Is There A "Too Old" Cut-Off Point For Games For You?

I'm wondering if anyone else is like me when it comes to this.

I pretty much can go as far back as NES and Sega Master System and still enjoy a good portion of their game libraries.

However when I start to get into systems made before that like the Atari 2600 or Intellivision I find very little games that can actually entertain me for more than a few minutes at a time. I figure it's one those things that you just had to be there when it was new to enjoy it. Dig-Dug and Missile Command stick out as a couple I really enjoy, but even those games I can only play for so long. It just doesn't hold my attention or entertain me as much. I also much prefer a d-pad (or a thumbstick) to a joystick, especially the ones on Atari systems, Colecovision, and Intellivision. Intellivision and Colecovision's are just uncomfortable, unintuitive, and just plain suck. And while Atari 2600's isn't as bad, the actual joystick is quite stiff, but thankfully the Sega Genesis controller is compatible with Atari 2600.

I do own an Atari 2600 and a handful of games (as well as a Pong-clone) because I'm into the history of gaming and I like to see where gaming came from.

Is there a similar cut-off point for you? What is it?

I'm wondering if anyone else is like me when it comes to this.

I pretty much can go as far back as NES and Sega Master System and still enjoy a good portion of their game libraries.

However when I start to get into systems made before that like the Atari 2600 or Intellivision I find very little games that can actually entertain me for more than a few minutes at a time. I figure it's one those things that you just had to be there when it was new to enjoy it. Dig-Dug and Missile Command stick out as a couple I really enjoy, but even those games I can only play for so long. It just doesn't hold my attention or entertain me as much. I also much prefer a d-pad (or a thumbstick) to a joystick, especially the ones on Atari systems, Colecovision, and Intellivision. Intellivision and Colecovision's are just uncomfortable, unintuitive, and just plain suck. And while Atari 2600's isn't as bad, the actual joystick is quite stiff, but thankfully the Sega Genesis controller is compatible with Atari 2600.

I do own an Atari 2600 and a handful of games (as well as a Pong-clone) because I'm into the history of gaming and I like to see where gaming came from.

Is there a similar cut-off point for you? What is it?

Emerald_Warrior

I'm with everyone else; the NES is as far back as I can go. Past that, I just can't get into 2600, Intellivision, Odysee, ect.

The game libraries of systems in the pre-NES era get a spotty rap because there wasn't any sort of real quality control, coupled with just plain bad controllers (the ColecoVision has to be THE worst in this respect, though it did have more horespower than any other console out at the time). I think there's a lot to enjoy from this era, though; the Vectrex is an experience in and of itself, for instance, and the ColecoVision was the Nego Geo of its day, with a library sporting the most accurate arcade ports. Personally, I love the high tension gameplay of those old arcade games.

I don't have a defined cut-off point; I even enjoy a good text game now and then if the parser is halfway decent ('A Mind Forever Voyaging' is a classic!).

For me there is no cut-off point, I can go right back to the beginning of games and still have a blast.

well , I can find games in almost every generation that I like, but generally speaking when you get to the late 70s and early 80s, the amount of games I can really get into is minimal.

Since the NES is the oldest System I own. That would be it.

I can go back to the NES but it has to be games that I've played before. I find it hard to start a new game for the first time on older systems.

I honestly don't much like playing NES games anymore and even a lot of 16-bit era stuff just doesn't work for me. It's not that I don't like the games but so few of them let you save your progress that it is just hard to find time to really dig into them. For my eight-bit fix, a lot of later Game Boy and GBC games have the same style of gameplay and graphics but do let you save progress. I will take, say, Super Mario Land 2 on GB over Super Mario Bros. 3 on NES for this reason. The latter I can play the first half of over and over while the former, I actually get to finish.

I honestly don't much like playing NES games anymore and even a lot of 16-bit era stuff just doesn't work for me. It's not that I don't like the games but so few of them let you save your progress that it is just hard to find time to really dig into them. For my eight-bit fix, a lot of later Game Boy and GBC games have the same style of gameplay and graphics but do let you save progress. I will take, say, Super Mario Land 2 on GB over Super Mario Bros. 3 on NES for this reason. The latter I can play the first half of over and over while the former, I actually get to finish.

logicalfrank

I can beat SMB3 in about 15 min haha. No, it doesn`t let you save but thats why it has warps ;)

No, because there are well made games for the very old systems, Q-Bert comes to mind, that are fun to play even today.

So far I have not reached that point. I have yet to try a text-adventure though.Reptylus

I loved playing text-adventures on the C64, I haven't played any in years though. I might have to go play one now, for old times' sake.

NES and up for me mostly. There are older games than those that I like but not many.

The consoles that I can never get into is the Atari 2600 or any other console that was part of the same generation as the 2600. The oldest one that I can get into is the NES and that console still kicks ass to this day. The games are still awesome.

Before entering the thread, I thought the title was asking if someone can be too old to play games. For the age of games themselves, I agree that the NES/Master system is a good beginning point. That's when games first really started getting good, imo.

nope. if it has anything that i enjoy playing, ill play it

I'm with everybody else. The NES is as far back as I can go and still have a fun time playing. Most of the games are put in and play a bit, but many hold their own and can be played alot. When I hook up the 2600, its fun but gets old quick. I'd say the 8 bit and 16 bit era was when games started to really evolve though and achieved good/solid sit down fun.

I'm pretty much like you. NES/Master System is as far as I go.Dudersaper

I can play games that offer good nostalgia, but in no way will take them seriously. I don't plan on sitting around and beating the original Legend of Zelda anytime soon, but maybe just watch the cartoon. I go as far back as the NES, but can really only play games that I knew back then and loved. New games that I have never played in that era would just bore me to death.

I would probably humor Atari 2600 games for a few minutes but could never in a million years take it seriously, it's just TOO old and these days I've gradually since a teenager grown accustomed to games with developing plots, characters and storylines, or even complex fighting games that require real timing and skill and somewhat of a following (could try and get better at SF3 but won't bother with a game like King of Fighters for the PS2). Anything other than that won't interest me one bit.

NO. If it is a Fun game.....then I'm Game.

NES and Colecovision for me. I still love my coleco, first system I ever owned. I'm still hooked on Miner 2049er and Gorf.

It's hard for me to go much further back than SNES/Sega Era. It's not that there aren't worthy games, further back--Atari 7800 had some awesome games--it's the crappy controllers they had, back then.

It's hard for me to go much further back than SNES/Sega Era. It's not that there aren't worthy games, further back--Atari 7800 had some awesome games--it's the crappy controllers they had, back then.

HAMMERCLAW

It depends on how good the games were. I judge based on the games not the launch date of the system.

IMHO opinion, 2600 games mostly weren't that good. Don't get me wrong. I had one when I was maybe 5 or 6 years old. I played ET when I was 8 and while I wouldn't say I loved it, I found it engaging enough to actually beat it (or a round, anyway. You beat it and it just starts over). I enjoyed titles like Yar's Revenge, Combat (multiplayer only kinda sucked though), Joust (7800 one was waaaaaaaaaaay better).

The 2600 was really compared to the arcade counterparts back then. While it was neat that there was a "home arcade game" you could play, every arcade port paled badly in comparison to it's upright counterpart. It wasn't until the 7800 era that the games looked even remotely like the originals. Pacman 2600 was the most popular title and it looked like absolute crap even then.

So yes, I remember my roots but I play 2600 games only to try to remember what it was like when I was playing these games new but had I not played them in my childhood I would have little incentive to play them now (and yes, I actually beat Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark).

-Byshop

Yeah, anything prior to the current generation. I've been playing games since NES, but sorry, old games are too archaic and dated. Even PS3 games prior to when they had trophies don't do it for me anymore.supern0va9

I have a lot of trouble stomaching the presentation of NES era gaming, even though I began gaming in the 2600 days. The SNES and Genesis are really where I start.