Do you guys think old video games were better then nowaday games?

  • 155 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for bowserjr123
#51 Posted by bowserjr123 (2478 posts) -

[QUOTE="bowserjr123"]Old games, easily.  Most of the games I play even now are legacy, they're just more fun to play IMO.  I loved the gameplay, music, and challenge of games back then a lot better than games of now.  Not to say there aren't good games still coming out now.  Some games like Demon's Souls, Ninja Gaiden, and Sin and Punishment still give me a lot of hope for modern games, too bad we can't have more games like those.Shattered-dream


Old games was harder. Zelda 2, Tiger heli, FF2, Dragon Quest, DKC2, Mario 2 lost levels, and the rpgs were a whole lot harder!

Yeah most of the NES RPGs were harder but not the SNES ones.  The older platformers, on the other hand, were definitely harder than those today.

Avatar image for Shattered-dream
#52 Posted by Shattered-dream (729 posts) -

[QUOTE="Shattered-dream"]

[QUOTE="bowserjr123"]Old games, easily.  Most of the games I play even now are legacy, they're just more fun to play IMO.  I loved the gameplay, music, and challenge of games back then a lot better than games of now.  Not to say there aren't good games still coming out now.  Some games like Demon's Souls, Ninja Gaiden, and Sin and Punishment still give me a lot of hope for modern games, too bad we can't have more games like those.bowserjr123


Old games was harder. Zelda 2, Tiger heli, FF2, Dragon Quest, DKC2, Mario 2 lost levels, and the rpgs were a whole lot harder!

Yeah most of the NES RPGs were harder but not the SNES ones.  The older platformers, on the other hand, were definitely harder than those today.

I know, but I don't get why is everyone saying they are harder today. I have to disagree they were 10X times harder back then in my opinion!

Avatar image for Dudersaper
#53 Posted by Dudersaper (32952 posts) -
Assists are also found everywhere, such as pointers and markers; people don't put their brains in use anymore.Cyberdot
Although I loved the game, the new Tomb Raider is very guilty of this. It required no effort whatsoever to 100% the game finding all secrets, because: 1- You could use suvival instints and the secrets would highlight 2- "Secret" Tombs weren't all that secret since the game would aslways tell you when a sectret tomb was nearby 3- After completing a secret tomb, which always took about 2 minutes max (not joking) you'd get a map of almost all secrets in that region 4- Further into the game you can buy a perk that marks any secrets on your map that showed up in survival instincts (even through walls), so all you had to do to find all secrets would be: Position yourself somewhere -> survival instincts -> look around 360º and let the secrets be marked in your map -> go to the places marked on the map. If not all were marked, fin a slightly different position, repeat. No effort. That said, I really enjoyed the game, but it's very "hand holding" when it comes to tombs/secrets.
Avatar image for Allicrombie
#54 Posted by Allicrombie (26217 posts) -
[QUOTE="Cyberdot"]Assists are also found everywhere, such as pointers and markers; people don't put their brains in use anymore.Dudersaper
Although I loved the game, the new Tomb Raider is very guilty of this. It required no effort whatsoever to 100% the game finding all secrets, because: 1- You could use suvival instints and the secrets would highlight 2- "Secret" Tombs weren't all that secret since the game would aslways tell you when a sectret tomb was nearby 3- After completing a secret tomb, which always took about 2 minutes max (not joking) you'd get a map of almost all secrets in that region 4- Further into the game you can buy a perk that marks any secrets on your map that showed up in survival instincts (even through walls), so all you had to do to find all secrets would be: Position yourself somewhere -> survival instincts -> look around 360º and let the secrets be marked in your map -> go to the places marked on the map. If not all were marked, fin a slightly different position, repeat. No effort. That said, I really enjoyed the game, but it's very "hand holding" when it comes to tombs/secrets.

That is true, but there are 13 "optional" challenges that are scattered about the various locations that are needed for a 100% playthrough and none of them appear on the map at all.
Avatar image for Dudersaper
#55 Posted by Dudersaper (32952 posts) -
[QUOTE="Dudersaper"][QUOTE="Cyberdot"]Assists are also found everywhere, such as pointers and markers; people don't put their brains in use anymore.Allicrombie
Although I loved the game, the new Tomb Raider is very guilty of this. It required no effort whatsoever to 100% the game finding all secrets, because: 1- You could use suvival instints and the secrets would highlight 2- "Secret" Tombs weren't all that secret since the game would aslways tell you when a sectret tomb was nearby 3- After completing a secret tomb, which always took about 2 minutes max (not joking) you'd get a map of almost all secrets in that region 4- Further into the game you can buy a perk that marks any secrets on your map that showed up in survival instincts (even through walls), so all you had to do to find all secrets would be: Position yourself somewhere -> survival instincts -> look around 360º and let the secrets be marked in your map -> go to the places marked on the map. If not all were marked, fin a slightly different position, repeat. No effort. That said, I really enjoyed the game, but it's very "hand holding" when it comes to tombs/secrets.

