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 BarbaricAvatar
#101 Posted by BarbaricAvatar (995 posts) -

HD re-releases would never have been an idea if the current generation was better.

Avatar image for rilpas
#102 Posted by rilpas (8161 posts) -

HD re-releases would never have been an idea if the current generation was better.

BarbaricAvatar

you make it sound like the idea of re-releasing old games is something new:

 

NinjaGaidenTrilogy%231.jpg250px-SMAS.jpgTetris_and_Dr_Mario_%28NA%29.jpgimages+1.jpg

Avatar image for Stefan91x
#103 Posted by Stefan91x (225 posts) -

Modern games are too much focused on stories.

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

Modern games are too much focused on stories.

Stefan91x
I actually prefer story heavy games, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the gameplay.
Avatar image for Gue1
#105 Posted by Gue1 (12171 posts) -

nope. Every gen has its unique and good games and its generic and bad games. This gen I played Valkyria Chronicles, Yakuza, Uncharted, etc. and loved them all to death. But my fav gen was the PS1 because of the JRPG's. I'm a huge anime fan... Or at least I used to be because I can't freaking stand modern anime nor the crappy JRPG's like Atelier Rorona and Neptunia. But I'm anxiously waiting for Disgaea D2.

Avatar image for bultje112
#106 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

GeoffZak

 

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

 

wow, you must be that lonesome person that didn't like dragons dogma, was it too hard for you?...

Avatar image for bultje112
#107 Posted by bultje112 (1868 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

 

you nailed it as it is. good post

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

HD re-releases would never have been an idea if the current generation was better.

BarbaricAvatar

 

rereleased games are as old as games themselves

Avatar image for BarbaricAvatar
#109 Posted by BarbaricAvatar (995 posts) -

[QUOTE="BarbaricAvatar"]

HD re-releases would never have been an idea if the current generation was better.

bultje112

 

rereleased games are as old as games themselves

 

Except in this day and age the industry is bigger than the movie or music industries. There should be more creativity and new titles, not less.

Avatar image for Jag85
#110 Posted by Jag85 (13248 posts) -

nope. Every gen has its unique and good games and its generic and bad games. This gen I played Valkyria Chronicles, Yakuza, Uncharted, etc. and loved them all to death. But my fav gen was the PS1 because of the JRPG's. I'm a huge anime fan... Or at least I used to be becaue I can't freaking stand modern anime nor the crappy JRPG's like Atelier Rorona and Neptunia. But I'm anxiously waiting fro Disgaea D2.

Gue1


Completely understand. There's just way too much "moe" infesting anime and JRPG's these days.

Except in this day and age the industry is bigger than the movie or music industries. There should be more creativity and new titles, not less.

BarbaricAvatar


The video game industry already surpassed the movie and music industries way back in the Pac-Man days. In fact, the arcade video game industry during the arcade golden age of the early 80's was bigger than the movie and music industries combined.

Avatar image for Groovilicious
#111 Posted by Groovilicious (72 posts) -

I don't think that older games are better per se, but I certainly enjoy them more. I am tired of mandatory online for every popular game, tired of expansion packs, tired of ultra-realistic graphics (yes I said it), tired of motion controls!! Ugh! I want to sit and play my video games, I get enough movement at work/school, thanks!

Avatar image for wildcat2000
#112 Posted by wildcat2000 (4498 posts) -

Didnt read the whole thread just page 1. Nostalgia is a part of it. Kids today might think todays games are better than what we get 20 years from now.

However I think the bigger this is...If one really does feel older games are better its probably because the Atari/NES/Genesis/SNES era was so fresh and new. Its what paved the way. Which is unfair to hold against todays games. Anything constantly running for more than 30 years is gonna lose its "aww" factor. Does not mean todays games are worse just that its basically impossible to remain "so amazing", because its simply not anymore.

This goes for every single genre. Just think of it. Mario, Sonic and every major franchise wil go on literally forever. Its going to feel repetitive or old. Even now. Thats why controls are being updated...because the games themselves have kinda reached their limit. Before the next big step was 3D. Now it has to be HOW we play. The final straw would be full on Virtual Reality. Like we see in movies.

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

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="BarbaricAvatar"]

HD re-releases would never have been an idea if the current generation was better.

BarbaricAvatar

 

rereleased games are as old as games themselves

 

Except in this day and age the industry is bigger than the movie or music industries. There should be more creativity and new titles, not less.

