Consequentially no two games were ever the same.Īnother significant developer was Level 9 who created huge games using text compression. The other characters in the game also had some form of artificial intelligence, granting them the ability to wader around at random and move things around. The parser for this game was quite complex, allowing the player to pass instructions on to other characters. The first game to really start things going was Melbourne House's The Hobbit which, on some platforms, included crude graphics for some of the locations. Here in the UK there were a good number of such games published during the 8-bit micro boom of the early 1980s. There's a lot less of those these days since insane levels of difficulty cause most gamers to do a 180 right quick. Usually they were, in my opinion, of the insanely difficult and un-fun type of lousy. Sure, there were lousy games back then, just as there are now, but they were an entirely different kind of lousy. The truth is that games have changed considerably in the past 30 years. If you play using this minimal set of moves, you've neither truly played the game nor have you achieved a remotely good score. It's a game of exploration and treasure hunting. First off, Zork is by no means a violent gorefest. Just because somebody can do a speed run of Zork doesn't mean that's how you play. You really should have picked a better example for your rant, I'm afraid. Shortcuts, Mindless violence and the feeling of victory when you eventually 'win' - which lasts all of 20 seconds until it gives way to the hollow feeling of 'well, what now?'

The basics of gaming hasn't changed in over 30 years. Pretty much all the first person shooting games have this at their core.

Text based story games