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

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

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

BarbaricAvatar

Modern games are too much focused on stories.

Modern games are too much focused on stories.

Stefan91x

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.

[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?...

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

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

BarbaricAvatar

rereleased games are as old as games themselves

[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.

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

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

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!

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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?

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.

[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?

[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?

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.

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

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.    

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.

No.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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

[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

[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.

[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. 

[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.

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

[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 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.

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

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...

[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

I think this picture sums up your argument best:

[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

I think this picture sums up your argument best:

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.

[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

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.

[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.