Gaming Downturns

[drogulus]

You'll not see me post this often, but Karl is fucking spot on.

     I'm seeing spots, too. I think I'll stay home from work tonight.

     Greg, you're an animal, now get out of here.

     

[Florestan]

There really is nothing fun enough in life to engage with- that's the problem.

That's your problem. 

Now seriously, Greg, if you really can find no pleasure in the real life then it's high time you seek the help of a really good psychologist / psychiatrist. And I mean it in the most friendly way.  0:)

I mean, for Christ's sake, you make your happiness dependent on things that humanity managed to do without for thousands of years, such as internet or gaming --- do you really think this is the right way to go? I gather from your posts you're a big Mahler fan --- did he ever need anything else than his family, friends and natural environment to create his work?

[Todd]

did he ever need anything else than his family, friends and natural environment to create his work?

Pen and paper? 

[drogulus]

     I don't think the problem has to do with whether life is grey and miserable or the opposite of that (magenta and relentlessly jolly?). It's apparently possible to imagine that how one feels about things constitutes the substance of existence, complete with judgments about how wonderful or terrible it all is. These feelings, however, manifest themselves without regard for how the Universe keeps chugging along oblivious to these perceptions. I try to maintain a bit of separation between what I think is really there and how I might feel about it on a bad day, or even on a particularly good day. In part I react against 19th century monism, where everything is implicated in the unfolding of everything else. I resist the idea that I have a headache due to ominous events in the Andromeda Galaxy, though things aren't going well there according to reports. In all likelihood I'm being affected by something in my immediate environment like hormones, or an infection, or my landlord.

[ibanezmonster]

That's your problem. 

Now seriously, Greg, if you really can find no pleasure in the real life then it's high time you seek the help of a really good psychologist / psychiatrist. And I mean it in the most friendly way.  0:)

I mean, for Christ's sake, you make your happiness dependent on things that humanity managed to do without for thousands of years, such as internet or gaming --- do you really think this is the right way to go? I gather from your posts you're a big Mahler fan --- did he ever need anything else than his family, friends and natural environment to create his work?

I kind of wrote that post without thinking... nah, I didn't really mean that. Just sorta came out.

     I don't think the problem has to do with whether life is grey and miserable or the opposite of that (magenta and relentlessly jolly?). It's apparently possible to imagine that how one feels about things constitutes the substance of existence, complete with judgments about how wonderful or terrible it all is. These feelings, however, manifest themselves without regard for how the Universe keeps chugging along oblivious to these perceptions. I try to maintain a bit of separation between what I think is really there and how I might feel about it on a bad day, or even on a particularly good day. In part I react against 19th century monism, where everything is implicated in the unfolding of everything else. I resist the idea that I have a headache due to ominous events in the Andromeda Galaxy, though things aren't going well there according to reports. In all likelihood I'm being affected by something in my immediate environment like hormones, or an infection, or my landlord.

Reading this reminds me- this would be a perfect monologue for one of the characters of one of my favorite shows. 

[drogulus]

Reading this reminds me- this would be a perfect monologue for one of the characters of one of my favorite shows. 

     Robot Chicken?

     Incidentally, recent theories concerning quantum mechanical nonlocality say I'm right (not a joke, but also a joke ), though William James didn't know about quantum mechanics and he had the same idea about monist everythingism. I wish I could remember the quote from James that captured the notion so well.

     Got it!

     The "through-and-through" universe seems to suffocate me with its infallible impeccable all-pervasiveness. Its necessity, with no possibilities; its relations, with no subjects, make me feel as if I had entered into a contract with no reserved rights, or rather as if I had to live in a large seaside boarding-house with no private bed-room in which I might take refuge from the society of the place.

     It violates any sense of agency to assume the connectedness of everything. So don't. In QM the idea is expressed as "environmental entanglement" but you don't need to go there, it's just good to know. See, there's a reason the Andromeda Galaxy doesn't give me a headache. The gravitational pull of my landlord (everything nearby IOW) is enough to make consideration of galactic influence a waste of time, except for me saying this.

[Josquin des Prez]

Well, then it looks like everything is fine. 

Not really, because most companies retain their prejudices despite the reality.

As to your longer post, well, I've got bad news for gamers.  Video games are not high art.  They are video games.  That is all.  Ever since Pong appeared, the only thing that has mattered to game makers is separating first quarters and then dozens and hundreds of dollars from gamers. 