 

there are more titles than ever, you never heard of indy scene I gues.s ever played a game called limbo? no thought so.

Avatar image for BarbaricAvatar
#114 Posted by BarbaricAvatar (995 posts) -

[QUOTE="BarbaricAvatar"]

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

 

rereleased games are as old as games themselves

bultje112

 

Except in this day and age the industry is bigger than the movie or music industries. There should be more creativity and new titles, not less.

 

there are more titles than ever, you never heard of indy scene I gues.s ever played a game called limbo? no thought so.

That's funny, you appear to think the indy scene is a new thing. :lol:

-

I was of course referring to retail games by noted publishers and developers. Times move on, "Look at what we did 10 years ago" shouldn't be competing with what they're doing now. Unless what they're doing now is notably worse.

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

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="BarbaricAvatar"]

HD re-releases would never have been an idea if the current generation was better.

BarbaricAvatar

 

rereleased games are as old as games themselves

 

Except in this day and age the industry is bigger than the movie or music industries. There should be more creativity and new titles, not less.

To be fair, the movie industry is full of remakes/reboots/revamps nowadays too. And the music industry is..well, not as good as before.
Avatar image for bultje112
#116 Posted by bultje112 (1868 posts) -

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="BarbaricAvatar"]

 

Except in this day and age the industry is bigger than the movie or music industries. There should be more creativity and new titles, not less.

BarbaricAvatar

 

there are more titles than ever, you never heard of indy scene I gues.s ever played a game called limbo? no thought so.

That's funny, you appear to think the indy scene is a new thing. :lol:

-

I was of course referring to retail games by noted publishers and developers. Times move on, "Look at what we did 10 years ago" shouldn't be competing with what they're doing now. Unless what they're doing now is notably worse.

 

the indy scene is very new this generation, yes.

Avatar image for Renegade_Fury
#117 Posted by Renegade_Fury (20465 posts) -

Hard to say, because of different styles. One thing older games had is that they were fresh and never done before. I don't get amazed by new games since a lot of the time they feel like last gen games but with a new coat of paint. Gameplay wise, nothing new is happening other than gimmicks that no one seems to commit enough to.

Avatar image for Senor_Kami
#118 Posted by Senor_Kami (8529 posts) -
Tough call. I remember them (talking about SNES and earlier era stuff) far more fondly than I do games today, but games today are awesome in there own way. I think storytelling overall has gotten way better with technology but I think some titles and genres have really gotten away from gameplay in a way that I don't like. I think a lot of games today want to have things make sense and sometimes come off like the people making them are ashamed to make games. Old school games are game a*s games and proud of it. Like, I think today if a developer had an amazing stage design or level that didn't quite fit in with the story, they'd scrap it because story is taking a precedence over gameplay (despite the fact that you PLAY games so really that should trump all imo). Back in the day though, that would never happen. In Sonic 3 you fight a boss in front of a waterfall and the next stage is in a sewer. The fact that there was water in both levels is all of the connection necessary to go from one to the next. I doubt any level or mechanic was dropped because they couldn't logically tie it into the narrative. It was an awesome gameplay experience and that was more than enough of a reason to include it. Meanwhile in some modern game they won't add a cool gameplay feature or option because it wouldn't make sense in the narrative. Little things like that bug me about modern gaming but then you have a game like Bayonetta or something that scraps all of that and just says, "this would be a cool stage, so we're adding it, damn anything else." On the opposite side you have something like the Mass Effect series where the character grab me more than most old school RPGs and the graphics are awesome and you're shooting mofos with the force then blasting them with a hand cannon and it's awesome and there was nothing even close being that good on every front in old school games that I played. Lots of rambling but my end of the day response is a tie. I played a lot of old stuff when I was like 6 years old and easily wowed. It's hard for me to come up with any metric that accounts for the difference in taste between 6 year old me and 30 year old me and rose tinted goggles.
Avatar image for MonoSilver
#119 Posted by MonoSilver (1392 posts) -
A big fat yes. I traded my 360 in a year or two ago and have been gaming on PC since. Thanks to emulators (which I'll say no more of since I'll get modded) I've been enjoying older games, ones I used to own and ones I never played.
Avatar image for GreySeal9
#120 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

A big fat yes. I traded my 360 in a year or two ago and have been gaming on PC since. Thanks to emulators (which I'll say no more of since I'll get modded) I've been enjoying older games, ones I used to own and ones I never played. MonoSilver

Who is the girl in your sig?

Avatar image for towny_
#121 Posted by towny_ (125 posts) -

Personally, I don't think that you could compare old games and new games. Games are totally different from what they used to be, and are made and played differently. With additions like higher graphics and the internet. Gaming is nothing like it used to be.

Avatar image for MonoSilver
#122 Posted by MonoSilver (1392 posts) -

[QUOTE="MonoSilver"]A big fat yes. I traded my 360 in a year or two ago and have been gaming on PC since. Thanks to emulators (which I'll say no more of since I'll get modded) I've been enjoying older games, ones I used to own and ones I never played. GreySeal9

Who is the girl in your sig?

Mellisa Clarke. :)
Avatar image for sniper_99
#123 Posted by sniper_99 (2820 posts) -
I like both old and new games, but I kind of hate how some gaming companies these days are run by men with suits who know nothing of the gaming culture.
Avatar image for Jag85
#124 Posted by Jag85 (13248 posts) -
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="MonoSilver"]A big fat yes. I traded my 360 in a year or two ago and have been gaming on PC since. Thanks to emulators (which I'll say no more of since I'll get modded) I've been enjoying older games, ones I used to own and ones I never played. MonoSilver

Who is the girl in your sig?

Mellisa Clarke. :)

I like.
Avatar image for lensflare15
#125 Posted by lensflare15 (6652 posts) -

I prefer 5th and 6th gen games myself, but I like games from most every gen. I've had a lot of fun with current games, though I am a bit nostalgic for the games of my childhood.

Avatar image for yellosnolvr
#126 Posted by yellosnolvr (19302 posts) -
the average game was much more creative and there weren't unrealistic expectations. games didn't have to make ridiculous amounts of money back then.
Avatar image for SonOfChewbacca
#127 Posted by SonOfChewbacca (653 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

AFBrat77

 

Agreed. There was a lot of quality in that period. But I would say 2004 was the last solid year for PC games. In that year we got:

Half-Life 2

Far Cry

Doom 3

Chronicles of Riddick

Unreal Tournament 2004

Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines

Rome: Total War

Dawn of War

 

Also a pretty good year for console games as well:

MGS3: Snake Eater

GTA: San Andreas

Chronicles of Riddick

Halo 2

Ninja Gaiden

Burnout 3

Rallisport Challenge 2

KoTOR 2

Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door

Metroid Prime 2

Pikmin 2

Metroid: Zero Mission

Avatar image for gamenerd15
#128 Posted by gamenerd15 (4529 posts) -

It is kind of hard to compare old games to the games of today.  I do not think there is any better worse as a whole, but I think people associate feelings towards certain games.  It was easier to impress people back then.  Digitized characters and 3D graphics made people drop their jaws as well as gruesome violence in fighting games.  4 player games was also something that no one thought could be done as well as online play for consoles.  In the seventh generation of systems, our expectations for games are pretty high.  Some people will not even buy a game if it does not have online functionality. 

You also have to take into account that people have not built up Nostalgic memories for this generation yet.  When people remember a specific game, they also remember other things about their lives as well.  This could include what age a person was when he or she played the title and what his or her life was like at the given time period.  The newer games do not make us feel a certain way because we are living in the present and have not changed yet.  You will understand how the seventh generation of consoles makes you feel when we are all well into the eight generation.    

Avatar image for Jag85
#129 Posted by Jag85 (13248 posts) -

It is kind of hard to compare old games to the games of today.  I do not think there is any better worse as a whole, but I think people associate feelings towards certain games.  It was easier to impress people back then.  Digitized characters and 3D graphics made people drop their jaws as well as gruesome violence in fighting games.  4 player games was also something that no one thought could be done as well as online play for consoles.  In the seventh generation of systems, our expectations for games are pretty high.  Some people will not even buy a game if it does not have online functionality. 

You also have to take into account that people have not built up Nostalgic memories for this generation yet.  When people remember a specific game, they also remember other things about their lives as well.  This could include what age a person was when he or she played the title and what his or her life was like at the given time period.  The newer games do not make us feel a certain way because we are living in the present and have not changed yet.  You will understand how the seventh generation of consoles makes you feel when we are all well into the eight generation.    

gamenerd15

While I agree with most of this post, there's one thing I disagree with:

It was most certainly not "easier" to impress people back then. Things like digitized sprites and 3D graphics are "easy" today, but they were very difficult and expensive to pull off back then with the more limited technology. Creating a primitive 3D game in the early 90's was just as difficult as creating a HD game today (though not as expensive).

What "impressed" gamers back then is the same as what "impresses" gamers today: better graphics, new technology, gameplay innovation, etc. Every time something new comes along, it impresses people, until they get bored of it and move on to the next thing.

Avatar image for Ricardomz
#130 Posted by Ricardomz (2715 posts) -

No.

Avatar image for Uloset
#131 Posted by Uloset (178 posts) -

I wouldn't say they are any better, but up until last gen it seemed there were always a decent amount of games with a strange addicting quality to them.  This gen the only game that has done that to me is Mirror's Edge.  Though the key is for that addiction to last through the generations.  I'll give a few examples below

 

Burnout 3 & Revenge

Ninja Gaiden (Xbox)

Tony Hawk Pro Skater Series

Tekken 3, TT, 5

Goldeneye & Perfect Dark

Einhander

F-Zero SNES

Doom I & II

Any NES or SNES Mario

Sonic 1-2

Megaman 2

etc...

 

These games just keep my interest over the years, I can't put them down.  Now certain games keep you interested for a time but aren't timeless I loved GT 1-3, but I readily admit that I stopped playing them as they successors came, even if the newer interactions were missing that special touch. 

 

So, I guess the real test will be what if any games will we all be coming back to over and over again in the future. Meaning it is way too early to really pass judgment on this gen.  I loved Mario 1-3 but I don't really remember playing them much in the years after I got my hands on Super Mario World, yet I play them now.

 

 

 

Avatar image for Sali217
#132 Posted by Sali217 (1301 posts) -
Probably an unpopular opinion, but I think games are better now. It's hard to judge though because the games are so different. How do you compare something like Super Mario Bros. 3 or Sonic 1 to Something like L.A. Noire or Catherine. It's just too different to compare.
Avatar image for bultje112
#133 Posted by bultje112 (1868 posts) -

Probably an unpopular opinion, but I think games are better now. It's hard to judge though because the games are so different. How do you compare something like Super Mario Bros. 3 or Sonic 1 to Something like L.A. Noire or Catherine. It's just too different to compare.Sali217

 

true, but what makes the current era of gaming better than the old one is that basically no bad games are made anymore. we don't have all the **** games like shaq fu, bible games and many more.

 

Avatar image for JML897
#134 Posted by JML897 (33134 posts) -

I don't know if these really count, but there are some absolutely atrocious indie games on XBLA. Some of those make Shaq Fu look like Ocarina of Time in comparison.

Other than that, some shovelware Wii games are just as bad. I remember Giantbomb did a Quick Look for the Press Your Luck game and that game should have never shipped because of how broken it was

Avatar image for Sali217
#135 Posted by Sali217 (1301 posts) -

[QUOTE="Sali217"]Probably an unpopular opinion, but I think games are better now. It's hard to judge though because the games are so different. How do you compare something like Super Mario Bros. 3 or Sonic 1 to Something like L.A. Noire or Catherine. It's just too different to compare.bultje112

 

true, but what makes the current era of gaming better than the old one is that basically no bad games are made anymore. we don't have all the **** games like shaq fu, bible games and many more.

 

That very well could be true, I'm failing to come up with any games barring certain Move/Kinect games that are truly "bad" in a shaq-fu kind of way in the current generation.
Avatar image for bultje112
#136 Posted by bultje112 (1868 posts) -

I don't know if these really count, but there are some absolutely atrocious indie games on XBLA. Some of those make Shaq Fu look like Ocarina of Time in comparison.

Other than that, some shovelware Wii games are just as bad. I remember Giantbomb did a Quick Look for the Press Your Luck game and that game should have never shipped because of how broken it was

JML897

 

back in the day though the ratio was probably 10-25% of all games released that were almost unplayable and broken beyond anything. now that may be 1% at the most. all the licensed basketball games(barkley), or george foreman boxing, or tons of more. so many horrible games

Avatar image for Jag85
#137 Posted by Jag85 (13248 posts) -

[QUOTE="JML897"]

I don't know if these really count, but there are some absolutely atrocious indie games on XBLA. Some of those make Shaq Fu look like Ocarina of Time in comparison.

