Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

What Game Will Stand the Test of Time?

Dr. Nibbles

Dr. Nibbles

Supernova
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Location
Your Pants
Okay. So I'm working on a little sci-fi project and I want to keep it realistic. I'm doing a lot of research on what objects might be in the future and what might actually be possible and what isn't? I want to see what kind of Table Top Games and Video Games would last say 70 years into the future. IE being remade or remastered or what not, new editions. etc.
 
I would lay money on games related to Star Wars and Lord of the Rings surviving in some form. Both online/VR as well as tabletop. Also some classic stuff like Monopoly and Battleship that have already lasted that long, no reason to expect it wont last
 
Skyrim

It came out like 6 years ago, now going for the seventh, but is still there (and is quite an achievement, since most of games are "outdated" or forgotten after a year or less) with mods still coming out daily, with new videos still coming out daily, and people still spends hours and hours in it, always with emotions and fun, interest and wish for "one more minute". Also, i guess that since it opened the world of fantasy for many of the new generation, it is a true milestone that created an icon... an image of itself that i think will endure years and years to come.
 
Dungeons and Dragons, it's already been around for 40+ years and is becoming more and more sociably acceptable these days with celebrities like Travis Willingham, Vin Diesel, Matt Mercer and Will Wheaton showing their DnD chops publicly.
 
Dark Souls. Sure, DS1 looks like crap on consoles right now but the PC mods make it look decent enough. It is one of the most trans-formative games of the last decade, with games going from QTE: The game to having more focus on level design, rewarding exploration, death not being a penalty or at least checkpoints not being every 20 seconds, less exposition in cut-scenes and more from the world. It still has a massive fan base and online community, says it all really!
 
Sierra-117 said:
death not being a penalty
Click to expand...

You live in a completely different world than that which Dark Souls exists.

Dark Souls is built around cheap deaths and screwing the player over each time.

There isn't a single other developer who gives a crap about a niche game with a tiny number of people who actually play it.
 
SmokyKisses said:
Sierra-117 said:
death not being a penalty
Click to expand...

You live in a completely different world than that which Dark Souls exists.

Dark Souls is built around cheap deaths and screwing the player over each time.

There isn't a single other developer who gives a crap about a niche game with a tiny number of people who actually play it.
Click to expand...

That number is actually larger than you'd think. The difficulty curve does keep most casual players away, but there's a bigger fanbase for that series than there is for persona.
 
SmokyKisses said:
You live in a completely different world than that which Dark Souls exists.

Dark Souls is built around cheap deaths and screwing the player over each time.

There isn't a single other developer who gives a crap about a niche game with a tiny number of people who actually play it.
Click to expand...
Nah, I definitely don't.

Are there cheap deaths in Dark Souls? Sure, but it's to show you that you have to be aware of your surroundings at all times. For instance, the Hellkite Drake flying over the bridge and burning you to bits. If you see the scorch marks on the floor rather than shinies, you know it's coming and can avoid it.

But most combat deaths are your fault for making a mistake and the game punishes you for said mistake. It doesn't try and screw the player over, ever. If it did it wouldn't allow you collect your souls if you died.

And it literally isn't a niche, it has a huge following. Check the reddit, there are thousands of posts on it each day.
 
RustyRedHero said:
That number is actually larger than you'd think. The difficulty curve does keep most casual players away, but there's a bigger fanbase for that series than there is for persona.
Click to expand...

A game having a bigger fanbase than Persona is no achievement.

It's like comparing shit and vomit.
 
SmokyKisses said:
A game having a bigger fanbase than Persona is no achievement.

It's like comparing shit and vomit.
Click to expand...
You say that like there isn't a massive market for JRPGs. Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are proof enough of that.

I'll tell you right away they'll last longer than most of the FPS games on the market right now. Call of Duty is going down the can, Battlefield's days are numbered, Battlefront is a joke, Destiny 2 might be interesting if they can keep their fanbase (Which is smaller than dark souls at this point), Halo has already gone down the toilet, and the other games are so far gone I actually can't remember them.

Maybe Doom will survive, but that's it.

My answer is Still dungeons and dragons, btw, I just felt a popular franchise should get its due respect.
 
RustyRedHero said:
You say that like there isn't a massive market for JRPGs. Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are proof enough of that.
Click to expand...

Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are hugely popular because they're great games.

The massive market for JRPGs that are good does not mean there is a market for JRPGs that are shit.

RustyRedHero said:
I'll tell you right away they'll last longer than most of the FPS games on the market right now. Call of Duty is going down the can, Battlefield's days are numbered, Battlefront is a joke, Destiny 2 might be interesting if they can keep their fanbase (Which is smaller than dark souls at this point), Halo has already gone down the toilet, and the other games are so far gone I actually can't remember them.
Click to expand...

It never ceases to be amusing when fanboys of complete garbage can't tolerate the huge success of games they can't stand the popularity of.
 
I was literally about to type that. Just about any Sid Meir game will stand the test of time.

Civilization is honestly one of the greatest games ever made.

Don't @ me.

^_^
 
Civilization III came out in 2001 and I still play it here and there.

The original intent of this thread was to determine what sort of gaming might survive 70 years into the future. I imagine most games would, given how technology can be stored and accessed any time. If someone has a mood for, they can play Halo 1, StarCraft, Dune, the original Command & Conquer from 1995, anything from the advent of the first arcades to the present day. I think it's more a question of "what sort of platform or medium will the future use to play these games" if anything. Now imagine Skyrim...in a Virtual Reality system. Or any FPS. I'm sure there will still be consoles and computers. Probably the Xbox 14 and the PS13. Or doubtless they will reset the branding back to just Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, etc. over and over again.