Really, when I look at games, I see people either shooting things or other people, solving puzzles of some type, or (poorly) replicating sports.  That's it.  And having a teenage son, I see a lot of video games, both console and PC.  Not one is anything more than a diversion.  They can be fun diversions, especially when they are online with other gamers, but they are diversions.  The "stories", for games that have them, run the gamut from Cormanesque B-movie quality to trash, and every one I've seen any part of suffers from terrible dialog that looks like it was written by someone trying to appeal to adolescent males.  Maybe I just haven't seen enough games, but since the late 70s, when games hit the scene where I grew up, I've played or seen hundreds of games, and not one of them can be taken seriously. 

You are contradicting yourself here. If you are unsure about your knowledge of video games, you shouldn't make such sweeping statements. Now i'm not going to argue that video games are anything more then what they appear to be: mere entertainment, but i think its absurd to claim game designers do not have a level of personal involvement in their creations. There is a lot that goes on in the development of a video game that relies entirely on the talent and creativity of the designer. We are not talking about some canned product here. Video games are an intellectual property and as such are entirely dependent on the commitment and personal involvement of their creators. I mean, even cartoons rely on the level on personal expression of the individual that makes them, it doesn't matter how childish they appear to be. Since moving close to my sister (who has two wonderful little girls), i must have seen dozens upon dozens of cartoons. None of them were "great" art, but some of them were definitely better then others. Some were sterile, soulless productions which were clearly made to exploit a market, others were genuinely entertaining and even quite touching, and it was obvious that the writers were actually personally involved with the story. Its the same thing for video games.

Now, of course, part of the problem of comparing video games to other mediums is that there's actually two things going on in a game. One of course is the actual game, which has nothing to do with art. We can still of course appreciate the level of craftsmanship and inventiveness that went in the creation and realization of a great gaming system, but we are not going to praise the designer the same way we would with an artist. I mean, whoever invented chess was probably a genius but even if we knew his name we couldn't compare his achievement with that of a Beethoven.

The other then is the actual "artistic" side of the game, which is not only a recent phenomena, technology being for the longest time simply too primitive a vehicle for artistic or even literary expression, but serves more often then not as nothing more then an embellishment of the actual game. Still, once again, this isn't always the case.

Either way, the point here is that we can make qualitative distinctions between games and the ability of their creators, and for those of us who actually enjoy this hobby in its highest form it is important that we may continue to enjoy quality products. Something doesn't need to be high art to be considered of value, does it? And we can still complain when something of value is lost to corporate greed and ill conceived marketing strategies.

This is in stark contrast to other art forms.  Your music company analogy is particularly poor.  There are companies that exist solely to record classical music.  (Or jazz, or bluegrass, or whatever.)  They are focused on great art.  What about video games?  Who produces the great art of the medium?  And what, pray tell, is the video game equivalent of Beethoven's Op 132, Stravinsky's The Rite of Spring, Wagner's Tristan?  The same can be asked for the video game equivalent of Crime and Punishment, The Trial, and hundreds of other great works of literature.  Hell, even taking movies, where is the video game equal to The Godfather or whatever other great movie one wants to think of.

There is no such equivalent, but my analogy stands because we were speaking purely from a business perspective. I mean you can argue that companies that specialize in classical music are driven purely by an high minded consideration to preserve great art, but really, at the end of the day they are in it for the money too. The point i was trying to make is that just because some markets are bigger then others it doesn't mean profits cannot be made all around, and i think it is ill-conceived to ignore those potentially profitable markets and have every single company trying to compete with the latest blockbuster hit. It isn't gonna work. You can't have a hundred Lady Gagas, much like you can't have a hundred Black Ops. Its an absurd situation which denotes poor business sense.

The closest analogy here is probably Hollywood. During the 60s, the industry sought to revitalize itself by investing in innovative projects and new creative directions. It was the spirit of this era that allowed such ambitious films like 2001 to be made. There was a lot of risk taking during this period, but it was understood in those days that risk was always what business was all about. That you could never make it "big" without taking the market by storm in one way or another. By comparison, look at what's happening to Hollywood today. Its the same exact thing for video games.

