Classic gaming over modern gaming? What's you're stance? Video included.....

[TheRetroVideoGameAddict]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqMTGCbfyW0

The above is me discussing why I prefer classic gaming to modern gaming. But after finishing up the video I was wondering what others felt on the topic and why it is they may prefer one over the other.

I'm eager to find out what the members here prefer and why, catch you on the flip-side!

[bb_hood]

What other modern games have you played other than Call of Duty and the Lego Batman games? There are wayyy better modern games out there.

I dont know if I can say I prefer classic verses modern, because I kinda feel like the really good games are timeless.

[TheRetroVideoGameAddict]

What other modern games have you played other than Call of Duty and the Lego Batman games? There are wayyy better modern games out there.

I dont know if I can say I prefer classic verses modern, because I kinda feel like the really good games are timeless.

I actively play sports games like NBA 2k13, WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2012, and UFC, but mainly I've played the 3 Modern Warfare games, the 2 Lego Batman games, the first Batman Arkham game, Left 4 Dead 2, and Gears of War. The 3 Modern Warfare games and the first Lego Batman game were me favorites and I've beaten the 4 of them at least 4x each as well as played countless hours of online play with MW2 and MW3. But all of the other games I've tried whether it be at friends houses or through playing demo's I've just not been able to get into at all, while with retro games I've been able to jump right in and have a blast. I just don't like how games today are so long and drawn out and how companies seem to want to move toward online play, it just irks me.

[bb_hood]

I actively play sports games like NBA 2k13, WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2012, and UFC, but mainly I've played the 3 Modern Warfare games, the 2 Lego Batman games, the first Batman Arkham game, Left 4 Dead 2, and Gears of War. The 3 Modern Warfare games and the first Lego Batman game were me favorites and I've beaten the 4 of them at least 4x each as well as played countless hours of online play with MW2 and MW3. But all of the other games I've tried whether it be at friends houses or through playing demo's I've just not been able to get into at all, while with retro games I've been able to jump right in and have a blast. I just don't like how games today are so long and drawn out and how companies seem to want to move toward online play, it just irks me.

Personally I really like long games. If I find a game I really like, the longer the better. Skyrim is absolutely gigantic. It took me a month and a half of playing it in order to get the platinum trophy and I thoroughly enjoyed playing it.
Regarding online play, some games are just better played online with others (if you dont have someone right next to you that is). I love fighting games and I would always rather play against a human opponent than the computer.

[Alpha2099]

I don't play modern games too often anymore - either because I can't afford them or my computer can't run them. So I end up sticking with older games. Don't get me wrong, there are some modern games that I do like, such as Skyrim and the Arkham Asylum games, but for the most part I'm a retro gamer.

[ShinobiMan]

Couldn't agree more with your vlog. There is something special about retrogaming. I do feel nostalgia plays a large role in our attachment, BUT you cannot deny the ingenuity, the creative gameplay, and the FUN that surrounds the old games. Do I want to engulf myself in a fantasy / life simulator that will take up 300 + hours of my life to complete? Not really. I'd rather run and jump on a few goombas, deliver a charged shot as Mega Man, or whip a few skeletons on Castlevania. These games required TRUE fantasy and imagination. I truly believe that nothing strengthened my imagination more as a child than growing up with the likes of Sonic The Hedgehog, Simon Belmont, Donkey Kong... the list goes on!

And as my wife and I plan on having kids in the future, I can't help but look at modern games and want to shelter them from such titles as GTA, Dead Rising, COD, Bioshock... you name it! As the technology gets better, the graphics become more realistic (and now almost photorealistic), and the innocence more and more lost.

[Edmond Dantes]

I used to be strictly an old-school gamer, but lately I've been finding more modern-ish games that tickle my fancy. Onimusha, Devil May Cry, Armored Core are all awesome games that I somehow spent years not knowing about, and which deserve to be known.