Other than that, some shovelware Wii games are just as bad. I remember Giantbomb did a Quick Look for the Press Your Luck game and that game should have never shipped because of how broken it was

bultje112

 

back in the day though the ratio was probably 10-25% of all games released that were almost unplayable and broken beyond anything. now that may be 1% at the most. all the licensed basketball games(barkley), or george foreman boxing, or tons of more. so many horrible games

I'm pretty sure all those bad Wii/Kinect/XBLA/PSN/iOS/Android shovelware make up at least 20-30% of all games released this generation.

Avatar image for voljin1987
#138 Posted by voljin1987 (1063 posts) -

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

It is kind of hard to compare old games to the games of today.  I do not think there is any better worse as a whole, but I think people associate feelings towards certain games.  It was easier to impress people back then.  Digitized characters and 3D graphics made people drop their jaws as well as gruesome violence in fighting games.  4 player games was also something that no one thought could be done as well as online play for consoles.  In the seventh generation of systems, our expectations for games are pretty high.  Some people will not even buy a game if it does not have online functionality. 

You also have to take into account that people have not built up Nostalgic memories for this generation yet.  When people remember a specific game, they also remember other things about their lives as well.  This could include what age a person was when he or she played the title and what his or her life was like at the given time period.  The newer games do not make us feel a certain way because we are living in the present and have not changed yet.  You will understand how the seventh generation of consoles makes you feel when we are all well into the eight generation.    

Jag85

While I agree with most of this post, there's one thing I disagree with:

It was most certainly not "easier" to impress people back then. Things like digitized sprites and 3D graphics are "easy" today, but they were very difficult and expensive to pull off back then with the more limited technology. Creating a primitive 3D game in the early 90's was just as difficult as creating a HD game today (though not as expensive).

What "impressed" gamers back then is the same as what "impresses" gamers today: better graphics, new technology, gameplay innovation, etc. Every time something new comes along, it impresses people, until they get bored of it and move on to the next thing.

back then games had something which nowadays we see very little of.. that is level design.. the reason games like mario are so popular is because the level design and the controls are so tight that it hasnt aged to this day.. the only thing that has aged are the graphics and the sound... publishers were forced to think outside the box to overcome limitations.. nowadays its then norm for most games to have a massive world.. 0 level design to speak of.. sure the world looks good an all.. case in point is ff12 vs ff13.. ff12 is not the most popular of the final fantasy games out there... but it had one of hte biggest and the most diverse of terrain to explore.. it felt like a fantasy world.. take ff13, and it placed you in a corridor asking you to go from point a to point b.. similar case in point is the harry potter series of games.. games 1, 2 and 3 had cartoony graphics with a beautifully designed castle.. the castle was just brimming with secrets making you relive the magic of the books.. the infinitely better looking (technically) games hp5 and hp6 just did not have the feel that you were in a magic castle, it felt dead for me.. the gameplay was a chore.. and it culminated with hp7 being an open world game which was downright atrocious.. i can give many examples like above to illiustrate the point.
Avatar image for gamenerd15
#139 Posted by gamenerd15 (4529 posts) -

[QUOTE="Sali217"]Probably an unpopular opinion, but I think games are better now. It's hard to judge though because the games are so different. How do you compare something like Super Mario Bros. 3 or Sonic 1 to Something like L.A. Noire or Catherine. It's just too different to compare.bultje112

 

true, but what makes the current era of gaming better than the old one is that basically no bad games are made anymore. we don't have all the **** games like shaq fu, bible games and many more.

 

There are bad games out there such as Carnival Games.  It is not the fact that it is a kids game.  The controls are broken to the point where the game is unplayable sometimes. 

Ragdoll Kung Fu was just awful.  The gameplay to that game was so simplistic that it became repetitive and boring.  There was no flow to fighting at all. 

There is no better or worse per se.  Most of it has to do with envoking certain feelings.  We cannot make the comparison between today's games and older generations.  Since today's games are the most current, they do not envoke a feeling as of yet because things have not changed.  Once we are well into the eighth generation of consoles, we can then say that the seventh generation makes us feel a certain way. 