Now video games are big business, and some big games make lots of money, some flop, and companies are bought and sold and will come and go over time. That's a good thing.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The success of a game relies entirely on the competence, talent and vision of the developer and his team. Big publishers like Electronic Arts have been operating under the same principle you are proposing here, that a developing company can simply be replaced at the first sign of trouble. What happens instead is that every time they try to reorganize a company it affects the quality of their products permanently. Big franchises suddenly lose their profitability and popular brand names plummet into obscurity, and no matter how much money a company pours into a new development team, it simply is impossible to recapture the essence of the original franchise, because the people who created it aren't there anymore. It would be like replacing all the members of a rock band and expect the music to be the same.

You ask how long will the market last?  What market?  The market will change.

I know that the market will change. My point was that, because of their obsession for short term profits those companies are going to be ill prepared when change is going to come their way. Their greed and lack of respect for the market will be their downfall. 

As not only consoles but also PCs become increasingly obsolete, something new will emerge.  And you know what, it'll still be just a video game.

I think its time that we address this point now. Even as far back as the 70s, video games have always been a varied form of entertainment. Some games, like Pong, were exceedingly simple and addicting. Others were considerably more complex and intellectually stimulating. Those games were first developed on the early microcomputer systems, the first being a game called Space Travel, which simulated a rocket traveling through the solar system. While not particularly complicated to play, the game was of course much more ambitious then Pong, being that it was written entirely for the personal amusement of its creator (so much so that he even went as far as developing an entire operating system, Unix, just so that he could play his own game). For much of the history of PC gaming, some of the most successful franchises were started as amateur projects created for the entertainment of their authors. So even before the Atari generation started, we can already see a growing trend among software engineers, many of which were still students at the time, to utilize a purely technical discipline for more creative purposes. Following Space Travel, we can already see the formation of the many of the genres which compose the core repertory of PC gaming. In 1971, a computer programmer called Peter Langston (who also happened to be a Jazz and Rock musician, not incidentally), developed a game called Empire which was the first multilayer tuned based strategy game. Featuring complex strategic elements, a typical empire game could last as little as a couple of hours to as long as one year! This was a far cry from Pong and the typical mass marketed video game of that era. Empire was followed by Hamurabi (the first civilization-type game), Start Trek (a text based strategy game which was the first to utilize a mainframe network), until several years later a veritable explosion occurred, particularly on the then popular PLATO system. This phenomena was centered around college campuses and mainframe systems, so it may appear quire small in scope, but most of the ground work that spawned the PC platform was done here. By 1974, the first adventure game (Hunt the Wumpus) and flight simulator (Airflight) were developed. By 1975, the first RPGs begun to proliferate at an alarming rate (including the forerunners to both Ultima and Wizardry), despite the best effort of professors and instructors to stamp out those student aberrations whenever they were discovered (quite comically really). The advancements made during those years are incalculable. Games ranged from having simple text based interfaces featuring basic parsec systems to fully developed isometric and even first person view points, all in cutting edge wire frame graphics (ha ha). The development of the personal computer eventually brought this era to an end (and also closed the era of multiplayer gaming until the advent of the internet, so it was a step backward in a way), but by and large all the game types that characterize the PC platform were already fully developed. Luckily, we can all experience this era thanks to the effort to bring the PLATO platform back by the good folks at http://www.cyber1.org/. Needless to say, i'm already a member.

Are those games to be considered great art? Obviously not. Will they be remembered in two hundred years? For that matter, they have already been forgotten. Yet, we can't ignore the fact those games elevated a form of entertainment to childish curiosities like Pong to something that can be enjoyed by an adult mind. Indeed, even during the early years of PC gaming, when those games first became commercially viable, if even on a small scale, they were still targeted to a very selective audience. Few people were interested in personal computers. Many simply couldn't afford them, while most just didn't understand them. Plus, it took a while before PC gaming really took off. Many of those early games were still in an embryonic stage through out the late 70s and early 80s. It wasn't until 1984 that the first true masterpieces of PC gaming begin to appear. Games like Ultima IV and Elite were major trend setters and the grand majority of the greatest PC classics were soon to follow between the mid 80s and early 90s, where games also begun to acquire an artistic quality. Indeed, while still relatively primitive, graphics were advanced enough to allow for enjoyable artistic scenery, and some of them also begun to develop interesting plots and relatively good writing (like the classic Lucas Arts adventure games, which featured tasteful humor and lovable stories on par with the best TV productions). None of those games were made as a mere "product". They were all the result of the vision of single creative individuals, and as such they are impossible to replicate. Some of the original designers themselves are often hard pressed to match their earlier successes. This veritable "golden age" begun to exhaust itself through out the 90s, and by 2001 video games were already on a decline. Strangely enough (or not), this decline seems to coincide with the advent of the mass market, which for years was dominated by arcade and console gaming (a market which was completely taken over by the Japanese while western designers were devoting themselves to "higher" forms of digital entertainment). While PC gaming was evolving and developing, the arcade and console world changed very little, precisely because it was driven entirely by mass market considerations. The moment personal computers begun to proliferate, younger people begun to stir away from the classic arcade model and begun enjoying all of the advancements of the PC platform, which at that point were gargantuan. Ultra advanced graphics, dozens of gaming systems and interfaces, the advent of the internet. But the moment that PC gaming finally became mainstream, companies started to revert to the old arcade and console method, destroying the very platform that has driven 99% of the innovation in this field for the past forty years. Why shouldn't we decry this process?

