This post about yourself? I don't ever see you do anything but bitch and moan.Originally Posted by portnoyd
This post about yourself? I don't ever see you do anything but bitch and moan.
Everything in the above post is opinion unless stated otherwise.
I return to classic games (classic for me being 8-bit/16-bit) because of nostalgia, simple "pick-up-and-play" gameplay, and fun factor.
I enjoy many modern games too, but they don't have the added advantage of nostalgia yet. Plus I'm a little burnt out after 20+ years of gaming, playing the same few genres over and over.
I disagree w/the beginning of this post. Sonic 16-bit after the first zone is always less speed oriented. Sonic Adventure IMO was exactly what they had in mind when they originally came up w/the concept. The game pretty much Sonic just running around w/blazing speed. It's not a better game for sure, but it seems to be less obstacle oriented than the 16 bit games.
Ditto old or new i'll play it if i think it's good.
Personally, I thought about it like this:
using Sonic's speed is a reward. Yeah, if you're a first-time player (or just not good at the game) you have to stop all the time and proceed slowly, but once you get good, you can blaze through the game and live up to Sonic's reputation.
Sonic Adventure, in that sense is an example of what's wrong with modern gaming. It trades in this rewarding nature and just let's you run, replacing the feeling of accomplishment with sheer spectacle.
though, it wouldn't be so bad if the game weren't tedious, badly-designed, irritating as heck, full of illogical decisions (you can't just jump down to the next platform or you'll die WTF), so buggy that you sometimes simply fall through the floor for no reason, and on top of that you're forced to play as characters besides Sonic just to unlock the last level. I'm sorry but honestly Adventure was when I stopped liking Sonic.
A good game will always be a good game.
You can be seduced by the vulgarities of modern graphics and general depth, but the reality is that can't make up for poor game-play, story or a lack of originality.
Case in point being that out of all the Zelda games released both The Legend of Zelda and The Legend of Zelda: a Link to the Past are by far the best of the Franchise. More modern games tend to rely on game-play aspects that border on pure novelty value like kinetic controls, 3-D visuals or Cinematics. Older games concentrate on the core aspects of gaming that separate them from other forms of entertainment like films or books. The latest Zelda games on the DS are dull with lots of pointless travel and boring linear questing, but bearable and the ones on the Wii/Gamecube are just OMFG!
The reality is that sometimes having almost limitless technical capabilities impairs the creators of games ability to concentrate on getting the fundamentals right. How many times have you played a modern game which looked stunning, but as soon as a character spoke you began to face-palm at the banality and general awfulness of the dialogue? Maybe you get into a game only to start wondering, "Why am I helping this douche-bag character by playing them?" Worst of all you sit there performing some monotonous random task rendered into perfect life-like graphics until you realize the pay off is just more crappy game-play.
Games in the 8-16 bit (hell even some 32-bit) are just more fun than the games of today.
Simple, they're better because back then they focused on the gameplay, the story, the overall replay value of that game, where even if you beat it many times you still want to pick it up and play it again and again as you grow older.
It doesn't matter that it doesn't have all those polygons flying at you at once, if I wanted a life like game, I would get off my ass and recreate it outside.
Another point is multiplayer, where your friends would actually have to come over to your house or you to their house to play together on the same TV. I remember hours and hours playing games like Goldeneye, Mario Party, Pokemon etc with people that I knew in person and could enjoy my childhood with.
Games now days don't have those factors, they're simply what they're called games, where's classic games are adventure, fantasy and whatever you make them out to be using your imagination.
Last edited by alec006; 08-07-2011 at 08:21 AM.
"...leave love bleeding, in my hands, in my hands again..."
I just don't see how anyone can go fast in the Labyrinth or Marble Zones w/out losing lots of lives. Sonic 2 and especially 3 stopped focusing on speed IMO. I'm the kind of person that has to collect every ring/item and I don't see this being possible while doing a speed run. Although, I will admit that it should be possible to do a speed run if a person ignores most of the items. In Sonic 2 and 3 once I get Super Sonic, I'd say it definitely becomes all about speed pure and simple.
For me Sonic Adventure was more of a demo than an actual game. It said, "LOOK, this is what DREAMCAST can do!" and IMO did it very well. I have a softspot for the Dreamcast, so maybe I'm biased towards it and just about every game on it. I'd probably defend any game on the Neo Geo the same way. Yes, even Art of Fighting 3, which seems to be hated by all, but the most hardcore SNK fan, lol.
Personally, I thought Zelda 2 was up there w/the ones you mentioned, although I know it is generally seen as the black sheep of the franchise.