I do dislike some terrible trends that have ruined once-classic genres (RPGs becoming too complicated and basically forcing you to buy strategy guides, fighting games shifting to 3D, how composing original soundtracks has fallen by the wayside in favor of "ambience" or licensed music...) but for the most part, it's not the time period--its the games.

[postulio]

Choosing one is stupid. Do both.

I am currently playing Forza Horizon, Bioshock Infinite, Fallout 2, Daggerfall and Link's Awakening.

I can't wait until Wasteland 2, Shroud of the Avatar and GTA V come out.
Next to play on my list is Ultima 7 & 8, Return to Monkey Island, FFVII and Baldur's Gate II.



There are fantastic games across all eras. Limiting, or "preferring" one over another is self detrimental as you may miss great games one way or another.

All games were once modern, All games will be classic.

[JakeM]

People who dont play newer games get on my nerves more than people who only play newer games. Its the age difference, young people will play whats advertised to them and what their friends have. People who stay in the past are kinda sad cases to me because theres still so many awesome games made every year. So I dont see why people only play on their NES or 2600 when theres PS1 games that far more improved upon those old games formulas and invented brand new ways of playing. If yorue into really hard arcade style games then there are several indy games on PSN and XBLA to keep you going.

This article pissed me off for example.
http://kotaku.com/there-was-no-real-reason-to-be-excited-during-e3-you-f-706839854

Theres a lot of things wrong with current gaming trends, but that doesnt mean there arent great games made, you just have to dig for the gold through some advertised crap, youre older and on the internet so there shouldnt be any problem doing that. Im the type to make a huge future buying lists on amazon, so maybe Im different than most people, but laziness isnt a reason to say that retro gaming as a whole is better than newer things. Old things stay old, new things always change.


And as my wife and I plan on having kids in the future, I can't help but look at modern games and want to shelter them from such titles as GTA, Dead Rising, COD, Bioshock... you name it! As the technology gets better, the graphics become more realistic (and now almost photorealistic), and the innocence more and more lost.

Theres still new Mario and Zelda games being made, have them play those. A ton of people forget that theres still a LOT of kiddy games out there because Nintendo isnt on top, but if you dont want your kids playing COD or GTA, thats fantastic I dont like those games, but theres still new Nintendo games that yo uand your kids will love.

[cholkavich]

I dont see the benefit in denying yourself any games despite them being modern or retro. I love me some old school games and as for modern games, theres something for everyone if you take the time to look. Do yourself a favor and check out the Indie section on Steam, especially now with the summer sale, most can be had under $3. Just plug in a usb controller and youre good to go.

[Little Miss Gloom]

I agree with Pustulio and Cholkavich, about there being no point in choosing one over the other -- however, for me, it's more about replayability than anything.

I'd argue that although there are really nice services, such as PS3 trophies and 360 achievements, there are very few modern games that resonate with me to a point that I'd love to play them again after a first-run. This is just me though. I know plenty of folks who have done multiple runs through recent titles.

It could be a nostalgic factor. It most likely -is- a nostalgic factor. But in the end I have to look at how much the game influenced me as a player, how long of a game it is, and if the game offers me a different experience if so I choose ... such as speed runs, or finding different in-game strategies.

[ShinobiMan]

People who dont play newer games get on my nerves more than people who only play newer games. Its the age difference, young people will play whats advertised to them and what their friends have. People who stay in the past are kinda sad cases to me because theres still so many awesome games made every year. So I dont see why people only play on their NES or 2600 when theres PS1 games that far more improved upon those old games formulas and invented brand new ways of playing. If yorue into really hard arcade style games then there are several indy games on PSN and XBLA to keep you going.

This article pissed me off for example.
http://kotaku.com/there-was-no-real-reason-to-be-excited-during-e3-you-f-706839854

Theres a lot of things wrong with current gaming trends, but that doesnt mean there arent great games made, you just have to dig for the gold through some advertised crap, youre older and on the internet so there shouldnt be any problem doing that. Im the type to make a huge future buying lists on amazon, so maybe Im different than most people, but laziness isnt a reason to say that retro gaming as a whole is better than newer things. Old things stay old, new things always change.