[Josquin des Prez]

In my opinion, Chrono Cross, Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 7 and Final Fantasy 9 would be a few I can think of.

Good grief, no. There is no video game counterpart to the great classics of literature and music, but there are better games then the ones you mentioned to one who is interested in exploring what this form of entertainment has to offer.

As far as story and writing is concerned, the best game i can think of is Planescape: Torment.  I think i probably enjoyed the writing of that game more then i did with most of the actual fantasy novels i have read (all of them from renowned franchises). Of course, this isn't saying much consider how crappy fantasy literature really is, but i think it is impressive to have a game actually exceed the majority of an entire literary form. Most of the times video games rely more on the direct experience of having you live through a story rather then being a detached observer, where one has to focus more on the actual quality of the story and the writing. In that sense, the "overall" experience of living through a story often compensate for sub-par writing. This game had both. A good interactive experience (much of what you said or did in the game had direct and often unforeseen consequences, unlike many games of this type where interactivity is usually cosmetic) and decent writing. Most of the older Lucas Arts adventures (Monkey Island, Loom, The Dig, Sam and Max, Grim Fandango etc.) has good writing as well, but those were more on the comical, cartoony side of things. Torment was more serious (without being pretentious), which i thought was quite impressive. It was also quite good to look and listen to, thanks to the beautifully rendered exotic landscape and the solid soundtrack. The gameplay was relatively weak compared to some of the older classics so it seems the designers decided to focus more on the artistic elements of the game and leaving the actual game as an after thought. Still, it was a great overall experience, and the game mechanics weren't bad per-se, they were just too limited in their application.

[Josquin des Prez]

That does seem like a better analogy, but even there the limits seem obvious.  Has any video game had the impact on society that the Model T did?  Can it?

Considering the single biggest drive for technological advancement in the world of computers derives from video games, i think the answer is obvious. Nobody needs the power of modern hardware to chat with friends and brows the internet. Without video games driving technological progress personal computers wouldn't quite be so advanced, or so common. Hell, people like Bill Gates own everything they have on video games.

[Todd]

Considering the single biggest drive for technological advancement in the world of computers derives from video games, i think the answer is obvious. Nobody needs the power of modern hardware to chat with friends and brows the internet. Without video games driving technological progress personal computers wouldn't quite be so advanced, or so common. Hell, people like Bill Gates own everything they have on video games.

You have a profoundly poor understanding of what drives technological advances if you seriously think this.  As to your long post, well, there is no way I'm going to waste my time reading that.  Suffice it to say, you need to get a life.  After all, they're just video games.  Looks like you never quite outgrew childhood things.

[Josquin des Prez]

You have a profoundly poor understanding of what drives technological advances if you seriously think this.

Didn't i already mention that Unix was born because of a video game? Look it up if you don't believe me. I don't think there has never been an instant in which personal computer sales haven't been driven primarily by video games. Hell, i remember reading that at one point, the most popular application for Windows 3.1 was Wolfenstein 3d. You really think people were willing to spend over a thousand dollars on a personal computer just to run some power word application?

As to your long post, well, there is no way I'm going to waste my time reading that.  Suffice it to say, you need to get a life.  After all, they're just video games.  Looks like you never quite outgrew childhood things.

Its an hobby like any other, and i've seen people obsess over far worst activities (like stamp collection). And really, how are video games any less frivolous then a game like chess?

