Old games = fun . . . Today's games = boring

Most people agree that achievements are a positive addition to the medium but for somebody like you, who's obviously hell bent on deriding the current state of gaming, it's no surprise you find them to be a negative thing.Grammaton-Cleric

I have no problem with achievements. I was simply pointing out that they are a cheap way of extending playtime to games. As for being hell bent, I could say that you're hell bent on deriding old games. The fact is we have a difference of opinion here. That's what having a debate is all about. Nobody is hell bent on anything here. We're having a discussion.

The reality is that your opinion is in the vast minority because it's not particularly compelling. I grew up in your mythical golden age and most of those games are damn near unplayable today because the medium has progressed so far since then. Even the best games of that era have been matched and surpassed, at times to such a degree that the originals are rendered obsolete.Grammaton-Cleric

I didn't expect to be in the majority here. After all gaming didn't become mainstream until the Playstation hit the scene, and didn't become bigger than the movie industry until this gen. However bigger isn't always better. It's convenient being in the majority, since you get little opposition and most people agree with you. I'm here to offer an alternate point of view for anyone willing to listen. As for the best games of that era having been matched and surpassed, can you name which new games have matched and surpassed these titles? I'll stick to the most well known games here and keep it short.

Chrono Trigger

Final Fantasy IV, VI, VII

Mario 3, SMW, SMW2, 64

Mega Man 2, 3, 4, X

Sonic 1, 2, 3

Zelda: LttP, OoT

If every new game you play reeks of boredom then the problem isn't with the medium but rather yourself.Grammaton-Cleric

Ok, let me ask you and others here something. What is so fun about spending 90% of your time running around looking for things and going on fetch quests? How does that challenge your play skill and offer real gameplay? I explained in my original post why I think new games are so boring and no one has addressed any of those points yet. For me new games have lost something, something that old games have that new games lack. That's why to me new games are relatively boring which is why I say they reek of boredom. It's not nostalgia either. I've been playing many old games that I never played as a kid and they are more fun than today's games. They are simple, to the point and full of nonstop gameplay.

Seriously people, it's not about nostalgia. Look at my original arguments and comment on them. Maybe then I could understand your perspectives better. Thank you.

IMO it's more like old games = days of fun at least if not more. today's games = pass it in a day easily. I HATE THIS.

Ok, let me ask you and others here something. What is so fun about spending 90% of your time running around looking for things and going on fetch quests? How does that challenge your play skill and offer real gameplay? I explained in my original post why I think new games are so boring and no one has addressed any of those points yet. For me new games have lost something, something that old games have that new games lack. That's why to me new games are relatively boring which is why I say they reek of boredom. It's not nostalgia either. I've been playing many old games that I never played as a kid and they are more fun than today's games. They are simple, to the point and full of nonstop gameplay.

Seriously people, it's not about nostalgia. Look at my original arguments and comment on them. Maybe then I could understand your perspectives better. Thank you.

Tauu

You implied that arcade racers no longer exist (Burnout, Motorstorm, Wipeout, PURE and countless other racers says 'hi'),complainedthat thegameplay in modern rpgs was too demanding and that you longed for the button mashing of old (I've been a jrpg fan since Phantasy Star 1 and I want gameplay to engage my attention), stated modern games are fetch quests devoid of action (a description which might concievably fit a few of the thousands of games on the market, but which certainly doesn't fit most games, let alone the better ones) and that conservatism in game design was something new (I've been gaming for 31 years and all 31 years only a few games in a given year have been innovative).

Speaking as a gamer who truly enjoys originality (as opposed to one who merely uses it as a rhetorical weapon) this gen has been wonderful for originality due to the advent of PSN and XBL (which gives independent developers an avenue to develop on consoles) and the continued willingness of publishers to support innovative games such as LBP, Mirror's Edge, Okami, Valkyria Chronicles, Persona 3, Noby Noby Boy, Viva Pinata and Demon's Souls.

*Shrugs* But few of the people who complain about a lack of improvement and innovation are actually interested in improvement and innovation, most are just blinded by nostalgia. I enjoyed FF7, it has a permanent place in my collection and I credit it for mainstreaming rpgs on consoles(thequality and quantity or rpgs post-FF7 improved radically because the competition in the suddenly lucrative market was intense), but those who place it on a pedestal are just not seeing clearly. The likes of say, Vagrant Story, Persona 3 and 4, SMT: Nocturne, Suikoden 2, Shadow Hearts: Covenant, Dark Cloud 2, FF8, FFX, FFX2 and FF12 (the spiritual sequel to Vagrant Story) all improved in signifigant ways on FF7.