Now as for the popularity of games and titles, that is a different matter. Games with higher learning curves might have smaller fanbases, but I find the fans are far more dedicated than a game with many more casual gamers than hardcore ones. I for one prefer my games to be sadistic and difficult. The immersion factor is probably one of the main things I look for in a game and the harder it is, the more brainpower and focus you need to put in, is certainly proportional to the amount of fun I might have with it. Who can say how people down the line will view their games? It all depends on the specific individual.

I hope Dr. Nibbles you got the research you needed. I would simply state that with the future, everything and all things are probably possible.
 
No Pokemon? I'll be playing that until I die.

Also - Mario & Zelda!
 
Minxette. What is your deal? Must you constantly be that person to destroy fun conversation in this section? Everyone has an opinion. But who are you to bring eveyone elses down while stating your own? Ice is getting thinner and thinner.
 
SmokyKisses said:
Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest are hugely popular because they're great games.

The massive market for JRPGs that are good does not mean there is a market for JRPGs that are shit.
Click to expand...

A valid point, but the Persona series is not shit and neither is Souls, Persona has been around since the early 90s, and while Dark souls is a more recent francise at only about 10 years or so now, you can't deny that has a lot pull around the world.

SmokyKisses said:
It never ceases to be amusing when fanboys of complete garbage can't tolerate the huge success of games they can't stand the popularity of.
Click to expand...
This quote applies better to you than it does to me. I don't hate Call of Duty or Battlefield because of their popularity, or their fanbase. I was a member of that fanbase for many many years, but I recognize when a franchise has hit its prime and it struggles to get back that glory, CoD hit it with CoD4 and held that title for a few years with Black Ops and MW2, Battlefield did great with 4 and 1, which I still play from time to time (we don't talk about Hardline everyone agrees that game is hot garbage). Destiny comes closest but Activision doesn't have a good history with their fanbase when it comes to a series the fans actually care about. Now CoD is trying to bring back that glory with WW2, and all I see it as is a pointless money grab in BF1's direction. Profits don't make for a memorable game, much less a long lasting one.

For the record, I hate those games now because I got tired of playing the same formula over and over again. You can only play Street Fighter as Ken so many times before you want to try a new character, but when your only other option is Ryu, the game is the same, there's no challenge to it. You can't adapt to a new formula to get some refreshment out of the game, a new challenge that's worth undertaking. I get that from Dark souls just from switching weapons, much less new character builds, finding parts of the world that I missed before, a secret I missed, or an item I didn't know was available to me. It's just as re-playable as Skyrim, Fallout, and xcom.
 
To be fair for Dark Souls, it's an evolution of the Kings Fields games, which was around since 94. You'll find a fair amount of Kings Field in the souls series such as..

The Moonlight Greatsword
Seathe the scaleless
And a few other things.

Plus the kings field series has a big focus on exploration, slow and intimate combat, as well as the brooding/gloomy atmosphere of the souls series.

As for games that I think will stand the test of time?

The first super mario bros should, I feel. It's really the founding father of all platformers since it came out. The first level and theme for it is really easily recognizable as well.
 
If you're asking what games will still be playable in 70 years, I'm fairly confident the emulation scene will still be thriving, so... All of them.

If you're asking what games will still be being packaged and resold, tetris is a solid guess. Something resembling a fighting game will always exist, though names like 'Street Fighter' and such probably won't last. Strategy will probably exist in some form, too. I'm inclined to believe the turnbased/realtime split is here to stay, and even in 70 years, we'll have realtime wargames and slower, more 'board'-like games like Civ holding on, as well. Adventure, FPS, and RPG will likely be subsumed into one monolithic genre, controlled via some sort of VR apparatus.

I really doubt any of the current brands will still be around. Sony is the only one with a chance, and that's entirely because the company's major moneymaker is a bank.

There will always be salty bitches getting way too aggro about video games, though. A-L-W-A-Y-S.
 
Saber Arturia said:
To be fair for Dark Souls, it's an evolution of the Kings Fields games, which was around since 94. You'll find a fair amount of Kings Field in the souls series such as..

The Moonlight Greatsword
Seathe the scaleless
And a few other things.

Plus the kings field series has a big focus on exploration, slow and intimate combat, as well as the brooding/gloomy atmosphere of the souls series.
Click to expand...
Actually that's just a FromSoftware thing. Every one of their games references others, with the moonlight greatsword appearing every game, including the armored core series. Though I'll have to check out King's field.
 
I'm a tad confused by the question. Do you mean 'stand the test of time' as in they will still be remembered in 70+ years or do you mean they will 'stand the test of time' in terms of their actual playability (As in they'll still be fun for people even 70+ years into the future)?

Many classics will still be fun, even 70+ years from now. Namco, Capcom, Atari, Nintendo, etc classics are games that have aged exceedingly well and are, first and foremost, games. I feel many franchises now are trying way too hard and are beginning to really blend together in terms of identity. Also games that try to be 'an experience' don't tend to hold up, at least not in my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong and 70+ years from now games like Assassin's Creed, The Souls games and Halo/Destiny are the new Mario Bros in terms of 'classics'.
 
I play with my little relatives some games I played as a kid. In this family we use gameboys and stuff until they die ;)
I bet some kind of "realistic war game" will still exist.
 
Well designed puzzle games like Tetris, Picross, word games, etc. Technical capabilities and storytelling will change so much in 70 years, so I wouldn't bet on games dependent on those. Games that are simple, but complex and replayable, like chess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom