next »

[Gimym TILBERT]

But also at the same times pixel art is part of the "street cred" of gaming. I have seen many child with a much more deep knowledge of obscure things from the video games history that any of my generation ever get (heck who cares that Mario bros. is written with the point at the end of bros?). Pixel art is basically the emblem of gaming and just another art style for them, not something necessary of lesser quality.

[Mipe]

I dunno, I played Fallout 1 for the first time some 8 years after it was released and still had a blast. ...

I discovered M.U.L.E., Exile, Star Control II, Master of Orion and many other 'classics' some 15 years after their release.

Ditto minus M.U.L.E. and Goldeneye64 stuff. I've played many an oldie goldie that tickled my fancy well after their time. One word: SNES.

Okay, that's an acronym.

[C.A. Sinner]

Also, I guess we can all agree that limited continues are bullshit, at least in non-arcade games.

Absolutly

They keep a nerf version of it in NSMBWii that's just annoying in single player. But with 4 player it's just GENIUS. As long everybody don't have 0 life at the same time, while failing a level, lifes get reset and the game keep going. That alone completely change the game dynamics, the risk/rewards and social dynamics.

Sounds interesting. I really have to get NSMBW some time.

Anyway, come to think of it, I guess the good-to-bad ratio is actually higher in gaming these days than it used to be. I mean, for instance if you bought a random NES or Gameboy game back in the day, chances were it would be complete utter shit, with horrible design flaws and even worse technical execution. When I look at, say, the PS3 library there seem to be a lot fewer truly terrible games, with general tendency towards the mediocre.

[Arne]

The potential that games represent has improved dramatically. But the actual quality of a game is not dependent on the technology that runs it. All the potential in the world is worthless if it is not implemented correctly.

Some game types does not really require a massive amount of processing power and graphics cardery. Tetris being the most obvious example. In a similar way, some movie plots doesn't require great special effects. Anyways, since I prefer games which go overboard with costly simulation, persistence, freedom and physics dickery, as well as good art, I should really be the one arguing against old games!

As a kid I thought that games in the future would be developed like Dwarf Fortress... with 16 bit graphics and maybe even three dimensional graphics like Zarch, but better. I thought they were gonna cram games to the brim with stuff to do, then next year when they got 4 more megabytes of ram they would add even more stuff. Instead I got... well, gamey games. I've already played move, shoot and collect, but I can understand if the concept feels so fresh to new people that they don't really expect anything else on the cake.

[jakten]

Anyway, come to think of it, I guess the good-to-bad ratio is actually higher in gaming these days than it used to be. I mean, for instance if you bought a random NES or Gameboy game back in the day, chances were it would be complete utter shit, with horrible design flaws and even worse technical execution. When I look at, say, the PS3 library there seem to be a lot fewer truly terrible games, with general tendency towards the mediocre.

To some extent yes but I really find games from the NES-SNES era the exact opposite. I always rented games as a kid and enjoyed almost all of them and going back and buying random cheap crap from used games stores gives me the same satisfaction. Although they have some defects they usually have a number of things that make them better. Imagination and Overall game play especially. Bottom line, they were fun.

My girlfriend worked in a used game store so I got the chance to play a huge chunk of PS2-recent era video games and can say that the selection is like rifling through a pile of puke. There are great games don't get me wrong but the games that aren't are extremely bad, there aren't as many diamonds in the ruff. %80 of those games were the exact same thing.

I think this comes from games being more complicated and the market getting more commercial. Games are better now no doubt about it, it's impossible to say they aren't. But satisfaction-wise... I wouldn't say so much. I think the largest downfall for games now a days is lack of thought put into it. Most games try to cash in on other peoples ideas and make lackluster products, even some retro-themed games fall into this category hoping nostalgia will keep them afloat. But largest factor they forgot was fun, why didn't they improve the fun part? I also think limited console life is a factor as well, as soon as these companies have learned how to make a good game they have their chance ripped from under them because now they have to learn all over again.

New games are amazing, but the majority is mediocre compared to the great ones. Old games presented worlds, Ideas, characters that you never would have see in something like a movie. Now... it's all the same across the board. Why can't I be a giant flying zombie head destorying America with fireballs anymore?

[Gimym TILBERT]

Yep so true.

The ratio of cheetah men quality game have greatly reduce, but also the random greatness game had. Even old great games was bloated with "defects". Today we know a lot more about avoiding making bad game, but a lot of what makes a game great was lost or uncovered. The challenge mentality is one of the guideline that have average gamedesign because it work well, great games had much more than that!

@ arne:
Sorry for that, but you will see anything else (graphics, interface, sounds, etc...) becoming complicated before gameplay move a single inch  . Fortunately the recent procedural movement could change things if it grow up enough!

[Jolli]

alright ill put in some serious comments

he's comparing how the video gams have evolved compared to other things like... music. reasonable.
his example: people don't listen to music like "beatles" for nostalgia, they listen to it cos they actually want to experience that. but not many go back and play "paper boy" because they want to actually play it.

i played goldeneye64 again a year ago or whatever and the nostalgia is all lies. i couldnt even control the...
fucking shit


anyway i'd consider it a good thing, as he says too, that video gams continue to get better. yea theres still occasionally crap gams but there more crap gams back then too (the number of crap gams i mean)

lot of gams worth playing released very recently: bioshock 2, dragon age, mass effect 2, dantes inferno, assassins creed 2, modern warfare 2, darksiders, bayonetta, mag, odst, borderlands, etc. (if you dont like any of these gams, give up on your hobby)

Sucks for you that Goldeneye, your cherrypicked example of an old game that sucks, was exactly the sort of game in its time as Modern Warfare/MAG/Borderlands are now - will you hate them in ten years time?  Five?  Will you despise anybody who doesn't?  I have a copy of Bayonetta sitting right in front of me, next to Burnout Paradise, and I think a lot of what appeals to me is that it sorta evokes a lot of what is missing from games these days but was commonplace back in the day - pants-on-head retarded fun.  Like Nitroball, or Ninja Baseball Bat Man.  I'm not a nostalgia whore - a nostalgia whore is somebody who will swear up and down that Goldeneye is still fun and will look you in the eye and tell you Bayonetta sucks.  But I do like a bunch of old games, and I'm pretty selective about new stuff so I don't just end up playing the next Goldeneye.

i never said HATE OLD GAMS you stupid piece of shit

[Eric McQuiggan]

Well, you did call Golden Eye fucking shit.

[Gnarf]

And, seeing as it's the internet

[Arne]

@ arne:
Sorry for that, but you will see anything else (graphics, interface, sounds, etc...) becoming complicated before gameplay move a single inch  . Fortunately the recent procedural movement could change things if it grow up enough!

Well, actually I think that the game genres which I unfortunately have grown tired of have actually advanced quite a bit, and not just superficially. So, from that perspective I agree about games being overall better. If a developer were to make a game in the genre of my liking (it actually does happen a few times every year), and managed to get pass the 'Sturgeon' mine field, I'm pretty sure that it would be much better than some old good game. 

[C.A. Sinner]

FPSs are better now in my opinion, RPGs are worse.

[Gimym TILBERT]

FPSs are better now in my opinion, RPGs are worse.

That's funny because FPS evolve by actually predating other genre. The biggest WRPG today are close to the fps model of immersion (oblivion, fallout 3, mass effect). I know third person shooter are not technically FPS but tend to play and control the same.

But still, a lot of thing perfect dark had still miss today for me 

[Brother Android]

And that's funny because I don't actually like modern first person shooters very much. I think Goldeneye is a much more fun and intuitive game than, say, Halo.

Honestly I guess I'm just not a fan of the genre in general. Insofar as I am, though, I definitely prefer PC shooters to RPG shooters. That dual stick control thing doesn't really do it for me.

You're right, though, that modern RPGs seem poorer than they were in the late 90s and early 00s. It may be that a good one just hasn't come out in a while... or it may be that hardcore genre games are just sort of losing their luster these days. Most modern games that I enjoy don't fit very cleanly into a single genre. Mass Effect, in my opinion the only halfway decent RPG of the past few years (and I don't even like it that much), uses far-from-typical RPG gameplay. And the best FPSes of recent years - Portal, Half-Life 2 - have relentlessly innovative gameplay to make up for the tropes they otherwise follow.

[Derek]

Eva's been banned for a month from posting on TIGSource.  But if you want to discuss it, please PM me.

[Renton]

I think voiceovers killed WRPGs.