[Josquin des Prez]

In the case of "RPG"s, Witcher and Dragon Age also take it along the lines of "including (preferably lesbian) sex scenes makes gaming grown-up". It's cringe-worthy...

The Witcher isn't as bad as Dragon Age tough. I mean, it was still cringe-worthy but it was still done in a tongue in cheek sort of way. Its like the developers wanted to be all edgy but felt too nerdy and just ended up making a mockery of it. Bioware on the other end really take themselves seriously with this stuff. Its pathetic.

Eitherway, let me vent some more frustration:

[Todd]

Didn't i already mention that Unix was born because of a video game? Look it up if you don't believe me. I don't think there has never been an instant in which personal computer sales haven't been driven primarily by video games. Hell, i remember reading that at one point, the most popular application for Windows 3.1 was Wolfenstein 3d. You really think people were willing to spend over a thousand dollars on a personal computer just to run some power word application?

I suggest you do some reading on hardware and software sales - and buyers - to determine what drives advances in computing.  It is not video games.  Roughly $19 billion in video games were sold in 2010.  That's a nice sum, and made some people rich, but in the context of technology companies as a whole, it's not particularly impressive.  Microsoft has regularly had more cash than that.  IBM reorganizes divisions larger than that.  (How often is IBM's name associated with video games?)  Yes, there's hardware sales that go along with games, but guess what, that's not really profitable.  PCs have razor thin profit margins, and game consoles are mostly money losers (except for Nintendo).  Video games offer a big enough market to entice players, but in terms of fat margins and advancing technology, well that's for other areas in computing and technology.

Your stories about Unix and Wolfenstein are urban legends, unless you have concrete fact to back them up.  (For instance, Space Travel was only part of the Unix equation.)

[Josquin des Prez]

I suggest you do some reading on hardware and software sales - and buyers - to determine what drives advances in computing.  It is not video games.  Roughly $19 billion in video games were sold in 2010.

You are looking at it in the wrong context. You have too see how much hardware was sold in relation to technological advancements in video games. Not everybody who buys a computer today plays video games, but the most powerful hardware behind modern machines was developed because of the technological demands of games. Also, looking at modern figures is misleading, considering the console market has taken control of much of the share which was exclusive of the PC, and modern console games are not the type that would drive any sort of technical advancement.

That's a nice sum, and made some people rich, but in the context of technology companies as a whole, it's not particularly impressive.  Microsoft has regularly had more cash than that. 

Once again, you are looking at the wrong context. The question is not how much Microsoft is able to pull in relation to the video game industry, but how much of their yearly sales are driven by video games, and in what proportion. And even then, we need to look at the type of applications that have driven Windows sales as a whole. Even if more people buy Windows to run office applications then video games, hardware development is still driven by the latter because office applications do not require advanced hardware of any kind.

IBM reorganizes divisions larger than that.  (How often is IBM's name associated with video games?) 

IBM was nearly lost to the PC wars of the 80s (which were driven by we know what) and went nearly belly during the 90s. They survived by taking leadership into the then new world of portable personal computers, but that's a different thing. Besides, much of their revenue is based on software production, not any advancement in hardware technology.

PCs have razor thin profit margins, and game consoles are mostly money losers (except for Nintendo). 

The situation is quite dire nowadays, yes. But that's the fault of the industry. But there's another way to look at it. Consider the most expensive machine for home use you can possibly think of, and tell me much how much of the hardware contained in such a machine was built specifically for video games. Even in the world of portable computers, a field which was never meant for video games, the most powerful hardware is centered around the performance of video games, and while the grand majority of people who buy portable machines do not have video games in mind, those who aim straight for the absolute top are not looking for anything else. Look at the difference between the top "business" laptops, and the top gaming laptops, both in terms of hardware and price:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/most-powerful-laptop.html

Its a question of logic really. Hardware development is meaningless if there are no applications to take advantage of it, and the most demanding applications happen to be video games.

Your stories about Unix and Wolfenstein are urban legends, unless you have concrete fact to back them up.

The story about Unix is true:

http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib215/reference/history/spacetravel.html

But its obvious that the game was more of a catalyst for the development of Unix rather then the sole reason for its existence. Still, it is significant that Thomson even thought of wasting time on a "mere" video game. Its all a question of human nature. You can't prevent people from trying to put a playful spin to their activities, and when it became clear that computer programming could be used for creative purposes with no direct practical application people were more then willing to "waste" time in just such activities, for their own personal amusement. Childish, but that's human nature for you.