But don't let my reality check get to you. If wearing blinkers and sticking with old games makes you happy, go with it.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I have no problem with achievements. I was simply pointing out that they are a cheap way of extending playtime to games. As for being hell bent, I could say that you're hell bent on deriding old games. The fact is we have a difference of opinion here. That's what having a debate is all about. Nobody is hell bent on anything here. We're having a discussion.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

The reality is that your opinion is in the vast minority because it's not particularly compelling. I grew up in your mythical golden age and most of those games are damn near unplayable today because the medium has progressed so far since then. Even the best games of that era have been matched and surpassed, at times to such a degree that the originals are rendered obsolete.Tauu

I didn't expect to be in the majority here. After all gaming didn't become mainstream until the Playstation hit the scene, and didn't become bigger than the movie industry until this gen. However bigger isn't always better. It's convenient being in the majority, since you get little opposition and most people agree with you. I'm here to offer an alternate point of view for anyone willing to listen. As for the best games of that era having been matched and surpassed, can you name which new games have matched and surpassed these titles? I'll stick to the most well known games here and keep it short.

Chrono Trigger

Final Fantasy IV, VI, VII

Mario 3, SMW, SMW2, 64

Mega Man 2, 3, 4, X

Sonic 1, 2, 3

Zelda: LttP, OoT

If every new game you play reeks of boredom then the problem isn't with the medium but rather yourself.Grammaton-Cleric

Ok, let me ask you and others here something. What is so fun about spending 90% of your time running around looking for things and going on fetch quests? How does that challenge your play skill and offer real gameplay? I explained in my original post why I think new games are so boring and no one has addressed any of those points yet. For me new games have lost something, something that old games have that new games lack. That's why to me new games are relatively boring which is why I say they reek of boredom. It's not nostalgia either. I've been playing many old games that I never played as a kid and they are more fun than today's games. They are simple, to the point and full of nonstop gameplay.

Seriously people, it's not about nostalgia. Look at my original arguments and comment on them. Maybe then I could understand your perspectives better. Thank you.

Ok, let me ask you and others here something. What is so fun about spending 90% of your time running around looking for things and going on fetch quests? How does that challenge your play skill and offer real gameplay? I explained in my original post why I think new games are so boring and no one has addressed any of those points yet. For me new games have lost something, something that old games have that new games lack. That's why to me new games are relatively boring which is why I say they reek of boredom. It's not nostalgia either. I've been playing many old games that I never played as a kid and they are more fun than today's games. They are simple, to the point and full of nonstop gameplay.

Seriously people, it's not about nostalgia. Look at my original arguments and comment on them. Maybe then I could understand your perspectives better. Thank you.

Tauu

Again, your personal preferences are not an objective standard of quality, so stop trying to force your negative views of modern day gaming on our backs. I've seen your original arguments, they were poorly made and soundly defeated. Move on, whatever your goal here was, you lost. Miserably. You're like some guy who hates sports who shows up at the world series, and bought tickets specifically to stand in the middle of the crowds and yell about how much baseball sucks, you're just raining on everyone's parade because you're bitter that everyone else is having a great time. It's not our fault, fella, and it's not the industries fault. It's simply waning interest in the modern day version of a hobby, not exactly a mid life crisis.

[QUOTE="krazy_guy931"]

let me just put it this way...

the most challenging game of all, is the game that never ends.

Gammit10

You mean Pitfall?

no not pitfall, never really liked that game.

the game i was mainly thinking about when i wrote that was R.C. Pro-Am. i loved that game and wasalways pushing myself to see how far i could go without losing after you "beat the game" and start the same tracks over with the CPU cars being...not impossible...but extremely hard to beat.you were always using up your ammo on them and trying not to run out, cause if you do, your pretty much screwed lol. that to me is a good challenge.

[QUOTE="Tauu"]

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I didn't expect to be in the majority here. After all gaming didn't become mainstream until the Playstation hit the scene, and didn't become bigger than the movie industry until this gen. However bigger isn't always better. It's convenient being in the majority, since you get little opposition and most people agree with you. I'm here to offer an alternate point of view for anyone willing to listen. As for the best games of that era having been matched and surpassed, can you name which new games have matched and surpassed these titles? I'll stick to the most well known games here and keep it short.

Chrono Trigger

Final Fantasy IV, VI, VII

Mario 3, SMW, SMW2, 64

Mega Man 2, 3, 4, X

Sonic 1, 2, 3

Zelda: LttP, OoT

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

If every new game you play reeks of boredom then the problem isn't with the medium but rather yourself.ASK_Story

Ok, let me ask you and others here something. What is so fun about spending 90% of your time running around looking for things and going on fetch quests? How does that challenge your play skill and offer real gameplay? I explained in my original post why I think new games are so boring and no one has addressed any of those points yet. For me new games have lost something, something that old games have that new games lack. That's why to me new games are relatively boring which is why I say they reek of boredom. It's not nostalgia either. I've been playing many old games that I never played as a kid and they are more fun than today's games. They are simple, to the point and full of nonstop gameplay.

Seriously people, it's not about nostalgia. Look at my original arguments and comment on them. Maybe then I could understand your perspectives better. Thank you.

I was about to say just that. FFVII, Zelda,Chrono Trigger andMario 64 all involve searching, and even Mario 64 had a few cutscenes.