Theres still new Mario and Zelda games being made, have them play those. A ton of people forget that theres still a LOT of kiddy games out there because Nintendo isnt on top, but if you dont want your kids playing COD or GTA, thats fantastic I dont like those games, but theres still new Nintendo games that yo uand your kids will love.

Absolutely. That's the reason I own a Wii U and 3DS. Currently playing Luigi's Mansion and having a blast.

I just wish I was able to experience more modern games without being visually assaulted by an onslaught of ultra violent content. I feel very strongly that it's unnecessary, and older games prove that.

There's a certain shock factor involved in why games today include such grotesque gameplay. They are appealing to that sinister side in us all. We all have in us the ability to do evil. We have it in us to do good as well.

Sure you're not going to run out and kill someone after playing GTA or COD, but I think it all comes down to desensitization, of which we clearly have all become.

Personally I just prefer not to expose myself, yet alone my kids, to this stuff. And that's coming from someone who once enjoyed GTA purely because I used it as a murder simulator. I KNOW how desensitized I've become, and that bothers me. Does it not others?

[TheRetroVideoGameAddict]

I don't think it should be one or the other, but modern games just lack the "it" factor that makes me want to play them. Again though, that's just me.

I did like the Modern Warfare games and the Lego games from this generation.

[BlastProcessing402]

Classic, modern, so long as I have fun playing it, that's what I care about.

[JakeM]

I just wish I was able to experience more modern games without being visually assaulted by an onslaught of ultra violent content. I feel very strongly that it's unnecessary, and older games prove that.


Well, sorry, but not all games can be for people with limits. Theres violent games that are popular, but if you dont like them then dont feel bad about them existing. Theres plenty of nonviolent games that are popular for you to play. If them looking like real people makes you feel bad for them then ok, but thats a weird psychological portal I dont want to get into.

And you cant say that older games would have been the same if they looked like games nowadays. Every game designer you talk to will tell you that every game they made would have been totally different if the technology they were dealing with were different.

Theres this one part of Final Fantasy 13 where Lightning has this flowery weapon thing, and she looks like a dumbass for using that in a fight with someone. I hoping major publishers are going to learn some very important lessons about games looking real vs looking cool this coming generation.

[ShinobiMan]

Well, sorry, but not all games can be for people with limits. Theres violent games that are popular, but if you dont like them then dont feel bad about them existing. Theres plenty of nonviolent games that are popular for you to play. If them looking like real people makes you feel bad for them then ok, but thats a weird psychological portal I dont want to get into.

And you cant say that older games would have been the same if they looked like games nowadays. Every game designer you talk to will tell you that every game they made would have been totally different if the technology they were dealing with were different.

Theres this one part of Final Fantasy 13 where Lightning has this flowery weapon thing, and she looks like a dumbass for using that in a fight with someone. I hoping major publishers are going to learn some very important lessons about games looking real vs looking cool this coming generation.

Yeah I know what you're saying. But let's look at the new Tomb Raider for
Example. The old tomb raider games had violence, but because of the limitations of the hardware, it looked fake.

The new Tomb Raider is so realistic looking and the hardware so capable that the designers went out of their way to create unique and extremely graphic death sequences for Lara Croft. Do I enjoy watching women get impaled through the neck by a tree branch? Not particularly. I think it's sick actually. So for a consumer like myself, a particularly exciting gaming experience is ruined by over the top violence.

I know this isn't a problem for everyone, but for me and surely some others, this is a major issue as to why modern gaming isn't as appealing.

[Atarileaf]

For me its very simple - I've always preferred old school arcade games. My sweet spot is stuff that was released in the arcades between the late 70's to mid 80's. Now as mentioned, there are some great new games that are being made that are similar in style and gameplay to those older games and those are the newer ones I want to play.

