hundred hours on it. I'm a little perturbed that already on Titanfall you have players who have "Prestiged" half a dozen times or more. Have they actually done anything else?

    Oh, and this requirement to spend £30-£50 on a game and then complete it in two days flat. I've only ever completed one game and that was the Tomb Raider reboot last year - although I've put a few hundred hours into online FPS such as BF and Black Hawk Down (remember that one?). My son is a prime example of this. He'll bang on for weeks leading up to a release and then he'll have sold it to a 2nd hand gaming shop for much less than he paid for it as he's completed it before most ordinary people have even removed the cellophane from the box.
  • iTrigonometry
    Featured Contributor
    I wouldn't say that Old gamers are entitled, but as someone who's also been playing games for a long time I can understand how they can be upset when franchises they liked either die off or what they liked about the game gets watered down or streamlined to appeal to a broader audience.

    Look at the new Devil May Cry for instance. There haven't been DMC-like games in a while (besides Bayonetta and MGS Revengeance). I'm not upset that the DMC reboot changed Dante. I'm upset that there aren't as many weapons within the game as in the previous instances of the game, that they force you to use certain weapons against coloured enemies which doesn't allow you to combo how you want to, and that weapon archs are too large so you can hit these enemies when you don't mean to and interrupt your combo.

    As for the Newest Thief. I liked it even though I liked the older Thief games. My gripe with Contextual jumping is the limitation it places upon the player. I wasn't able to jump over traps I could clearly see if I wanted to Ghost which limited access to certain areas in the game making it impossible for me to get certain valuables in a full ghost playthrough. It was also not clear which jumps were possible to do or not, which made me have to reload very often because Garret decided he couldn't jump diagonally. I didn't mind the Hub in Thief, since it gave me more stuff to do inbetween missions, but because movement was such a pain in the ass getting around in the Hub was a chore.
  • Darrick Smith
    I'll tell you what each age bracket wants, new unique games, that aren't bloated with over priced DLC content that could have been released with the game itself. Now, I'm no fan of Call of Duty but I do understand the appeal to newb FPS players with how easy and fast pace the game is since it's this gaming's generation version of Quake. (Except, we all know it'll never be as cool ;) ). The major problem with the quality of our games, is the big named companies, want nothing but our money, copy and paste their game, add in 60 bucks worth of DLC and rape your wallet for an inferior product.

    As I am sure everyone remembers, when CoD had bug where it crashed, and it even said it was a previous iteration of CoD. How lazy. We do need more FPS games. Reboot franchises if they want, or make something new. Personally, old school Rainbow Six is more appealing to me than a game like TitanFall (even if I like TitanFall.). But we have something like The Division to look forward to which I like to think is the next chapter in Tom Clancy's shooters. And you know what, it should succeed. Because it's unique.

    Far as older people wanting 2d games? Eh, depends on the person and their genre of choice. Harder games? Yes. Game's as a whole, have become too easy, that a game like Dark Souls, where you are told, you're are going to get your face stomped in is seen as a challenge, instead of what we knew as "the norm". This also becomes a shining problem in the MMORPG world since World of Warcraft, where the quality of MMO's suffer, become easier to play (because it brings in people that "don't have the time to invest in the game" even though you shouldn't really bother with a MMO if you don't have the time for it.) and you have a whole slew of games that die out within months because of how easy they are.

    Older gamers are more entitled but only if they've paid their dues and have played through all of the changes. The person still rocking their NES and has not touched anything since, cannot have a valid opinion of gaming.
  • Pierre Fouquet
    Featured Correspondent
    For your last statement. Why do older gamers get more entitlement? Yes, they may have played every type of game, but they don't like them all do they?
    Another thing, why does being unique mean it HAS to sell? I mean Watch Dogs, and The Division are being unique BUT not with everything. If you just look at those games, they do look rather generic, but when you learn about them you see what they are using and a base, to create something new. I see your point, and I want The Division to succeed too, but not because it's unique, because it will be a great game. Not all games need to be unique, but the great games are the ones which should sell.
  • Fathoms_4209
    Featured Columnist
    Speaking from the older gamer side, I do have to say that we don't all want 2D hard-as-crap, old-school platformers and stuff like that. We also don't look down on all new games; that's just a stereotype.

    I think we just wish that certain gameplay styles and mechanics didn't disappear from big-budget productions (like turn-based, for instance). We also remember a more innocent, simpler time when playing games was just...playing games. Hit a button and go, in the privacy and comfort of your own room. No multiplayer, no constant "sharing" via social media, nobody knowing what you're playing and doing 24/7, no constant patches, updates, DLC, etc.

    That's really what "old" gamers complain about most and I think such complaints are perfectly legitimate.
  • Pierre Fouquet
    Featured Correspondent
    Oh yes, that's exactly what I meant. I ignored the legit complaints, like you said. But it's the guys who are making stupid comments, like I put in this, who I am talking about. And of course they are a stereotype, but stereotypes come from somewhere. So thanks for that, will be adding that.
  • Fathoms_4209
    Featured Columnist
    Yeah, it's sad that the most visible comments online are usually the dumbest. :)

New Cache - article_comments_article_13078
Related
More Thief Content
Popular in the Community