That is true, but there are 13 "optional" challenges that are scattered about the various locations that are needed for a 100% playthrough and none of them appear on the map at all.

Ah that's true, forgot about the challenges, but even those I found quite easy. Apart from 2 or 3 of the challenges that had pretty well hidden objects, like the Sun Killer one and the Previous Inhabitants one.
Avatar image for bowserjr123
#56 Posted by bowserjr123 (2478 posts) -

[QUOTE="bowserjr123"]

[QUOTE="Shattered-dream"]
Old games was harder. Zelda 2, Tiger heli, FF2, Dragon Quest, DKC2, Mario 2 lost levels, and the rpgs were a whole lot harder!

Shattered-dream

Yeah most of the NES RPGs were harder but not the SNES ones.  The older platformers, on the other hand, were definitely harder than those today.

I know, but I don't get why is everyone saying they are harder today. I have to disagree they were 10X times harder back then in my opinion!

I guess some people are just used to having it too easy in their games nowadays lol, also I haven't played too many modern RPGs but there are usually some extra challenges/bosses and what not that could make the game tougher (for example, fighting tougher monsters for optional side quests in Xenoblade per se).

Avatar image for xGamePlayerx19
#57 Posted by xGamePlayerx19 (379 posts) -

I think it just depends all on the individual, as some think that because of nostalgia, and others think that because they just enjoy older games more in general. For me I think it's just more of nostalgia and just the fact of being young, I grew up threw the 5th and 6th gens but started out on a SNES. They all used to have a spark that current day games just dont have for me anymore, I dont know how to explain it but I'm sure someone must know what I mean.

Avatar image for Panzer_Zwei
#58 Posted by Panzer_Zwei (15498 posts) -

If anything, I feel back then developers really went the extra mile to make their games worth it. Nowadays it's pretty noticeable they hold back on things so they can sell them as DLC.

Before your incentive for replaying games was unlocking extra characters, costumes, etc. Now your incentive's are trophies or achievements, and unlockables are becoming a thing of the past in favor of DLC.

Avatar image for branketra
#59 Posted by BranKetra (51726 posts) -

Older games were fun becacuse they were difficult in a rewarding way. The last generation excelled at balancing difficulty with fun factor. Halo: Combat Evolved, Timesplitters, Jak II & III, and Final Fantasy X are a few examples of the balance I reference.

On the contrary, the most popular Wii/PS3/360 games are some of the easiest I have ever played. While Assassin's Creed II is fun, for example, it and other games are not as intense as before and that was done on purpose to increase the number of casual players and more importantly, buyers. The newest gen should return to its hardcore difficulty for fun factor because without difficulty, the gameplay is like driving playing a racing game with nothing but a flat straight road. It is boring and unrewarding. That is why so many say that games are becoming similar to movies; the gameplay is not challenging. If game makers can reestablish themselves as individuals who make fun, challenging games, then I will be pleased.

Avatar image for Shattered-dream
#60 Posted by Shattered-dream (729 posts) -

I think it just depends all on the individual, as some think that because of nostalgia, and others think that because they just enjoy older games more in general. For me I think it's just more of nostalgia and just the fact of being young, I grew up threw the 5th and 6th gens but started out on a SNES. They all used to have a spark that current day games just dont have for me anymore, I dont know how to explain it but I'm sure someone must know what I mean.

xGamePlayerx19

People who say games are better nowadays have never played games back then, or did not grow up back then and did not feel the magic!

Avatar image for Guovssohas
#61 Posted by Guovssohas (330 posts) -

Here's the thing i dislike in modern games; You always have a waypoint, or arrow pointing for you exactly where you should go. Secrets aren't really that secret anymore, there always seems to be a very obvious hint.

Before you had to discover things by yourself and it felt much better.

So yes, games from the 90's definitely are/were better than todays games IMO.

Avatar image for Articuno76
#62 Posted by Articuno76 (19791 posts) -

I think, on average, modern videogames are better in that they are more developed. Older games had a large variety of control issues and camera issues which aren't present in modern game design (remnants of struggling with 3D technology), they also had a load of other design challenges that modern conventions have overcome (check-pointing and mid-game difficulty changing has removed a lot of the frustration found in older games). Modern games also have years of building on mechanics that have been proven to work.

It isn't surprising that newer games are more polished though (and I don't mean production values here, but gameplay/design) as there are far fewer games out on the market now (It's pretty much AAA high-calibre stuff or no space at retail).

Personally I felt that the number of good games that I actually enjoyed were greater in the previous generations and feel that my favourites from the past stand out more than my favourites from this generation. Still I think anyone would have hard time arguing that the average quality (looking at a cross-section representative of the entire generation) of games now is lower than it was before.

Having said that...just because a game is technically better on a check-list of game design do's and don'ts, it doesn't mean I agree with the game design philosophy behind them.