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

[QUOTE="Jag85"]

[QUOTE="gamenerd15"]

It is kind of hard to compare old games to the games of today.  I do not think there is any better worse as a whole, but I think people associate feelings towards certain games.  It was easier to impress people back then.  Digitized characters and 3D graphics made people drop their jaws as well as gruesome violence in fighting games.  4 player games was also something that no one thought could be done as well as online play for consoles.  In the seventh generation of systems, our expectations for games are pretty high.  Some people will not even buy a game if it does not have online functionality. 

You also have to take into account that people have not built up Nostalgic memories for this generation yet.  When people remember a specific game, they also remember other things about their lives as well.  This could include what age a person was when he or she played the title and what his or her life was like at the given time period.  The newer games do not make us feel a certain way because we are living in the present and have not changed yet.  You will understand how the seventh generation of consoles makes you feel when we are all well into the eight generation.    

voljin1987

While I agree with most of this post, there's one thing I disagree with:

It was most certainly not "easier" to impress people back then. Things like digitized sprites and 3D graphics are "easy" today, but they were very difficult and expensive to pull off back then with the more limited technology. Creating a primitive 3D game in the early 90's was just as difficult as creating a HD game today (though not as expensive).

What "impressed" gamers back then is the same as what "impresses" gamers today: better graphics, new technology, gameplay innovation, etc. Every time something new comes along, it impresses people, until they get bored of it and move on to the next thing.

back then games had something which nowadays we see very little of.. that is level design.. the reason games like mario are so popular is because the level design and the controls are so tight that it hasnt aged to this day.. the only thing that has aged are the graphics and the sound... publishers were forced to think outside the box to overcome limitations.. nowadays its then norm for most games to have a massive world.. 0 level design to speak of.. sure the world looks good an all.. case in point is ff12 vs ff13.. ff12 is not the most popular of the final fantasy games out there... but it had one of hte biggest and the most diverse of terrain to explore.. it felt like a fantasy world.. take ff13, and it placed you in a corridor asking you to go from point a to point b.. similar case in point is the harry potter series of games.. games 1, 2 and 3 had cartoony graphics with a beautifully designed castle.. the castle was just brimming with secrets making you relive the magic of the books.. the infinitely better looking (technically) games hp5 and hp6 just did not have the feel that you were in a magic castle, it felt dead for me.. the gameplay was a chore.. and it culminated with hp7 being an open world game which was downright atrocious.. i can give many examples like above to illiustrate the point.

 

you give ff12 and ff13 as examples. but can you give any more?

 

level design is excellent in this generation, especially in sandbox games like skyrim or sleeping dogs

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

[QUOTE="bultje112"]

[QUOTE="JML897"]

I don't know if these really count, but there are some absolutely atrocious indie games on XBLA. Some of those make Shaq Fu look like Ocarina of Time in comparison.

Other than that, some shovelware Wii games are just as bad. I remember Giantbomb did a Quick Look for the Press Your Luck game and that game should have never shipped because of how broken it was

Jag85

 

back in the day though the ratio was probably 10-25% of all games released that were almost unplayable and broken beyond anything. now that may be 1% at the most. all the licensed basketball games(barkley), or george foreman boxing, or tons of more. so many horrible games

I'm pretty sure all those bad Wii/Kinect/XBLA/PSN/iOS/Android shovelware make up at least 20-30% of all games released this generation.

 

I don't count mobile phones and nor should anyone. they have nothing to do with videogaming and there isn't much shovelware on psn or xboxlive, kinect,wii yes, but that isn't much.

Avatar image for voljin1987
#142 Posted by voljin1987 (1063 posts) -
you give ff12 and ff13 as examples. but can you give any more?

 

level design is excellent in this generation, especially in sandbox games like skyrim or sleeping dogs

bultje112
examples - mgs3 snake eater vs mgs4.. you go from being a jungle where you have to survive at all means necessary vs a game which forces a cutscene down your throat every 20 steps. skyrim in itself does not bring anything new to the table. We have seen it all before in oblivion and before taht in morrowind.. however compare any of skyrim's dungeons with any of the dungeons of ocarina of time or majora's mask.. or even better compare it with ff12 dungeons like necrohol of nabudis, Giruvegan etc... the dungeons were much more compelling.. it wasnt just "there is dragon roar thingy at the end of the dungeon so go there" infact compare any dungeon of current gen rpgs with a game like chrono trigger.. you will see what i mean.. sandbox games in general have a lazy level design (not referring to the look of the level here).. i havent played sleeping dogs so cant comment on it.. taking a fps into account, compare a map for the original unreal released i think way back 1998.. compare it with current day linear shooters like call of duty.. nowadays setpieces and explosions are more important than actual design.. another example? take prince of persia sands of time.. compare any of the later levels with the missions you undertake in assassin's creed.. i can give many more.. the point i am trying to make is that in the olden days.. level design was what set great games apart from mediocre ones.. there was only so much the technology could do.. nowadays its all about the "oh snap" factor, the graphics and the rest.. the actual gameplay has been toned down and taken a backseat..
Avatar image for jsmoke03
#143 Posted by jsmoke03 (13697 posts) -