But I disagree with you in your statement about FFVII. It has a highly strategic value to it, and that strategy IS the gameplay. Same goes for franchises like Front Mission, Dragon Quest, those new Yu-Gi-Oh games, etc. They're turn-based strategy games.

the game i was mainly thinking about when i wrote that was R.C. Pro-Am. i loved that game and wasalways pushing myself to see how far i could go without losing after you "beat the game" and start the same tracks over with the CPU cars being...not impossible...but extremely hard to beat.you were always using up your ammo on them and trying not to run out, cause if you do, your pretty much screwed lol. that to me is a good challenge.krazy_guy931

Should everyone stop listening to old music and embrace today's hip hop and dance? After all, it's new, popular, enjoys big sales and is more technologically advanced. It's more evolved, so it's gotta be better than all older music right?Tauu

Burton's Batman and claim it holds its own with Nolan's The Dark Knight.Grammaton-Cleric

I really can't stand this type of thinking.

Most old games had terrible stories, akward controls and a myraid of technical issues that led to cheap deaths. So many super hardcore g@mers out there think they are so cool when they beat Contra without the cheats, but fail to realize that doing so quite literally requires dumb luck. yes, some older games have stood the test of time and still feel fresh even today. Chronotrigger comes to mind. But lets face facts, gaming has come a long way and gotten a lot better over the years.

Seriously people, it's not about nostalgia. Look at my original arguments and comment on them. Maybe then I could understand your perspectives better. Thank you.

Tauu

I wanted to take a moment and address this specifically, since you keep employing this cheap, low-brow tactic and it's becoming laborious to even converse with you.

I and many others have specifically addressed your points, arguments that by the way were not particularly well thought out to begin with. Your initial post reads like a blog and your "arguments" are nothing more substantial than personal musing backed up by your own incredibly myopic observations. You have not presented an argument that is concise nor well-defined so you need to quit insisting that people are not addressing your arguments when in fact they have done a much better jobof clarifying their respective positions than you have, at least thus far.

[QUOTE="Tauu"]Should everyone stop listening to old music and embrace today's hip hop and dance? After all, it's new, popular, enjoys big sales and is more technologically advanced. It's more evolved, so it's gotta be better than all older music right?UpInFlames

Burton's Batman and claim it holds its own with Nolan's The Dark Knight.Grammaton-Cleric

Oh my god, I'm quite literally about to burst with counter arguments! :P

Seriously, PM me if you want to discuss the issue further because as a long-time reader of the comics I'd actually assert that Burton's Batman got just about everything wrong.

I didn't expect to be in the majority here. After all gaming didn't become mainstream until the Playstation hit the scene, and didn't become bigger than the movie industry until this gen. However bigger isn't always better. It's convenient being in the majority, since you get little opposition and most people agree with you. I'm here to offer an alternate point of view for anyone willing to listen. As for the best games of that era having been matched and surpassed, can you name which new games have matched and surpassed these titles? I'll stick to the most well known games here and keep it short.

Chrono Trigger

Final Fantasy IV, VI, VII

Mario 3, SMW, SMW2, 64

Mega Man 2, 3, 4, X

Sonic 1, 2, 3

Zelda: LttP, OoT

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

If every new game you play reeks of boredom then the problem isn't with the medium but rather yourself.Tauu

Ok, let me ask you and others here something. What is so fun about spending 90% of your time running around looking for things and going on fetch quests? How does that challenge your play skill and offer real gameplay? I explained in my original post why I think new games are so boring and no one has addressed any of those points yet. For me new games have lost something, something that old games have that new games lack. That's why to me new games are relatively boring which is why I say they reek of boredom. It's not nostalgia either. I've been playing many old games that I never played as a kid and they are more fun than today's games. They are simple, to the point and full of nonstop gameplay.

Seriously people, it's not about nostalgia. Look at my original arguments and comment on them. Maybe then I could understand your perspectives better. Thank you.

I just going to bullet point my counter-arguments.

- How am I "hell bent on deriding old games" when I've mentioned several older games are among my favorites? That assertion is illogical.

- Being a minority in terms of an opinion is fine when you actually know what you are talking about but frankly, I have serious doubts that your own exposure to this mediumhas been all that substantial. I specifically mentioned several games that cater more towards the type of experience you claim to adore but you have yet to address those titles. The reality is that having a divergent opinion doesn't automatically imbue your arguments with viability or make you a visionary. This whole issue may be rooted in the subjective but if you expect to be taken seriously your arguments must at least be rooted in something firmer than your own opinions, especially when many of your observations regarding contemporary gaming have been proven false. (For example, you haven't illustrated how achievements artificially expand a game's length considering they are ancillary to the actual gameplay.)