Avatar image for bultje112
#63 Posted by bultje112 (1868 posts) -

Games used to be a lot better without a doubt. The last generation of the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox was the golden age of gaming. I feel as though that's when the most original and creative games were released. Back then, developers had class.

Today, just about every good idea has been done and developers are running out of ideas.

GeoffZak

 

then show me a game of past gens that is similar to something like Limbo, dragons dogma or heavy rain :roll:

Avatar image for mark1982
#64 Posted by mark1982 (557 posts) -

Of course they were better. Legacy games didn't have issues of always online, micro transaction, million dollar franchises just set to dissapoint the customer with the final product. The important thing was the developer just wanted to make a fun game for their audience.

Just look at these gems

Blade Master - Irem

gfs_6375_2_28.jpg  

gfs_6375_2_38.jpg

Dungeons & Dragons Shadow Over Mystara - Capcom

gfs_45443_2_180.jpg

gfs_45443_2_46.jpg

Undercover Cops - Irem

tumblr_llxcwn3gj11qatk7fo1_500.png

The Astyanax - Jaleco (released in 1989)

gfs_4014_2_17.jpg

gfs_4014_2_6.jpg

Avatar image for Dudersaper
#65 Posted by Dudersaper (32952 posts) -

Older games were fun becacuse they were difficult in a rewarding way. The last generation excelled at balancing difficulty with fun factor. Halo: Combat Evolved, Timesplitters, Jak II & III, and Final Fantasy X are a few examples of the balance I reference.

On the contrary, the most popular Wii/PS3/360 games are some of the easiest I have ever played. While Assassin's Creed II is fun, for example, it and other games are not as intense as before and that was done on purpose to increase the number of casual players and more importantly, buyers. The newest gen should return to its hardcore difficulty for fun factor because without difficulty, the gameplay is like driving playing a racing game with nothing but a flat straight road. It is boring and unrewarding. That is why so many say that games are becoming similar to movies; the gameplay is not challenging. If game makers can reestablish themselves as individuals who make fun, challenging games, then I will be pleased.

BranKetra
I wouldn't call Jak II balanced :P I agree with the rest though.
Avatar image for CursedChamp
#66 Posted by CursedChamp (485 posts) -
I find that the older games cared more about the single player mode/campaign mode unlike how newer games seem to focus more on the multiplayer/online modes.
Avatar image for JML897
#67 Posted by JML897 (33134 posts) -

The important thing was the developer just wanted to make a fun game for their audience.

mark1982

Keep telling yourself that. They were just as concerned about profits back then as they are now.

Avatar image for bultje112
#68 Posted by bultje112 (1868 posts) -

[QUOTE="mark1982"]

The important thing was the developer just wanted to make a fun game for their audience.

JML897

Keep telling yourself that. They were just as concerned about profits back then as they are now.

 

no, no, stop saying that! this topic is all about complaining of todays gaming and whine how everything used to be better...

 

let me ask you people, pls point to me any game released in past 5 years as bad as shaq fu :roll:

Avatar image for Shattered-dream
#70 Posted by Shattered-dream (729 posts) -

Of course they were better. Legacy games didn't have issues of always online, micro transaction, million dollar franchises just set to dissapoint the customer with the final product. The important thing was the developer just wanted to make a fun game for their audience.Just look at these gemsBlade Master - Irem  Dungeons & Dragons Shadow Over Mystara - CapcomUndercover Cops - Irem The Astyanax - Jaleco (released in 1989)mark1982

I agree a 100% with this guy!

Avatar image for mark1982
#71 Posted by mark1982 (557 posts) -

[QUOTE="JML897"]

[QUOTE="mark1982"]

The important thing was the developer just wanted to make a fun game for their audience.

bultje112

Keep telling yourself that. They were just as concerned about profits back then as they are now.

 

no, no, stop saying that! this topic is all about complaining of todays gaming and whine how everything used to be better...

 

let me ask you people, pls point to me any game released in past 5 years as bad as shaq fu :roll:

Simcity, even though Shaq Fu was a terrible game, it still worked day 1. People that pre-ordered Simcity had to sit and wait a few days until EA decided to fix their server issues. Paying money for a broken product on day 1 is the consumers worse experience that they can have. Brilliant, and shame on EA.

The laundry list of problems that plague gaming today is far more substantial than before. DRM, micro transactions for in game items, day 1 DLC, season passes, retail exclusive pre-order content, on disc DLC, the list goes on. Let's not forget about the rumors for next gen, blocking out used games, no backward compatibility (I hope they are not true, I will wait for the final confirmation) lets not forget about asking users to re-purchase retro games to play on the PS Vita or Virtua console for products we already bought... 

Video games in the past were more enjoyable because I did not have to deal with all these issues before. If video games were not plagued by these issues then yes, I would agree with you that they are better now. But with the direction that games are going now, publishers will try to milk every penny out of us, for me I still enjoy the games but I hate the business model behind it.