This is the main reason my next "console" will probably be some kind of iOS device. I was actually going to make a video on this subject because I wonder if I can be considered a "gamer" in the traditional sense. For example, look at the most popular genres on modern consoles:

FPS
RPG
3rd Person Action (God of War style)
Fighting (Mortal Kombat style)
Music Games
Platformers

Of the big modern genres the only ones I gravitate toward are puzzle, racing, sports, simulation, arcade, and traditional Lucasarts style adventure games which seem to have gone the way of the dodo. Of these, racing and sports are the only ones that really benefit from a big modern console and even some of these can be done well on iOS devices whereas puzzle, arcade and adventure games are fine on tablets and phones. I've even said that if I ever get a PS3, for example, it would just be for a few of the racing games that appeal to me.

So I do like modern games but very very specific ones. However, old school is my gaming experience of choice and will almost certainly always be so.

[WCP]

I go through various phases. Right now, I seem to be more into retro games. I've been playing a lot of SNES, Sega CD, Sega Saturn and PS1 lately. I'll occasionally play a modern game (currently playing infamous on PS3), here and there, but I've been way more on the retro side of the fence recently.


However, it can fade away as quickly as it came, and there can be months and months that will go by where I haven't touched any retro games of any kind. So it just varies. I'd put myself more on the modern gaming side overall though. I have to be honest. I was more retro about 10 years ago, but lately I've been more into the current gen stuff..

[Little Miss Gloom]

The new Tomb Raider is so realistic looking and the hardware so capable that the designers went out of their way to create unique and extremely graphic death sequences for Lara Croft. Do I enjoy watching women get impaled through the neck by a tree branch? Not particularly. I think it's sick actually. So for a consumer like myself, a particularly exciting gaming experience is ruined by over the top violence.

I know this isn't a problem for everyone, but for me and surely some others, this is a major issue as to why modern gaming isn't as appealing.

You make a really awesome point here. I don't want to shove the Book of Feminism down any body's throat, but -as- a woman, I don't particularly want to watch another woman (albeit made of polygons) be viciously killed in a varying number of ways. To me it feels totally backwards, like fifty steps in the opposite direction, of what modern society has been able to accomplish in regards to spreading awareness and action against abuse of women.

I realize a woman was a lead writer for the Tomb Raider script, and in all honesty, that kind of makes it worse in my eyes. (On the other hand, I know of friends who are rape victims, who have said the tone of Tomb Raider really helped them feel empowered for once...which I guess is a good thing?)

I feel this way about abuse to men as well, and I do think video games these days are seriously taking the violence way too over the top. There is always going to be violence in video games, but there is something to be said about how it is presented, and how it is addressed. I've come to expect exploding heads from a Mortal Kombat game. Because that's the point of a Mortal Kombat game. But when developers feel they need to "up the ante" on shock value, because they feel or think it somehow boosts sales for a (mostly) MALE DEMOGRAPHIC, what does that say about the strength of the actual game's content?

It's like shadowing over how shitty a movie is by filming it in 3D in hopes to distract or trick an audience from being disappointed by a shoddy script or casting choices.

And when men are starting to come out and say the violence is just way too much...I think it's time to step back and have a serious, mature, adult, conversation about how necessary it is to have gore, versus solid game mechanics -- especially since many of us who grew up with Atari 2600s and Nintendo NESs are now married with children of our own.

[wiggyx]

I quite honestly don't prefer one over the other. Each are satisfying for different reasons. My time is split very evenly between both new and old.

[JakeM]

Yeah I know what you're saying. But let's look at the new Tomb Raider for
Example. The old tomb raider games had violence, but because of the limitations of the hardware, it looked fake.