Personally I like classic gaming for the same reason I like classic movies and music from the 80s. I enjoy the genres better. Arcade games, platformers, racing games 2D Fighters, shmups, those kind of games I enjoy in the vein they were made back in the 80s and 90s. These genres today just aren't up to par with what they used to be. Developers and companies aren't the same, markets drop and rise for specific kinds of games, and things overall change. That's not to say I hate games of today as I own a few modern system, I just don't enjoy them as much as the games from back in the day.
And I don't agree with the notion that games are always good or bad 30 days or 30 years later. There are definitely games I enjoyed years ago that I wouldn't think of touching today, like Mario Kart 64, because of how dated the game has become technology wise. 3D Graphics seem to age much worse than 2D graphics, but there are games I wouldn't touch after modern sequels and counterparts have been released that are simply much more fun. But that's just my opinion.
There's no definitive of which is better, classic or modern, it's simply a matter of preference of what games you like, as both are vastly different in how they play. Between length, complexity, genre, etc.
I think it depends on what you grew up with. I suppose people who didnt play many video games as a child would play modern games rather then classic ones. If you grew up with a nintendo, that is probably why you would say you like nintendo games the best, because you are use to them.
But that's just my opinion
meoooooowers
This question is easily answered by simply playing some games from both eras. The design and gameplay is immensely different between the two. Games these days have little challenge, are overproduced, and have far too many non-interactive scenes.
I enjoy games that are games, not movies.
I'm also of the opinion that modern gaming is crap compared to retro gaming. Maybe it's because I'm not as interested as I used to be, but modern games seem to be either Goldeneye or GTA clones or the Sims.
You've just described all of modern pop culture: no substance, no subtlety, no creativity, no wit, no restraint, just bludgeon the consumer with spectacle.
Many reasons.
-Nostalgia
-Simplicity (for the most part hit start and play)
-Games didn't necessarily require you to spend 15-20 hours on them. Remember when games had 9 levels and that was that?
-Still holds up well, I'm still able to have fun with it today
-Grew up on SNES, favorite system ever then, favorite now. For life
-You simply stick to what makes you happy and works for you. This is what works for me
Because we're humans and are all different?
I grew up playing arcade style games, so that's what I like in games.
I occasionally play a western RPG like DAO or TES, but I don't really like spending hours upon hours reading text, leveling up and collecting items and such.
I'm also really put off by anything attempting to be realistic.
Beauty is on the eye of the beholder, isn't it? I find far more graphically appealing a game like KOFXIII than SSFIVAE.
Better technology doesn't always mean better graphics, style is just as important as raw power.
Not really, I find most recent games on the easy side. Most of them [adventure and RPGs] are full of pointers and helpers and stuff like that guiding you trough the game.
Back in the day you had 3 options:
1 - solve stuff yourself.
2 - wait for a magazine to publish a guide.
3 - ask your friends and hope they played the game and remember correctly what to do.
I rather interact with others in real life, be it at an arcade or just using a multi-tap or something like that.
I also hate internet lag with a passion.
I don't really have a preference, as long as I'm having fun, I don't care about the platform nor generation/technology.
Again, it's all personal preference, some people like golf, others like soccer, others like bowling, others like racing cars, and so on.
Modern games in general have too much fluff and filler. I like to actually play games, not just watch them.
So, I tend to only play new games if they're arcade style or concentrate on online multiplayer.
I don't chose one over the other, I love both.
My personal definition of Classic and Modern gaming is:
- Classic Gamming = Pre-32 bit
- Modern Gaming = Post-32 bit
- 32 bit = Majority Modern, Occasionally Classic
I enjoy the general challenge and feeling of accomplishment you get from a good classic game. That and the games were usually more colorful and in some ways more interesting to look at then modern games. I also like the simplicity in classic games, where in most cases you don't need 20 minutes (at least) of tutorial to explain the mechanics/buttons of the game. There is always the nostalgia factor of enjoying something that you enjoyed as a kid.
I'm most modern games (good FPSs in particular) I really enjoy the feeling of being immersed in whatever situation the game has put me into and good sound design and proper speakers goes a long ways towards that. I enjoy the rise of competitive online multiplayer and a convenient way to play with friends across the world. I also really enjoy the focus on story in a lot of modern games, making games compelling also makes them fun IMO.
Its a short list that is definitely not complete but I enjoy both styles.
Classic games offer a broader line of fun than modern games only. One who plays modern games only may have 30 games that they love. If they expand their horizons to include classic games, they have 60 games they love.
Also, there are genres that simply no longer exist. The Street Fighter style fighting games are fun, but are few and far between on modern systems. Platformers such as the 8 and 16 bit Mario and Sonic style games are only now making a comeback, and can't hold a candle to the originals. Simple games like Pac Man and Breakout seem to have all but disappeared by the early 2000s. And finally, it's quite fun to collect classic games.
Real collectors drive Hondas, Toyotas, Chevys, Fords, etc... not Rolls Royces.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