That's what I see with games of today and games of the past... I dread what other schemes publishers will come up with next. EA is now forcing micro transactions in their games. We as consumers don't have a say, we either pony up and pay for the best equipment and additional XP to win or just play with the mediocre items we are given and try to survive in a multiplayer game. They forced this business model down our throats already, just imagine what they will do next, I fear the future...

All of this is rolled up in the gaming experience and the enjoyability of the game. Knowing for a fact that I can't acquire the best items in the game by well, playing the damn game and having to pay money for them takes away the enjoyability. I don't know for you guys, but it does for me... just sayin. 

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#72 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

[QUOTE="mark1982"]

The important thing was the developer just wanted to make a fun game for their audience.

JML897

Keep telling yourself that. They were just as concerned about profits back then as they are now.

Avatar image for WitIsWisdom
#73 Posted by WitIsWisdom (5248 posts) -

Yes, old video games were much better then goes these days. With that being said, the thing that is better now is "graphics." Graphics allowed new genres to pop up and take series in new directions. However, after the PS era graphics allowed for every genre we still have to this day. Story telling, plot, flow, music (with limited technology), vision... I could go on and on. Also we dont really have turn based RPG's anymore... :( my favorite genre of all time.

Some things are only better today because they were not POSSIBLE back in the day. However 95% of everything today is still tearing ideas from games that were made 20-25 years ago.

I guess you can say that is because everything has already been done.. however I strongly disagree. I can think of SEVERAL things that have not been tried yet. However.... I am not going to talk about them here. If you want to learn more you will have to get my book after its published :) I still have a long way to go, but I am a few chapters into what will eventually be the length of a Game of Thrones or Harry Potter novel. If your interested, send me a friend request and I'll keep you in the loop as I progress.

Then hopefully a dev will want to make my book into a new series, or take ques from it.

After all, I was going to collecge to get into game development... however, I like story telling and background development more so I figured it worked double in my favor to go after my creative writing degree. :)

Avatar image for GeoffZak
#74 Posted by GeoffZak (3715 posts) -

[QUOTE="GeoffZak"]

Games used to be a lot better without a doubt. The last generation of the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox was the golden age of gaming. I feel as though that's when the most original and creative games were released. Back then, developers had class.

Today, just about every good idea has been done and developers are running out of ideas.

bultje112

 

then show me a game of past gens that is similar to something like Limbo, dragons dogma or heavy rain :roll:

Similar in terms of what?

I can list plenty of games that were more fun and memorable.

  • Silent Hill 2
  • Silent Hill 3
  • Silent Hill 4
  • Metal Gear Solid 2
  • Metal Gear Solid 3
  • Shadow of the Colossus
  • Ico
  • Jet Set Radio
  • Shenmue
  • Shenmue 2
  • Persona 3
  • Persona 4
  • Digital Devil Saga
  • Devil Summoner
  • Nocturne
Avatar image for Eddie-Murphy48
#75 Posted by Eddie-Murphy48 (939 posts) -

Yes, old video games were much better then goes these days. With that being said, the thing that is better now is "graphics." Graphics allowed new genres to pop up and take series in new directions. However, after the PS era graphics allowed for every genre we still have to this day. Story telling, plot, flow, music (with limited technology), vision... I could go on and on. Also we dont really have turn based RPG's anymore... :( my favorite genre of all time.

Some things are only better today because they were not POSSIBLE back in the day. However 95% of everything today is still tearing ideas from games that were made 20-25 years ago.

I guess you can say that is because everything has already been done.. however I strongly disagree. I can think of SEVERAL things that have not been tried yet. However.... I am not going to talk about them here. If you want to learn more you will have to get my book after its published :) I still have a long way to go, but I am a few chapters into what will eventually be the length of a Game of Thrones or Harry Potter novel. If your interested, send me a friend request and I'll keep you in the loop as I progress.

Then hopefully a dev will want to make my book into a new series, or take ques from it.

After all, I was going to collecge to get into game development... however, I like story telling and background development more so I figured it worked double in my favor to go after my creative writing degree. :)

WitIsWisdom

 

Final Fantasy XIII is turn based.

"However 95% of everything today is still tearing ideas from games that were made 20-25 years ago."

Just liek back in the day, when ev eryone was tearinf ideas from games. This isn't new.

 

Also lol advetising.

Avatar image for Eddie-Murphy48
#76 Posted by Eddie-Murphy48 (939 posts) -

Here's the thing i dislike in modern games; You always have a waypoint, or arrow pointing for you exactly where you should go. Secrets aren't really that secret anymore, there always seems to be a very obvious hint.

Before you had to discover things by yourself and it felt much better.

So yes, games from the 90's definitely are/were better than todays games IMO.

Guovssohas

 

I remember about the archaic days of having no map and being lost and having no where to go with vague hints that barely helped you in meh games, which now games are less meh because people can actually direct you.

 

There's a difference between discovering things yourself, and tedious unintentional searching due to bad game design or limited game design. which I know people back then including me, wished for in some games.