The new Tomb Raider is so realistic looking and the hardware so capable that the designers went out of their way to create unique and extremely graphic death sequences for Lara Croft. Do I enjoy watching women get impaled through the neck by a tree branch? Not particularly. I think it's sick actually. So for a consumer like myself, a particularly exciting gaming experience is ruined by over the top violence.

I know this isn't a problem for everyone, but for me and surely some others, this is a major issue as to why modern gaming isn't as appealing.
Maybe in 5 years youll look at the graphics of this game and theyll look dated so then you wont mind so much.

[zakthedodo]

Comparing 8 bit gaming to even a playstation 2 is apples and oranges.

Early games like Arcade games and Atari 2600 were mostly points based, repetition at a higher degree of difficulty.

8 bit games were my first experience with games you could actually finish. There was an actual end. The score was not as important.
The games became more varied and difficult. Some so stubbornly hard and without save states it took real dedication that an average teenager now would not possibly exhibit the same patience.
Then again people who were raised on the NES, Atati, and Master System didn't know any better.

16 bit games were basically the same as 8 bit, just with more detail although early Sega Mega Drive games look horrible to later Megadrive games
Case in point would be Altered Beast compared to say Vectorman or Pusleman.

32 Bit games are when games got interesting. I like that very early Virtua this and that Polygon look. A lot of games for the N64 and Playstation ( mostly playstation ), look muddy with all sorts of warping and jaggies.

New consoles obviously have more depth and visual appeal, but for some reason, even on a hard difficulty setting, modern games seem more forgivable.
Gone of the days of 3 lives, no continues, you die you go back...all the way back. No checkpoints or passwords.

Anything before 16 bit just doesn't interest me.
I actually only really got into gaming in 93/ 94 because games like Mortal Kombat and World Series baseball looked real and not so cartoonish.

I'm messing around with sg 1000 and Master system games right now on emulators, they are good fun and challenging, but 8 bit games really don't allow you to mess around.
I could see where that aspect of them would be appealing.

[Little Miss Gloom]

Maybe in 5 years youll look at the graphics of this game and theyll look dated so then you wont mind so much.

What happens in five years is inconsequential to how the tone of those games may influence a person's emotions today.

[GREEN00]

I actively play sports games like NBA 2k13, WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2012, and UFC, but mainly I've played the 3 Modern Warfare games, the 2 Lego Batman games, the first Batman Arkham game, Left 4 Dead 2, and Gears of War. The 3 Modern Warfare games and the first Lego Batman game were me favorites and I've beaten the 4 of them at least 4x each as well as played countless hours of online play with MW2 and MW3. But all of the other games I've tried whether it be at friends houses or through playing demo's I've just not been able to get into at all, while with retro games I've been able to jump right in and have a blast. I just don't like how games today are so long and drawn out and how companies seem to want to move toward online play, it just irks me.

It sounds like you haven't played any recent games that even have the potential to sway you. Not to be rude but the handful of games you've played are in my opinion the dregs of current gen, certainly not the best recent years have to offer.

Here's some recent games that I feel portray modern gaming in a positive light,

Demon's Souls
Dark Souls
Xenoblade Chronicles
Super Mario Galaxy
Valkyria Chronicles
Donkey Kong Country Returns
Sin & Punishment: Star Successor

[Atarileaf]

Maybe in 5 years youll look at the graphics of this game and theyll look dated so then you wont mind so much.

That's an erroneous argument. Bad taste is bad taste. Custers Revenge on the 2600 is extremely dated and pixelated and it's still as abhorrent a game idea today as it was then. Graphics have nothing to do with it.

[Tron 2.0]

Hasn't this question been asked a million times all ready !? Every generation of video games,has it's share of good and bad and i don't see one be better then other.I often play what ever i'm in mood for retro or modern.

