>>2
QFT.
>>6
QFT, again.
>>12
They started sucking in '98, so no.
>>13
Selling better does not mean better quality. All it means is better marketing. And you have to be elite before you can be an elitist. You're just sore that you're constantly proven wrong again and again by veterans of the scene.
>>14
Hardly. These days I see maybe only 4 or 5 games a year that I would even consider buying. And besides, playing the same old games again and again does get old eventually, the difference is the old games are more fun while they last and they last longer. Even if we want something new now and again that doesn't mean we think the new stuff is just as good. It's just something different.
>>15
Just as many people had jobs back in the "golden age," the difference is games were nerdy, not mainstream. Those were the good days because developers were just as nerdy if not nerdier than us gamers and really cared about what they were doing beyond the possibility of making money. The money was a means to make the games, not the other way around. A lot of developers these days use games as a means to make money and put no heart into their work and producers get involved and make things even worse, and those few developer teams that do care about what they're doing rarely get a chance to make something that stands out because producers don't want to sponsor a team that isn't hell-bent on making them money. 2 has the right idea, we need to get distributors and producers out of the picture and support more indie developers.