 

Games from the 90's? If you started gaming then why are you complaining about waypoints and arrows?

Avatar image for WitIsWisdom
#77 Posted by WitIsWisdom (5248 posts) -

[QUOTE="WitIsWisdom"]

Yes, old video games were much better then goes these days. With that being said, the thing that is better now is "graphics." Graphics allowed new genres to pop up and take series in new directions. However, after the PS era graphics allowed for every genre we still have to this day. Story telling, plot, flow, music (with limited technology), vision... I could go on and on. Also we dont really have turn based RPG's anymore... :( my favorite genre of all time.

Some things are only better today because they were not POSSIBLE back in the day. However 95% of everything today is still tearing ideas from games that were made 20-25 years ago.

I guess you can say that is because everything has already been done.. however I strongly disagree. I can think of SEVERAL things that have not been tried yet. However.... I am not going to talk about them here. If you want to learn more you will have to get my book after its published :) I still have a long way to go, but I am a few chapters into what will eventually be the length of a Game of Thrones or Harry Potter novel. If your interested, send me a friend request and I'll keep you in the loop as I progress.

Then hopefully a dev will want to make my book into a new series, or take ques from it.

After all, I was going to collecge to get into game development... however, I like story telling and background development more so I figured it worked double in my favor to go after my creative writing degree. :)

Eddie-Murphy48

Final Fantasy XIII is turn based.

"However 95% of everything today is still tearing ideas from games that were made 20-25 years ago."

Just liek back in the day, when ev eryone was tearinf ideas from games. This isn't new.

Also lol advetising.

Eddie Murphy is the man..

Anyways though, I do not persoanlly feel that FF13 is turn based... you only control one character. While you might actively control what that character does, the other ones attack and use spells at will, and attack. This allows the enemies to attack on a timed loop system in a real time environment with very minimal turn based action. While it may be incorporated into the design, I am pretty sure you can not change between characters at will... right? It controls a little like Ni No Kuni, however in that game you can switch between any of your characters or their pets (familiars) at will.

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#78 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

[QUOTE="Eddie-Murphy48"]

[QUOTE="WitIsWisdom"]

Yes, old video games were much better then goes these days. With that being said, the thing that is better now is "graphics." Graphics allowed new genres to pop up and take series in new directions. However, after the PS era graphics allowed for every genre we still have to this day. Story telling, plot, flow, music (with limited technology), vision... I could go on and on. Also we dont really have turn based RPG's anymore... :( my favorite genre of all time.

Some things are only better today because they were not POSSIBLE back in the day. However 95% of everything today is still tearing ideas from games that were made 20-25 years ago.

I guess you can say that is because everything has already been done.. however I strongly disagree. I can think of SEVERAL things that have not been tried yet. However.... I am not going to talk about them here. If you want to learn more you will have to get my book after its published :) I still have a long way to go, but I am a few chapters into what will eventually be the length of a Game of Thrones or Harry Potter novel. If your interested, send me a friend request and I'll keep you in the loop as I progress.

Then hopefully a dev will want to make my book into a new series, or take ques from it.

After all, I was going to collecge to get into game development... however, I like story telling and background development more so I figured it worked double in my favor to go after my creative writing degree. :)

WitIsWisdom

 

Final Fantasy XIII is turn based.

"However 95% of everything today is still tearing ideas from games that were made 20-25 years ago."

Just liek back in the day, when ev eryone was tearinf ideas from games. This isn't new.

 

Also lol advetising.

 

Eddie Murphy is the man..

 

Anyways though, I do not persoanlly feel that FF13 is turn based... you only control one character. While you might actively control what that character does, the other ones attack and use spells at will, and attack. This allows the enemies to attack on a timed loop system in a real time environment with very minimal turn based action. While it may be incorporated into the design, I am pretty sure you can not change between characters at will... right? It controls a little like Ni No Kuni, however in that game you can switch between any of your characters or their pets (familiars) at will.

I think FFXIII is turn based because waiting for the ATB gauge to fill still means that you have to "wait your turn." The same applies for the enemies even tho their ATB guages are invisible. 

That user you responded to is the same guy that makes all the alt accounts tho, so I wouldn't discuss the matter with him if I were you.

Avatar image for Eddie-Murphy48
#79 Posted by Eddie-Murphy48 (939 posts) -

[QUOTE="WitIsWisdom"]

[QUOTE="Eddie-Murphy48"]

 

Final Fantasy XIII is turn based.

"However 95% of everything today is still tearing ideas from games that were made 20-25 years ago."

Just liek back in the day, when ev eryone was tearinf ideas from games. This isn't new.

 

Also lol advetising.

GreySeal9

 

Eddie Murphy is the man..