[ibanezmonster]

Good grief, no. There is no video game counterpart to the great classics of literature and music, but there are better games then the ones you mentioned to one who is interested in exploring what this form of entertainment has to offer.

As far as story and writing is concerned, the best game i can think of is Planescape: Torment.  I think i probably enjoyed the writing of that game more then i did with most of the actual fantasy novels i have read (all of them from renowned franchises). Of course, this isn't saying much consider how crappy fantasy literature really is, but i think it is impressive to have a game actually exceed the majority of an entire literary form. Most of the times video games rely more on the direct experience of having you live through a story rather then being a detached observer, where one has to focus more on the actual quality of the story and the writing. In that sense, the "overall" experience of living through a story often compensate for sub-par writing. This game had both. A good interactive experience (much of what you said or did in the game had direct and often unforeseen consequences, unlike many games of this type where interactivity is usually cosmetic) and decent writing. Most of the older Lucas Arts adventures (Monkey Island, Loom, The Dig, Sam and Max, Grim Fandango etc.) has good writing as well, but those were more on the comical, cartoony side of things. Torment was more serious (without being pretentious), which i thought was quite impressive. It was also quite good to look and listen to, thanks to the beautifully rendered exotic landscape and the solid soundtrack. The gameplay was relatively weak compared to some of the older classics so it seems the designers decided to focus more on the artistic elements of the game and leaving the actual game as an after thought. Still, it was a great overall experience, and the game mechanics weren't bad per-se, they were just too limited in their application.

You just don't like JRPGs. 
Planescape: Torment is something I've never heard of. Looked at it for a minute on youtube... I'm going to take a guess (maybe I'm wrong) but is this an example of an American RPG?

[ibanezmonster]

Considering the single biggest drive for technological advancement in the world of computers derives from video games, i think the answer is obvious. Nobody needs the power of modern hardware to chat with friends and brows the internet. Without video games driving technological progress personal computers wouldn't quite be so advanced, or so common. Hell, people like Bill Gates own everything they have on video games.

I like that bolded sentence... nice! There's some truth to it... supercomputers aren't exactly intended to run games, but it's true that developing more sophisticated graphics for games (or even CGI movies) are one of the main reasons to further technology and computer hardware.

[Josquin des Prez]

You just don't like JRPGs. 
Planescape: Torment is something I've never heard of. Looked at it for a minute on youtube... I'm going to take a guess (maybe I'm wrong) but is this an example of an American RPG?

It is mostly an American RPG (its even based on the D&D system) but also has a lot of elements inspired by Final Fantasy. You should try it. Just be careful that its not your orthodox D&D game. Unlike other games of this type, Wisdom is the single most important stat in the game, followed by Intelligence. This is because the game is very dialog driven and those stats have a direct influence on how much your character understands, and the type of responses you are given during a particular conversation. I'd also recommend playing as a mage. The other two classes are warrior and thief but there's very little combat in this game and even less burglary.

[Josquin des Prez]

I think his complaint is with the newer versions, not the original series, but then one can just go down the Baulder's Gate road and the games of that ilk.

Indeed. The original Fallout was an excellent game and part of my vitriol towards the sequel is that it rapes much of what made the original game so good. Well, at least New Vegas has restored some of the things i liked about the original, like, half-decent writing that doesn't seem written by a ten year old.

As for Baldur's Gate, in a way i actually consider that game the true decline of western RPGs. It wasn't a bad game per-se, particularly by modern standards, but still. Fan-fic level of writing, real time combat system, abuse of the Forgotten Realms setting, particularly with all those cheesy encounters (Drizzt, ghaaaa). And when they started introducing romances in the sequel i lost it. Magic duels were a riot in that game though. I always liked the way magic was handled in the D&D system.

[Lethevich]

BG was definitely a step back from the interactivity of games like Ultima VII too, but I forgive it as it was super atmospheric, if a little unrealised and simplistic.

[Todd]

Its a question of logic really. Hardware development is meaningless if there are no applications to take advantage of it, and the most demanding applications happen to be video games.

You live in contrafactual fantasy land.  And based on what you post, you clearly do not use much in the way of business software.