- I really have no idea what you are referring to when you claim contemporary games waste "90% of your time running around looking for things and going on fetch quests." Fetch quests have been a fundamental part of gaming since the 80's and in fact the application of the fetch quest has actually waned in recent years. To be fair, many games do have you looking for specific objects and or people but older games were actually much worse at abusing this convention. If anything, current games have a tendency to offer much brisker pacing and less repetition, even within those genres where fetch quests are more prominent. Regardless, the notion thatcurrent games are comprised mostly of fetch quests is a ridiculous statement rooted in nothing more substantial than your own hyperbolic assertions. If anything, your comment suggests that you haven't played all that many contemporary titles.

- As to your list of games, there is one point to consider: Certain titles are so well made that they transcend their respective eras and remain a part of the contemporary lexicon. That fact alone doesn't prove that today's games are any worse but rather illustrates just how good those particular games were then and remain today. There are plenty of current gen titles that gamers will be playing and talking about twenty years from now.

Regardless, I'll happily address your list to further define my stance.

Chrono Trigger - I actually haven't played this game because I have no enthusiasm for the genre, specifically most JPN RPG's. Regardless, there are plenty of RPG enthusiasts who would agree this is one of the best but so too are there many who could name off various examples of games they consider just as good.

Final Fantasy IV, VI, VII - The quality of these games is actually hotly debated among genre fans. I personally think there are a number of RPG's that are actually better games overall, including Fallout 3 and Oblivion. Truth be told, contemporary RPG's are actually offering up much more freedom and customization options because of improved technology, making this genre one that continues to grow exponentially.

Mario 3, SMW, SMW2, 64 - Super Mario Galaxy can holds its own with any previous Mario Bros. game, as evidenced by the critical and commercial response it enjoyed upon release. I would actually argue that SMG is superior to M64 even when taking into account how seminal the latter was when initially released.

Mega Man 2, 3, 4, X - As evidenced by Mega Man 9, this entire series is a love-it-or-hate it affair and certainly not the best example of something that outclasses today's titles. I spent many years playing these games and while they have their charm they are also in many ways clumsy, clunky and difficult to the point of lacking much of a fun factor. In short, these games don't hold up nearly as well today as you might think.

Sonic 1, 2, 3 - Little Big Planet has as much charm as any Sonic game ever possessed and on top of that LBP is a technically brilliant game that has an indefinite lifespan because of the generous creation mode. I would also assert that BRAID could easily match anything seen and done in the platforming genre, not to mention the Ratchet and Clank games and last year's Banjo: Nuts and Bolts are all serious contenders.

Zelda: LttP, OoT - LttP is actually my favorite Zelda but regardless there are a few action/adventure titles that can hold their own, specifically Fable II.

What's interesting to note is that your own definition of this alleged golden age is ambiguous; you cite games that were released during the 32/64 era, which persisted well into 2000. That means you think the era of quality ended with the arrival of the Dreamcast and the PS2, an odd position to take considering that the PS2 era, along with the XB and the CG, facilitated some of the best games ever made. It's also unusual that you would venerate the PS1/N64 era because those games, which employed archaic 3D technology, have probably aged worse than any other generation. In most cases, the conventions employed in N64/PS1 games were greatly improved upon during the PS2 era, making your cutoff seem illogical. There is a significant jump in quality from the 64 era to the PS2 era; we even see certain franchises, like MGS and RE, release iterations that far surpass the originals.

Having read your arguments, it would seem to me that what you are actually advocating is stagnation. You personally want games to stick to established patterns and not deviate from a construct and those accompanying norms you feel are perfect. Because no art form in history has ever ceased evolving, you've decided to label all games after a certain point as lacking in merit because they don't appeal to your own myopic sense of quality. I've actually heard such arguments before, specifically from 1980's arcade gamers like Billy Mitchell who downplay today's crop of titles because the medium outgrew them and their rigid sensibilities. Whatever it is you want from gaming, it clearly isn't going to be found in anything post 1999. You have such an inflexible, unflinching dislike of contemporary gaming that I sincerely doubt you would even admit to loving something newer for fear of diluting your own well-established position. In your mind, this medium has reached it's apex and until you rid yourself of such a limiting methodology you will never appreciate what's right in front of you.

Like I stated previously, the issue isn't the medium but rather you. I've been gaming as long as you, I've played the bulk of all these classics, and yet I find myself continually amazed by what developers are creating today. Personally, I don't understand how somebody could play a game like InFamous or Batman: AA and not be impressed but frankly, the loss is yours. I can cherish the past but I also look forward to the future where by contrast you are quite literally stuck in the past with no choice but to lament a golden age that never existed. My advice is to cut your losses, play your "classics", and don't spend another dime on new games because quite frankly, you've already decided that nothing will ever be as good as thosetitles you've placed on a pedestal.

Frankly. if it was up to people like you, we as a society would never get to see any medium evolve past a certain point.

There's never a dull moment. Gameplay is nonstop fun, level designs are clever and artistic, and the sound effects and music have you turning up the stereo loud. Racing games are unrealistic but so what? They're way more entertaining with a much greater sense of speed. RPGs are simpler and put you into the battles quickly without the need for tutorials and overly complicated battle mechanics.