 

Anyways though, I do not persoanlly feel that FF13 is turn based... you only control one character. While you might actively control what that character does, the other ones attack and use spells at will, and attack. This allows the enemies to attack on a timed loop system in a real time environment with very minimal turn based action. While it may be incorporated into the design, I am pretty sure you can not change between characters at will... right? It controls a little like Ni No Kuni, however in that game you can switch between any of your characters or their pets (familiars) at will.

I think FFVIII is turn based because waiting for the ATB gauge to fill still means that you have to "wait your turn." The same applies for the enemies even tho their ATB guages are invisible. 

That user you responded to is the same guy that makes all the alt accounts tho, so I wouldn't discuss the matter with him if I were you.

 

Because I have eddie-murphy in my username? I suppsoe you missed that thread where it was disproven, and the fact I am still here in the first place.

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#80 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="WitIsWisdom"]

 

Eddie Murphy is the man..

 

Anyways though, I do not persoanlly feel that FF13 is turn based... you only control one character. While you might actively control what that character does, the other ones attack and use spells at will, and attack. This allows the enemies to attack on a timed loop system in a real time environment with very minimal turn based action. While it may be incorporated into the design, I am pretty sure you can not change between characters at will... right? It controls a little like Ni No Kuni, however in that game you can switch between any of your characters or their pets (familiars) at will.

Eddie-Murphy48

I think FFVIII is turn based because waiting for the ATB gauge to fill still means that you have to "wait your turn." The same applies for the enemies even tho their ATB guages are invisible. 

That user you responded to is the same guy that makes all the alt accounts tho, so I wouldn't discuss the matter with him if I were you.

 

Because I have eddie-murphy in my username? I suppsoe you missed that thread where it was disproven, and the fact I am still here in the first place.

lol

Avatar image for Eddie-Murphy48
#81 Posted by Eddie-Murphy48 (939 posts) -

[QUOTE="Eddie-Murphy48"]

[QUOTE="WitIsWisdom"]

Yes, old video games were much better then goes these days. With that being said, the thing that is better now is "graphics." Graphics allowed new genres to pop up and take series in new directions. However, after the PS era graphics allowed for every genre we still have to this day. Story telling, plot, flow, music (with limited technology), vision... I could go on and on. Also we dont really have turn based RPG's anymore... :( my favorite genre of all time.

Some things are only better today because they were not POSSIBLE back in the day. However 95% of everything today is still tearing ideas from games that were made 20-25 years ago.

I guess you can say that is because everything has already been done.. however I strongly disagree. I can think of SEVERAL things that have not been tried yet. However.... I am not going to talk about them here. If you want to learn more you will have to get my book after its published :) I still have a long way to go, but I am a few chapters into what will eventually be the length of a Game of Thrones or Harry Potter novel. If your interested, send me a friend request and I'll keep you in the loop as I progress.

Then hopefully a dev will want to make my book into a new series, or take ques from it.

After all, I was going to collecge to get into game development... however, I like story telling and background development more so I figured it worked double in my favor to go after my creative writing degree. :)

WitIsWisdom

 

Final Fantasy XIII is turn based.

"However 95% of everything today is still tearing ideas from games that were made 20-25 years ago."

Just liek back in the day, when ev eryone was tearinf ideas from games. This isn't new.

 

Also lol advetising.

 

Eddie Murphy is the man..

 

Anyways though, I do not persoanlly feel that FF13 is turn based... you only control one character. While you might actively control what that character does, the other ones attack and use spells at will, and attack. This allows the enemies to attack on a timed loop system in a real time environment with very minimal turn based action. While it may be incorporated into the design, I am pretty sure you can not change between characters at will... right? It controls a little like Ni No Kuni, however in that game you can switch between any of your characters or their pets (familiars) at will.

 

I say it's turn based because you and the nemy each have an invisible ATB gauge that you must wait for, they just move around a lot cuasing confusion of whether it's turn based.

 

Also, from what I hear, XIII-2 allo0ws you to switch, but play pretty much the same with some pokemon mixed in. 

 

Either way, back to the point, people seem to be kind of off the wall about old games being better.

Avatar image for Eddie-Murphy48
#82 Posted by Eddie-Murphy48 (939 posts) -

[QUOTE="Eddie-Murphy48"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

I think FFVIII is turn based because waiting for the ATB gauge to fill still means that you have to "wait your turn." The same applies for the enemies even tho their ATB guages are invisible. 

That user you responded to is the same guy that makes all the alt accounts tho, so I wouldn't discuss the matter with him if I were you.

GreySeal9

 

Because I have eddie-murphy in my username? I suppsoe you missed that thread where it was disproven, and the fact I am still here in the first place.

lol

 

Whatever you say man.  That whole thing was about me being accused because Eddie Murphy was in a bad 90;s sequel to a movie that apparently the actual user  liked. Not my problem.

 

I honestly don't care, I am not breaking any rules, so I shouldn't have to worry. 

Avatar image for bultje112
#83 Posted by bultje112 (1868 posts) -

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="GeoffZak"]

Games used to be a lot better without a doubt. The last generation of the PS2/Gamecube/Xbox was the golden age of gaming. I feel as though that's when the most original and creative games were released. Back then, developers had class.