it really depends when you got hooked into gaming. im 31 but i didnt fall in love with video games until i was a senior in highschool. i can appreciate games more now because nostalgia doesnt play that big of a part...

Avatar image for Jag85
#144 Posted by Jag85 (13248 posts) -

[QUOTE="bultje112"]you give ff12 and ff13 as examples. but can you give any more?

 

level design is excellent in this generation, especially in sandbox games like skyrim or sleeping dogs

voljin1987

examples - mgs3 snake eater vs mgs4.. you go from being a jungle where you have to survive at all means necessary vs a game which forces a cutscene down your throat every 20 steps. skyrim in itself does not bring anything new to the table. We have seen it all before in oblivion and before taht in morrowind.. however compare any of skyrim's dungeons with any of the dungeons of ocarina of time or majora's mask.. or even better compare it with ff12 dungeons like necrohol of nabudis, Giruvegan etc... the dungeons were much more compelling.. it wasnt just "there is dragon roar thingy at the end of the dungeon so go there" infact compare any dungeon of current gen rpgs with a game like chrono trigger.. you will see what i mean.. sandbox games in general have a lazy level design (not referring to the look of the level here).. i havent played sleeping dogs so cant comment on it.. taking a fps into account, compare a map for the original unreal released i think way back 1998.. compare it with current day linear shooters like call of duty.. nowadays setpieces and explosions are more important than actual design.. another example? take prince of persia sands of time.. compare any of the later levels with the missions you undertake in assassin's creed.. i can give many more.. the point i am trying to make is that in the olden days.. level design was what set great games apart from mediocre ones.. there was only so much the technology could do.. nowadays its all about the "oh snap" factor, the graphics and the rest.. the actual gameplay has been toned down and taken a backseat..

I think this picture sums up your argument best:

fpsmapdesign.jpg

Avatar image for voljin1987
#145 Posted by voljin1987 (1063 posts) -

[QUOTE="voljin1987"][QUOTE="bultje112"]you give ff12 and ff13 as examples. but can you give any more?

 

level design is excellent in this generation, especially in sandbox games like skyrim or sleeping dogs

Jag85

examples - mgs3 snake eater vs mgs4.. you go from being a jungle where you have to survive at all means necessary vs a game which forces a cutscene down your throat every 20 steps. skyrim in itself does not bring anything new to the table. We have seen it all before in oblivion and before taht in morrowind.. however compare any of skyrim's dungeons with any of the dungeons of ocarina of time or majora's mask.. or even better compare it with ff12 dungeons like necrohol of nabudis, Giruvegan etc... the dungeons were much more compelling.. it wasnt just "there is dragon roar thingy at the end of the dungeon so go there" infact compare any dungeon of current gen rpgs with a game like chrono trigger.. you will see what i mean.. sandbox games in general have a lazy level design (not referring to the look of the level here).. i havent played sleeping dogs so cant comment on it.. taking a fps into account, compare a map for the original unreal released i think way back 1998.. compare it with current day linear shooters like call of duty.. nowadays setpieces and explosions are more important than actual design.. another example? take prince of persia sands of time.. compare any of the later levels with the missions you undertake in assassin's creed.. i can give many more.. the point i am trying to make is that in the olden days.. level design was what set great games apart from mediocre ones.. there was only so much the technology could do.. nowadays its all about the "oh snap" factor, the graphics and the rest.. the actual gameplay has been toned down and taken a backseat..

I think this picture sums up your argument best:

fpsmapdesign.jpg

couldnt have put it better myself :D
Avatar image for JML897
#146 Posted by JML897 (33134 posts) -

I don't like that old level design. It's just confusing for no reason. I don't care about navigating the map. JigglyWiggly_

That's the thing about Doom levels - they were complex, but being complex doesn't automatically make the level design good. It's not like you would beat the levels by solving puzzles or anything. It was just "wander around aimlessly until you finally find the key/switch you're looking for".

