Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

This only gave grief

3 (6.1%)

Grakelin is not stupid

6 (12.2%)

Are you happier now?

1 (2%)

------ Haiku, the encore -----

17 (34.7%)

Disagreeing, Fine

0 (0%)

Why you make a fuzz 'bout it?

3 (6.1%)

Lets just be happy

19 (38.8%)

Total Members Voted: 48

[Frumple]

Most of the hate I see comes from two major directions: As reaction to odious business practice from the bigger gaming companies -- who are all too often run by people who know business but don't know games, its culture, or its various quirks, and thus unsurprisingly alienate a great deal of people who self-identify as 'gamers' instead of just playing games from time to time -- and as hardcore (TVTropes Warning!) nostalgia filter.

The first I understand wholeheartedly, though both sides of the conflict are pretty easy to see. The second... I'unno, it starts to irk me. Games of the past aren't really better than games now. In most cases (take it genre by genre), more recent games are categorically better -- oft times in every bloody way, not just in an overall sense -- than their predecessors. It's incredibly hard to make a case that, as an example, C&C (the first one) is better than Dawn of War -- at least not without indulging in willful self-deception. Age of Wonders stacks up and stands tall among Masters of Magic, HoMM, and its ilk. There's examples in every genre, of the greats of now at the very least matching the games that came before them. Sit a person who's never played a game (plenty of third world folks starving while we indulge in our luxuries! There's a good sample size to be had.) in front of the best of a genre in the 80s or 90s and the best of the 00s and 10s, and I'd be bloody willing to lay money (though not much, I'm not exactly well off ) that the newer ones come out on top.

Not just pulling that out of my arse. I play old games constantly and I love the hell out of them. The greats of video game history are greats. I also, when budget or mooching allows, fire up a new game and, yanno'? If you compare then and now, actually stack a particular old game versus its descendant, you're pretty much guaranteed to find that, point for point, the descendant's won out. Maybe it loses on one or two points, that happens between the greats of their own eras, but in an overall sense, video game design has improved as time has passed. It's still working out its kinks, it's still got problems, and a lot of those improvements have come about simply due to hardware limitations being lifted and plain ol' experience (and shameless idea theft, always a good thing), but overall, the state of the gaming world's better now than it was 20 years ago. I know, and I think most other folks that have actually been playing that long (and longer!) know it too, they're just letting comparatively minor gripes get in the way of the whole picture -- letting a few dead trees spoil their appreciation of the whole forest, and all that rot.

Games have improved more than they've regressed. Overall, things are improving, if roughly and with difficulty. The greats are getting greater, if sometimes harder to see among all the white noise (which has been true forever and ever and ever ) and the mediocre are getting less mediocre. The crap is still crap. The industry's maturing and changing. It'll be a while before we see exactly how it turns out.

[/nostalgia rant]

[Funk]

we have seen in old games just how to do x well, look at spore's civ part, some part of you says that is shoud have the battles of a total war game and the city building of civilzation

[ed boy]

Also, I would reccomend doing this.

That's been my gaming policy (though the lag time varies a bit) for the past several years, and I can confirm that it's a really good one. It offer the benefits of:
-Even games that were cutting edge at the time can run confortably
-Bugs have been sorted out with patches
-All sorts of extensive and well-developed mods have been developed
-The games themselves are really cheap
-You get to avoid the bad games and play only the ones that have stood the test of time

As it says, the only downside is not being up to date with all the latest fads and memes, but I can attest that that is an incredibly minor consequence.

[Draco18s]

Guys, did we really have to erase the poll and replace it with something dumb?

[Areyar]

..., SC2 was great and I'm eagerly awaiting the expansions. ...

I don't get it.
When you write SC2, I read StarControl2 or SimCity2000.  Both great games, but they don't have expansions AFAIK. So what modern game are you refering to then?

...I'm getting old. :p

[KaguroDraven]

..., SC2 was great and I'm eagerly awaiting the expansions. ...

I don't get it.
When you write SC2, I read StarControl2 or SimCity2000.  Both great games, but they don't have expansions AFAIK. So what modern game are you refering to then?

...I'm getting old. :p

StarCraft 2

[TolyK]

PORTAL 2 easily stands out 

[Neonivek]

If you compare then and now, actually stack a particular old game versus its descendant, you're pretty much guaranteed to find that, point for point, the descendant's won out.

It depends on the game, but point for point isn't that hard to use against an old game. For example:
1) Graphics: The new one is made with newer graphics... It wins
2) Music: The new one is made with newer music... It wins
3) Interface: The new one is made with a streamlined interface that looks nicer... It wins
4) Comedy: The new one has references made in modern times... It wins

The thing is you have to look at a lot of these from a Style perspective. Gears of wars has BAAAAAD graphics in an artistic sense for example, everything is just outright ugly even when it doesn't make sense for it to be. Okami is a beautiful game thats style matches the game quite well.