Today way too much developement effort is invested in graphics, animation, voice acting and special effects. None of those things have anything to do with gameplay. Gameplay seems like an afterthought these days, like the main purpose of playing modern games is to be in awe over the graphics and the whole movie-like experience that you get. It's like you're going through an exhibit, a demonstration of what modern technology is capable of. The gameplay itself is slow, repetitive and easy. With all that it costs to produce these behemoths, developers are forced to stick with proven formulas to avoid disasterous losses. Therefore the same games are released over and over and over again. There's no room for creativity and interesting game design anymore. What a mess!

Older games don't have all that extra fat weighing them down,

Tauu

I just don't know how to respond to this in a way that Grammaton hasn't already. It sounds like you enjoy your games as one-dimensional and static experiences. Man, now that I think on it, I can't remember playing a "slow, repetitive, and easy" game like Ninja Gaiden.

Or do you believe that the gaming world revolves still around Japan?

Back when I first made an account here, I would actually post long arguments in threads like this about how the people who hate on newer games are the video game equivalent of the guy who tells kids walking by to get off his lawn, but I just couldn't do it anymore. You post a rational argument and they will fight it with nonsense and fallacies.

Basically, all I wanted to saw was thank you for fighting the good fight Grammaton. Today, you are truly the hero of the internets.

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"]

I hated Fester's Quest and Blaster Master gave me nightmares. Otherwise, that's a really good post.

Grammaton-Cleric

Fester's Quest is damn-near unbeatable.

I loved Blaster Master as a kid but that game, like most Sunsoft titles, was insanely difficult.

And thanks for the kind words.

Yes, thank you for reminding us how old our generation of gamers have become Gram. Oh, and by the way, I did beat Fester's Quest. It's Blaster Master I couldn't get through.

Back when I first made an account here, I would actually post long arguments in threads like this about how the people who hate on newer games are the video game equivalent of the guy who tells kids walking by to get off his lawn, but I just couldn't do it anymore. You post a rational argument and they will fight it with nonsense and fallacies.

Basically, all I wanted to saw was thank you for fighting the good fight Grammaton. Today, you are truly the hero of the internets.

AtomicTangerine

B-b-bu-bu-but calling out newer games makes me feel so unique!:cry:

There are both old great games (classics) and new great games from the next-gen that will be classics in the future, if you can't enjoy the new games then you'll miss the classic old games from the future :P

I like both, but mostly from 1998 to date

There are both old great games (classics) and new great games from the next-gen that will be classics in the future, if you can't enjoy the new games then you'll miss the classic old games from the future :P

I like both, but mostly from 1998 to date

NightStein

You just reminded me that it is only a matter of time before Nickelback is considered classic rock. God help us.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Canvas_Of_Flesh"]

I hated Fester's Quest and Blaster Master gave me nightmares. Otherwise, that's a really good post.

MarcusAntonius

Fester's Quest is damn-near unbeatable.

I loved Blaster Master as a kid but that game, like most Sunsoft titles, was insanely difficult.

And thanks for the kind words.

Yes, thank you for reminding us how old our generation of gamers have become Gram. Oh, and by the way, I did beat Fester's Quest. It's Blaster Master I couldn't get through.

That's pretty impressive. You must have literally refused to give up. (or you've been playing it for the last 20 years and you just finally beat the game.);)

As to Blaster Master...it was fun 20 years ago.Were I to play it today, I'd probably tolerate it for about 5 minutes.

I never really thought about it until I read what you just wrote. Of course I have fond memories of playing older games but I just attributed it to nostalgia. After readin the points you made, it's all become a bit more clear. As much fun as I have playing games today, can't really compare to the way thing used to be.

Great post!

[QUOTE="krazy_guy931"]

yup i do. and does NES have more gamplay over graphics? yes. does SNES have more gameplay over graphics? yes. even N64 has more gameplay over graphics. plus if we are jus gamers with opinions, why are you making such a big deal about this? hmm?

warmaster670

No, it really doesnt, nes doesnt have gameplay or graphics, and it doesnt have good gameplay BECASUE of its graphics, graphics engines are the backbone of gameplay.

Liking old games is one thing, but trying to say the NES, which in reality sucked pretty hard, is better than new games, is just sad.

This is also coming froma retro gamer, whos has played more nes/snes games than probably 95% of the people here.

So....games like Tetris, SMB3, and Mega Man all sucked because they had sucky graphics? In the future your favorite current game will automatically suck because in comparison to a game 10 years from now, it's graphics will be laughable?

I prefer most retro games to modern games because I like 2d platformers. And Nes/snes was the age of 2D platformers. Today is basically the age of FPS', a genre I despise.

I think it's all honky dory if someone prefers retro over modern, or modern over retro. But I think it's silly when someone says "All retro games sucked because they had bad graphics" or "all modern games suck because they're too easy!"