Today, just about every good idea has been done and developers are running out of ideas.

GeoffZak

 

then show me a game of past gens that is similar to something like Limbo, dragons dogma or heavy rain :roll:

Similar in terms of what?

I can list plenty of games that were more fun and memorable.

  • Silent Hill 2
  • Silent Hill 3
  • Silent Hill 4
  • Metal Gear Solid 2
  • Metal Gear Solid 3
  • Shadow of the Colossus
  • Ico
  • Jet Set Radio
  • Shenmue
  • Shenmue 2
  • Persona 3
  • Persona 4
  • Digital Devil Saga
  • Devil Summoner
  • Nocturne

 

I mean as creative as the games I named, did you eve play the games I named? :roll:

Avatar image for Dudersaper
#84 Posted by Dudersaper (32952 posts) -

[QUOTE="GeoffZak"]

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

 

then show me a game of past gens that is similar to something like Limbo, dragons dogma or heavy rain :roll:

bultje112

Similar in terms of what?

I can list plenty of games that were more fun and memorable.

  • Silent Hill 2
  • Silent Hill 3
  • Silent Hill 4
  • Metal Gear Solid 2
  • Metal Gear Solid 3
  • Shadow of the Colossus
  • Ico
  • Jet Set Radio
  • Shenmue
  • Shenmue 2
  • Persona 3
  • Persona 4
  • Digital Devil Saga
  • Devil Summoner
  • Nocturne

 

I mean as creative as the games I named, did you eve play the games I named? :roll:

Heavy Rain isn't really "creative", since it's just picking up where Indigo Prophecy left off. Same with the other two to an extent.
Avatar image for bultje112
#85 Posted by bultje112 (1868 posts) -

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="GeoffZak"]

Similar in terms of what?

I can list plenty of games that were more fun and memorable.

  • Silent Hill 2
  • Silent Hill 3
  • Silent Hill 4
  • Metal Gear Solid 2
  • Metal Gear Solid 3
  • Shadow of the Colossus
  • Ico
  • Jet Set Radio
  • Shenmue
  • Shenmue 2
  • Persona 3
  • Persona 4
  • Digital Devil Saga
  • Devil Summoner
  • Nocturne

Dudersaper

 

I mean as creative as the games I named, did you eve play the games I named? :roll:

Heavy Rain isn't really "creative", since it's just picking up where Indigo Prophecy left off. Same with the other two to an extent.

 

not at all, the gameplay is completely different. I encourage you to find a game with similar gameplay.

Avatar image for Dudersaper
#86 Posted by Dudersaper (32952 posts) -
I just gave you a game with similar gameplay, Indigo Prophecy. The gameplay isn't "completely" different, Heavy Rain takes what Fahrenheit did and adds on it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just saying Heavy Rain isn't the "creative" one in this case, since it's taking what it's predecessor did and improving on it.
Avatar image for AFBrat77
#87 Posted by AFBrat77 (26723 posts) -

In the 4 year period 1997-2000, at least 20-25 games were EXCELLENT for the PC each year......not been the same since, so yeah games for the PC were better.

Probably the best 4 year run of any system ever

Avatar image for bultje112
#88 Posted by bultje112 (1868 posts) -

I just gave you a game with similar gameplay, Indigo Prophecy. The gameplay isn't "completely" different, Heavy Rain takes what Fahrenheit did and adds on it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just saying Heavy Rain isn't the "creative" one in this case, since it's taking what it's predecessor did and improving on it.Dudersaper

 

by that logic I could name any game you want and say it is based upon something else.

Avatar image for Dudersaper
#89 Posted by Dudersaper (32952 posts) -

[QUOTE="Dudersaper"]I just gave you a game with similar gameplay, Indigo Prophecy. The gameplay isn't "completely" different, Heavy Rain takes what Fahrenheit did and adds on it. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just saying Heavy Rain isn't the "creative" one in this case, since it's taking what it's predecessor did and improving on it.bultje112

 

by that logic I could name any game you want and say it is based upon something else.

And you'd probably be at least half right, if you were saying that to prove another wasn't really "creative".
Avatar image for madmenno
#90 Posted by madmenno (1528 posts) -
I do not think, i know for sure. Nowadays gaming is a commercial enterprise where in the old days people made games in there attic out of love and pure inspiration and creativity. Nowadays people are pushed to a deadline and most money goes into art work and marketing instead of gameplay. There are still really good games around like dwarf fortress and besides that i mostly play older games.
Avatar image for GeoffZak
#91 Posted by GeoffZak (3715 posts) -

[QUOTE="GeoffZak"]

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

 

then show me a game of past gens that is similar to something like Limbo, dragons dogma or heavy rain :roll:

bultje112

Similar in terms of what?

I can list plenty of games that were more fun and memorable.