Here is the thing about GOOD older games (not the cruddy or mediocre ones) they did the most with what they had.

[Areyar]

..., SC2 was great and I'm eagerly awaiting the expansions. ...

I don't get it.
When you write SC2, I read StarControl2 or SimCity2000.  Both great games, but they don't have expansions AFAIK. So what modern game are you refering to then?

...I'm getting old. :p

StarCraft 2

Ah, not just old then, demented too.  I have bought that game!
Not finished campaign yet though; home improvement is eating my freetime (what I have goes to DF, sorry SC2, you lose).

[SirAaronIII]

Well, if you compare an old game and a new game using something like graphics, you'll have to keep in mind that the old game is, well, old. Maybe the graphics don't look like much now, but what about when the game was released way back in ye olden days?

[freeformschooler]

Well, if you compare an old game and a new game using something like graphics, you'll have to keep in mind that the old game is, well, old. Maybe the graphics don't look like much now, but what about when the game was released way back in ye olden days?

Yes, I'd like to remind everybody that the main 1980s Legend of Zelda game commercial included videos of the gameplay while some nasally geek said "Look at those graphics!"

[SirAaronIII]

Yes, I'd like to remind everybody that the main 1980s Legend of Zelda game commercial included videos of the gameplay while some nasally geek said "Look at those graphics!"

It did? Gotta go watch that now...
oh god why

[Soulwynd]

My biggest quirk with modern games these days is like Soul had said, it's linearity.

I wouldn't say the problem is linearity as much as it is the lack of re-playability. I mean, if we take x-com for example, it has some very linear stuff going on. You have to do very specific things to advance the plot. The difference is that the game has a certain flavor of randomization and surprise that makes you replay it even tho you know you need to down a cap ship and stun the captain in every single gameplay if you want to advance.

Anarchy Online, though it's pretty dead (it may just be nostalgia but man I love this game).

It is? I played it for 5 or 7 years. Either one. I think I played a bit last year (or the year before, blurry blurry) and it was full and thriving.

Most of the hate I see comes from two major directions: As reaction to odious business practice from the bigger gaming companies -- who are all too often run by people who know business but don't know games, its culture, or its various quirks, and thus unsurprisingly alienate a great deal of people who self-identify as 'gamers' instead of just playing games from time to time -- and as hardcore (TVTropes Warning!) nostalgia filter.

It's not nostalgia when you opt to play those games instead of modern ones on a daily basis.

Which I do.

Plus nor me nor anyone has said there hasn't been crap. There has been crap in any era of the games. Yes a lot of things advanced, but a lot of things not only did not, but they pulled back. Said things are what I feel are important in games, which is why I'm displeased with most modern games and find myself picking an older game to play later today. If I don't get that EYE game that is, I think I will most likely keep playing Betrayal at Krondor if so.

So, I'm sorry, I understand there is a lot of nostalgia filter going on for a lot of older games but please, don't let that be a reason of why I may irk you, because I assure you it is not. We just happen to disagree that the newer installment of any given game has improved its predecessor. In some cases it may be true, but most of the times, if I hold a game against its older granddaddy, I pick the granddaddy (Why did that sound so dirty?). If I may give an example of my own, it would be the elder scrolls series. I pick Daggerfall over morrowind and oblivion any day.

Guys, did we really have to erase the poll and replace it with something dumb?

Yes. If you really want to know what happened, you can PM me.

If you compare then and now, actually stack a particular old game versus its descendant, you're pretty much guaranteed to find that, point for point, the descendant's won out.

It depends on the game, but point for point isn't that hard to use against an old game. For example:

Plus it ignores the fact certain points are more important than others.

All the points you mentioned in your example, Neo, are a sure win for modern games. Specially interface. The interface in most old games simply suck. But... The most important point of all... Which overshadows every other point (for me that is)... Would be gameplay. Actual game playing satisfaction. That thing that makes you go "Wow, that took some effort and thought out of me.". Most modern games don't win there.

So I ditch them after playing once and go play a bit of x-com.

[KaguroDraven]

Even the most linear games can be replayable in my mind all they need is one of two things. Good Story. Fun gameplay. If either of those are good enough then even the most linear game imaginable is replayable, especially if both are there.
Example:God of War 1, by most definitations a rather Linear game. Fun as hell gameplay and a decent story have made me replay it several times.

[Antioch]

How is linearity a problem with 'modern games'? most old games had a lot more linearity.