Since I personally suck at video games, I actually enjoy todays products, but I can totally understand the difficulty factor if that is a primary concern of yours.

jjtiebuckle

The problem is that the OP doesn't even seem aware of newer games that also offer high levels of difficulty. Ikaruga, Bionic Commando: Rearmed, Ninja Gaiden Black, Sigma, II and Sigma II, Demon Souls, etc.

The challenges are there for those informed enough to find them.

Also, the OP doesn't seem to admit that nostalgia is the factor for his feelings. Why do I say this? Look at the games he listed. Don't you think most of us here also loved those games and consider them as some of the best ever made?

But for us, we still enjoy the games of today and feel that games have gotten better than ever. And it's improving even more.

Here's the real reason: the OP isn't into games anymore and now he's just reminiscing on the good old days. It's not because older games are better. It's because his experience during his childhood are memories that he holds more fondly. Because it doesn't feel the same today, doesn't mean that today games are worse. I can't believe the OP doesn't admit this.

It's nostalgia like I keep saying. If the OP just simply feels that he likes older games better and can't get into the newer stuff, that's fine. It's his opinion and we should respect that. It's like how some people hate western games but only like Japanese made games. There's nothing wrong with that. It's all personal taste. But what the OP says is that he insists that older games are better and that the newer games are not as good. He makes it sound like he's right and we're all wrong.

That's where the OP is wrong.

The fact is that nobody is right because it's all opinions.

I like new games!AnthonyAlessand

Tauu warned you in advance that this was a retro rant, so be easy on him guys.

I remember during the 32bit PS1 days when everyone loved the 3D graphics. I didn't like them because everything looked blurry and drab.

Today, most people will admit that those old PS1 games look bad, and that the 16bit games aged better.

I look at the 3D games of today and I see the same thing, I see graphics that will age. You'll see what I mean in 15 years. Grammaton admits that his favorite Zelda is Zelda 3, so I'm sure he understands the general viewpoint of Tauu.

The best way to make Grammaton understand Tauu's point is through the Zelda 3 example. After all the new Zeldas, Grammaton still feels that the best one is the SNES one. Case closed, Tauu is not crazy.

Tauu warned you in advance that this was a retro rant, so be easy on him guys.

I remember during the 32bit PS1 days when everyone loved the 3D graphics. I didn't like them because everything looked blurry and drab.

Today, most people will admit that those old PS1 games look bad, and that the 16bit games aged better.

I look at the 3D games of today and I see the same thing, I see graphics that will age. You'll see what I mean in 15 years. Grammaton admits that his favorite Zelda is Zelda 3, so I'm sure he understands the general viewpoint of Tauu.

The best way to make Grammaton understand Tauu's point is through the Zelda 3 example. After all the new Zeldas, Grammaton still feels that the best one is the SNES one. Case closed, Tauu is not crazy.

Rizla_Plus

Case closed? You should probably go read my posts again because you have missed my points completely and utterly.

My affinity for Zelda: Link to the Past doesn't prove his point at all but rather enforces my own stance which is that people like the OP who spout off this retro-gamingrhetoric generally seem to forget the actual state of affairs as they existed during this alleged golden age of gaming. Classics will always transcend technology because they are timeless but that doesn't change the fact that some of the best games ever made are contemporary titles.

As to your comment about graphics looking dated, we've reached a point where games are going to retain a certain graphical viability even as technology progresses. Last generation games like God of War, MGS3, and Ninja Gaiden have retained their graphical quality and current-gen titles like Uncharted and Batman: AA will look solid years from now, even as technology evolves. Like its 2D counterpart, 3D visuals have reached a point where the emphasis has become one of refinement, which is why a game like Ninja Gaiden or MGS4 will still look good ten years from now even though 3D graphics will continue to improve. An apt comparison would be the visuals of a game like Ghouls N' Ghosts or Earthworm Jim versus Odin Sphere, Muramasa or Blue Blaze. The older games still look good but further refinements make contemporary 3D look even better. The same thing is finally happening to 3D.

Lastly, please understand that my own statements have nothing to do with misunderstanding the issue at hand. As a point of fact, I've demonstrated repeatedly that I understand the arguments and counter-arguments of this particular debate far better than the OP and, judging by your post, far better than you. There is no subject, concept or theory within this medium that you can personally illuminate for me, evidenced by your post.

So no, the OP isn't crazy but he remains myopic and his arguments remain a shinning example of fallacious reasoning.

.

I'm amused at the horrid logic being thrown around which outlandishly concludes that it's Grammaton who needs to be made to understand.

And what's this stuff about how most people agree that 16-bit games have aged better than 32-bit games?:? Where is the proof? Based off what standard?

Tauu warned you in advance that this was a retro rant, so be easy on him guys.

I remember during the 32bit PS1 days when everyone loved the 3D graphics. I didn't like them because everything looked blurry and drab.

Today, most people will admit that those old PS1 games look bad, and that the 16bit games aged better.