I love Doom, it's one of my favorite games. It's just that once I get to the second episode, almost every level from there on out makes me think "oh damnit, I hate this level because of all the running in circles I know I'm going to do". Doom II can be even worse in that regard; some of the levels in that game are atrocious.

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

[QUOTE="bultje112"]you give ff12 and ff13 as examples. but can you give any more?

 

level design is excellent in this generation, especially in sandbox games like skyrim or sleeping dogs

voljin1987

examples - mgs3 snake eater vs mgs4.. you go from being a jungle where you have to survive at all means necessary vs a game which forces a cutscene down your throat every 20 steps. skyrim in itself does not bring anything new to the table. We have seen it all before in oblivion and before taht in morrowind.. however compare any of skyrim's dungeons with any of the dungeons of ocarina of time or majora's mask.. or even better compare it with ff12 dungeons like necrohol of nabudis, Giruvegan etc... the dungeons were much more compelling.. it wasnt just "there is dragon roar thingy at the end of the dungeon so go there" infact compare any dungeon of current gen rpgs with a game like chrono trigger.. you will see what i mean.. sandbox games in general have a lazy level design (not referring to the look of the level here).. i havent played sleeping dogs so cant comment on it.. taking a fps into account, compare a map for the original unreal released i think way back 1998.. compare it with current day linear shooters like call of duty.. nowadays setpieces and explosions are more important than actual design.. another example? take prince of persia sands of time.. compare any of the later levels with the missions you undertake in assassin's creed.. i can give many more.. the point i am trying to make is that in the olden days.. level design was what set great games apart from mediocre ones.. there was only so much the technology could do.. nowadays its all about the "oh snap" factor, the graphics and the rest.. the actual gameplay has been toned down and taken a backseat..

MGS4 definitely did fvck up the Metal Gear design. In the other games, you have one cohesive, deeply detailed environment. In MGS4, you have 4 (or maybe 5) lazy, uninspired ones that scream generic. It boggles my mind that anybody thinks MGS4 is the best MGS game.

Avatar image for JigglyWiggly_
#148 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (24623 posts) -
I don't like that old level design. It's just confusing for no reason. I don't care about navigating the map. In MP especially, just keep it fairly open so it's not cover spam. Tribes Ascend does it nicely.
Avatar image for LittleMac19
#149 Posted by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -
[QUOTE="Dudersaper"]No. They weren't better or worse. Each generation has there own strong points.

Avatar image for gamenerd15
#150 Posted by gamenerd15 (4529 posts) -

[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"]I don't like that old level design. It's just confusing for no reason. I don't care about navigating the map. JML897

That's the thing about Doom levels - they were complex, but being complex doesn't automatically make the level design good. It's not like you would beat the levels by solving puzzles or anything. It was just "wander around aimlessly until you finally find the key/switch you're looking for".

I love Doom, it's one of my favorite games. It's just that once I get to the second episode, almost every level from there on out makes me think "oh damnit, I hate this level because of all the running in circles I know I'm going to do". Doom II can be even worse in that regard; some of the levels in that game are atrocious.

 

I think the poster of the Doom map was trying say that newer games hold your hand too much while older games let players without telling them anything.  The only thing about people who claim that older games were better because they did not tell you everytiing have tutorials is that developer did not have any memories to waste on cutscenes or text explaining the mechanics.  It was not because developers cared more back in the day.  A lot of games came from the arcade.  Arcade games were made to take people's money so that shopkeepers would buy them.  Developers did not make any profit from quarters inside any arcade unit.  The only reason a lot games were hard is due to respawning enemies or awkard platforming.  Ninja Turtles 1 on the NES is guilty of both of these things.  Battletoads is cool, but the platforming is awkard in the game.   Granted, these tricks were used developers did not have enough memory to make things differently so the had to rely on cheap tactics to extend the replay value of title.  People would have finished most games in an hour or so, if the tactics were not put into place.  

Games should be difficult on their own merits, and not use dumb tactics.  Games such as Mario Bros 3, Donkey Kong Country, the Resistance franchise, Rayman Origins are all games that challenge players in a smart way.  There are very few cheap tricks used in these titles.