  • Silent Hill 2
  • Silent Hill 3
  • Silent Hill 4
  • Metal Gear Solid 2
  • Metal Gear Solid 3
  • Shadow of the Colossus
  • Ico
  • Jet Set Radio
  • Shenmue
  • Shenmue 2
  • Persona 3
  • Persona 4
  • Digital Devil Saga
  • Devil Summoner
  • Nocturne

 

I mean as creative as the games I named, did you eve play the games I named? :roll:

Yes I have. And they're not nearly as memorable or creative as the games I listed. Have you even played the games I listed?

Dragon's Dogma? Seriously bro!? XD

Avatar image for Dudersaper
#92 Posted by Dudersaper (32952 posts) -
Dragons Dogma is pretty awesome and memorable though :o
Avatar image for WitIsWisdom
#93 Posted by WitIsWisdom (5248 posts) -

Dragon's Dogma was definately close.... I hope there next game stays with a similar formula while improving upon the small things like inventory management, and the ability to equip other pawns with new gear that you CAN unequip from them without forfeit. Also, perhaps make the difficulty of random fights a little harder while reducing criticals of minor boss like creatures. Perhaps add a limit to the amount of revivals in a certain amount of time as well. You could literaly beat the game by hiding your main pawn behind cover and just reviving others over and over and over... lol Great game overall and I want more as long as they don't take the series in a Skyrim direction... crap.

Heavy Rain was good, and did have originality despite what some people say...only the second in a series (well not really, but similar gameplay)? These days THAT is something especially with the quality and the time between the games.

Oblivion was great.

Ni No Kuni nailed it.

Those are definately the three that come to mind off the top of my head though.

Honorable mentions (not quite right or need a little work games)

Atelier series= interesting... definately niche definately geared towards female players, my wife loves them

Bad Company= this series re-invented a worn out shooting genre. I really liked BOTH games

Dragon Age Origins= Great game the first one that is... the second left a lot to be desired. If this series can get back on track it has what it takes to be great.

L.A. Noire= Needs improvement, but overall great imo.

That about sums this generation up for me....

Avatar image for l34052
#94 Posted by l34052 (3902 posts) -

I do feel sometimes people look at and remember older games with a kind of blind adoration. For example, i have and regularly play 'streets of rage 2' on the genesis collection for the ps3 and whilst i do love the game and play it to death it is very shallow compared to todays games some of the levels for instance can be played through start to finish in a matter of minutes which im sure even todays ADHD teens would find very unsatisfying.

Personally i wouldnt say the older games were better/worse than today just a different experience.

Avatar image for D3dr0_0
#95 Posted by D3dr0_0 (3530 posts) -
I liked older gens more than this one, but that's because the companies I adored either went out of business or lost it's identity.
Avatar image for voljin1987
#96 Posted by voljin1987 (1066 posts) -

I do feel sometimes people look at and remember older games with a kind of blind adoration. For example, i have and regularly play 'streets of rage 2' on the genesis collection for the ps3 and whilst i do love the game and play it to death it is very shallow compared to todays games some of the levels for instance can be played through start to finish in a matter of minutes which im sure even todays ADHD teens would find very unsatisfying.

Personally i wouldnt say the older games were better/worse than today just a different experience.

l34052
i guess it depends on the games themselves.. retro RPGs like earthbound and chrono trigger can take dozens of hours and more to complete.. also platformers like yoshi's island and super mario land 3 can give you around 8-10 hrs of fun which is comparable to similar games of the genre today..
Avatar image for WiiCubeM1
#97 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4735 posts) -

No, we just become more cynical and tedious with age.

Amazing games that release nowadays are all-too-often called terrible today because people like to rip apart particulars, like Skyrim for its leveling system, Mass Effect 3 for its endings, and Brawl, for lack of a better term, "not being Melee". I've heard the schtik that "problems are problems" and they shouldn't be ignored, and how modern games "abandon tradition for convenience", but I never did and never could see it that way. I have fun with what is there and only call truly bad games or mechanics terrible, which is why you'll never see me jumping on the cynical bandwagon calling games like Wind Waker and Super Mario 64 terrible, or saying a particular era of gaming is better than another.

Avatar image for abcdefgabcdefgz
#98 Posted by abcdefgabcdefgz (698 posts) -

I think there are good and bad to modern games when compared to older ones. I miss the snes rpg days and the expensive dev times have made good rpg games a very rare thing while snes had tons of very high quality ones. The music of a lot of snes games was among the best music ever made to this day. Sometimes you just wish professional companies could make a good 2D rpg or some other unique genre like ogra battle that has died out since then.

Avatar image for 0Hamburgher
#99 Posted by 0Hamburgher (957 posts) -
Reading this thread is exhausting, but it's made me realize that Medievil is the greatest game ever made.
Avatar image for Megavideogamer
#100 Posted by Megavideogamer (6499 posts) -

Yes Videogames were "better" in the old days. More fun than todays versions. But I am older so Better becuase of enjoyment is subjective.