I look at the 3D games of today and I see the same thing, I see graphics that will age. You'll see what I mean in 15 years. Grammaton admits that his favorite Zelda is Zelda 3, so I'm sure he understands the general viewpoint of Tauu.

The best way to make Grammaton understand Tauu's point is through the Zelda 3 example. After all the new Zeldas, Grammaton still feels that the best one is the SNES one. Case closed, Tauu is not crazy.

Rizla_Plus

Not at all. As a matter of fact, there are 2D games from this era that completely blow away pretty much every game from the 16-bit gen graphically, like BlazBlue, Guilty Gear, Muramasa, and Omega 5.

If what you're saying is true that today's graphics will look dated 15 years from now, just imagine how ancient your 'pretty' looking 16 bit games will be, seeing how 2D graphics by then will have progressed by leaps and bounds. :P

grammaton's replies are always harsh, it's like a sensitive thing for him or something. Calm down dude.

I'm quite aware that most games made on the old systems were shovelware, each time I went to someone's house and they had an 8bit Nintendo, it was always the bad games they had. It was not acceptable. But it's not any better now, it really isn't.

Most 3d games have no heart. Their made for the wrong reasons, they feel very macho, their violent, their games for sexually insecure homophobes.

And it's not just the games: Red ring of death? Firmwares screwing up the fan? Buggy games that need DLCs? It's a disaster. Can you blame Tauu for feeling the way he does, be easy on him.

Most people agree that this gen is the worst we've ever had. So new is not always better.

You remind me of people who say Citizen Kane sucks because it's in black&white. I think it aged very well.

The Zelda example: When I played Twilight princess, it never felt like the game ever wanted to start, just reading, and more reading, and a mini game, and more reading...

Zelda 3 starts right away, and its tense with the rain and everything. It had great pacing.

So I know quite well what Tauu is talking about, It's you who never really replied to his arguments. What Tauu is saying is that he's sick of games that hold back the gaming.

Zelda 3 > Muramasa (after all these years)

Mario 3 > Muramasa (after all these years)

That's all we're trying to say, so take a chill pill.

Why is it so hard for devs today to make a better 2d game than Mario 3?

[QUOTE="Tauu"]

Seriously people, it's not about nostalgia. Look at my original arguments and comment on them. Maybe then I could understand your perspectives better. Thank you.

Grammaton-Cleric

I wanted to take a moment and address this specifically, since you keep employing this cheap, low-brow tactic and it's becoming laborious to even converse with you.

I and many others have specifically addressed your points, arguments that by the way were not particularly well thought out to begin with. Your initial post reads like a blog and your "arguments" are nothing more substantial than personal musing backed up by your own incredibly myopic observations. You have not presented an argument that is concise nor well-defined so you need to quit insisting that people are not addressing your arguments when in fact they have done a much better jobof clarifying their respective positions than you have, at least thus far.

You say that you want to address his point specifically, but then you insult him instead by saying: "your arguments are nothing more substantial than personal musing backed up by your own incredibly myopic observations."

You posted a message just to insult him!

edited for spelling

Most 3d games have no heart. Their made for the wrong reasons, they feel very macho, their violent, their games for sexually insecure homophobes.Rizla_Plus

Well as they say, "To each their own.". Personally I'm enjoying gaming these days more then I ever have. I still enjoy picking up and playing some of the classics but I get way more fun out of playing the stuff they put out now. The amount of high-quality top-notch games developers put out nowadays really impresses me.

Archangel3371

[QUOTE="Rizla_Plus"]Most 3d games have no heart. Their made for the wrong reasons, they feel very macho, their violent, their games for sexually insecure homophobes.muthsera666

[QUOTE="muthsera666"][QUOTE="Rizla_Plus"]Most 3d games have no heart. Their made for the wrong reasons, they feel very macho, their violent, their games for sexually insecure homophobes.SteelAttack

wait....I like both modern and classic games so does that mean I am a sexually insecure homophobe who is also secure in my sexuality and have great platform timing ( thank you sonic)........I am sooooo confused 8)

To get back on topic, anyone who can say they still like 16 bit graphics with a straight face deserves a medal. I still play the odd 16 bit game ( I have given my list in a previous post in this thread) and even though I still like the game play, the graphics are farely crappy in comparison to games like fallout 3 and even Ratchet and Clank and Jak and Dexter on the PS2.

Though I will say they to not look as haggered and old as the first 3 games, Sonic 3D is unplayable for me for many reasons but most of all the graphics

Retro gamers= Past glorifying losers

If you dont like any video games of today, you just dont like video games.

grammaton's replies are always harsh, it's like a sensitive thing for him or something. Calm down dude.

I'm quite aware that most games made on the old systems were shovelware, each time I went to someone's house and they had an 8bit Nintendo, it was always the bad games they had. It was not acceptable. But it's not any better now, it really isn't.

Most 3d games have no heart. Their made for the wrong reasons, they feel very macho, their violent, their games for sexually insecure homophobes.

And it's not just the games: Red ring of death? Firmwares screwing up the fan? Buggy games that need DLCs? It's a disaster. Can you blame Tauu for feeling the way he does, be easy on him.

Most people agree that this gen is the worst we've ever had. So new is not always better.

You remind me of people who say Citizen Kane sucks because it's in black&white. I think it aged very well.

The Zelda example: When I played Twilight princess, it never felt like the game ever wanted to start, just reading, and more reading, and a mini game, and more reading...

Zelda 3 starts right away, and its tense with the rain and everything. It had great pacing.

So I know quite well what Tauu is talking about, It's you who never really replied to his arguments. What Tauu is saying is that he's sick of games that hold back the gaming.

Zelda 3 > Muramasa (after all these years)

Mario 3 > Muramasa (after all these years)

That's all we're trying to say, so take a chill pill.

Why is it so hard for devs today to make a better 2d game than Mario 3?

Rizla_Plus

What you're not getting is that you're talking in circles, repeating the same nonsensical claims again and again while expecting a different result. How's that working for you? I for one am not bashing retro games, I still play them, but to flatly claim that today's games are boring is an opinion that is worthy enough to be called wrong.

I see you've switched tactics by the way. Now you're bringing in hardware defects (which is beyond the scope of this discussion) to shore up your arguments while bringing up hit classics to compare against today's lowest common denominators like Muramasa. Disingenuousness will get you nowhere with me.

I disagree wholeheartedly and recommend taking off the rose-tinted goggles.

There are so many more quality games coming out these days that there literally isn't enough time in a day to enjoy them all. Nostalgia plays a huge role in making people think retro games are "more fun" than modern games. I enjoy many games from various generations, but as time goes on, games get better.

Hell, I'm playing Ocarina of Time right now, and despite it being fun and an amazing N64 game, The Wind Waker and Twilight Princess are technically better games (I haven't played Majora's Mask yet). Sure, Twilight Princess is basically Ocarina of Time 2, that's not a bad thing... it improves quite a bit on everything in Ocarina and adds quite a bit of great things.

grammaton's replies are always harsh, it's like a sensitive thing for him or something. Calm down dude.

I'm quite aware that most games made on the old systems were shovelware, each time I went to someone's house and they had an 8bit Nintendo, it was always the bad games they had. It was not acceptable. But it's not any better now, it really isn't.

Most 3d games have no heart. Their made for the wrong reasons, they feel very macho, their violent, their games for sexually insecure homophobes.

And it's not just the games: Red ring of death? Firmwares screwing up the fan? Buggy games that need DLCs? It's a disaster. Can you blame Tauu for feeling the way he does, be easy on him.

Most people agree that this gen is the worst we've ever had. So new is not always better.

You remind me of people who say Citizen Kane sucks because it's in black&white. I think it aged very well.

The Zelda example: When I played Twilight princess, it never felt like the game ever wanted to start, just reading, and more reading, and a mini game, and more reading...

Zelda 3 starts right away, and its tense with the rain and everything. It had great pacing.

So I know quite well what Tauu is talking about, It's you who never really replied to his arguments. What Tauu is saying is that he's sick of games that hold back the gaming.

Zelda 3 > Muramasa (after all these years)

Mario 3 > Muramasa (after all these years)

That's all we're trying to say, so take a chill pill.

Why is it so hard for devs today to make a better 2d game than Mario 3?

Rizla_Plus

So much bitterness I sense in you.

Hold your horses, I believe that some of today's games can be amazing, so relax everyone.

Nintendo did an amazing job with Wind Waker, look at my previous posts, I always loved it. I find it way better than Ocarina of Time. If every game matched the quality of Mario Sunshine, Mario Galaxy, and Wind Waker, I would shut up about the retro rant.

But not every company is like Nintendo.

I like Capcom, Mega Man 9 was amazing, Streety Fighter 4 was pretty good aswell.

I'm looking forward to 3D Dot Game Heroes. Braid is amazing. Geometry Wars is very fun.

But why is it so hard to make a better game than Mario 3 and Mario World? Let's hope New Super Mario Bros Wii can do it, if anyone can, it's Nintendo.

Am I the only one here who loves pixel art? I love those pixels.

I'm not narrow minded, I see where you guys are coming from. But on the contrary, you guys fail to see the other side of things, and one of you even called us retro gamers "losers", another says "myopic".

It's you guys who are harsh, so I have every reason to push back. Don't turn it around and say I'm the one who started getting angry.

I still play games, I'm just concerned with all the reading of bad dialogue, and tutorials, and roaming around lost. Most of the games being made are affraid to be games. When I start the game, I want the game to start. Is that so hard for you guys to understand and relate with?

Okami took 30 minutes of intro before you can start playing. This should never happen, and no one complained about it.

If some of you have uses words like "loser" and "myopic", which means I can say the following: open your eyes, you're all playing bad movies.

Bless Nintendo for the new Mario games and Wind Waker.