[Tron 2.0]

Fighting (Mortal Kombat style)


Of the big modern genres the only ones I gravitate toward are puzzle, racing, sports, simulation, arcade, and traditional Lucasarts style adventure games which seem to have gone the way of the dodo. Of these, racing and sports are the only ones that really benefit from a big modern console and even some of these can be done well on iOS devices whereas puzzle, arcade and adventure games are fine on tablets and phones. I've even said that if I ever get a PS3, for example, it would just be for a few of the racing games that appeal to me.

Fighters haven't been popular since the 90's.True when capcom had success with SFIV the genre made a come back,but it's not as big as it use to be.Now where do you think every one plays like MK !? Capcom,SNK and Arc system have there own style.Now of them of copy what netherealm studio's did with there recent mk.

[ShinobiMan]

And when men are starting to come out and say the violence is just way too much...I think it's time to step back and have a serious, mature, adult, conversation about how necessary it is to have gore, versus solid game mechanics -- especially since many of us who grew up with Atari 2600s and Nintendo NESs are now married with children of our own.

I agree. Unfortunately, there are many (not everyone) who would rather turn a blind eye on the issue because while they know the difference between right and wrong, they actually find themselves ENJOYING the wrong. Ignorance is bliss.

[FieryReign]

I don't play modern games so I don't care about them. Still have alot of games from the past I still haven't tried yet. But all of this "boohoo, games are so violent these days" is a bit ridiculous. Comparing a Lara Croft death scene to women's rights and empowerment is pathetic and comes across as reaching. It's a videogame...people don't make videogames to change the world or teach women anything, they're for entertainment.

Different things entertain different people. Not all of us are into catching Pokemon or rescuing the Princess for the millionth time or flinging birds across a screen(are we going to start complaining about animal cruelty?)

Some of us enjoy horror films, oftentimes, the gorier the better. Does that make the people who watch them disgusting? And if a woman gets killed on film, does that set women's rights back hundreds of years? No.

Just look at how many people try to get a glimpse of a car accident when they pass...

[Little Miss Gloom]

people don't make videogames to change the world ... they're for entertainment.

You really should read the news, lately.

In any case, yes, I see where you're coming from. And I'm glad you bring up horror movies. It's like I said about the Mortal Kombat games. I expect to see gore in a horror movie because horror movies are generally known for shock value (among other things).

However, where the problem lies is that the gratuitous violence in video games is seen spread across all genres, where gratuitous violence in movies is restricted to a select type of movie. You're never going to see people explode into bags of guts and intestines in a movie like 500 Days of Summer.

Maybe I am reaching. That's totally fair to say. But it's totally fair on my part if I don't want to play a game due to it reaching to attain a base animistic satisfaction when it doesn't really need to.

[ShinobiMan]

Just look at how many people try to get a glimpse of a car accident when they pass...

I certainly hope it's not for the same reasons they enjoy watching Lara Croft get butchered. Seriously, I'd hope most individuals are CONCERNED about their fellow man. My wife and I recently witnessed a couple get hit walking across a city street by a drunk driver who then proceded to run off, leaving the pregnant woman bleeding profusely from the back of her head, immobilized.

That is REAL life and it is HORRIFIC. There were many other witnesses and the scene was anything but gratuitous. No one was hoping to sneak a peak at human suffering, rather, everyone wanted to help, and most of us stood by the couple until an ambulance came. I placed the 911 call.

I didn't feel this way all of my life. I've gotten older though. I'm married now, and we plan on having kids one day. Through it all, I've learned that life is truly a gift.

When modern video games insist on glorifying human mutilation and mass murder in such a violent and realistic way, I just cannot condone it, nor can I understand why anyone would. We as a society have become overly desensitized to it all, and that's what bothers me the most. We just accept it. We call it SHOCK value and we grin our little grins and react as if we've just seen something shocking, and we have. Most of us smile and think to ourselves, "Wow, did they really just do that?" Well, they did. And the longer we just turn the other cheek and accept what we know at our core is WRONG, the worse off it's going to get.

[Little Miss Gloom]

If I may, I feel like violence in video games today is a lot like a person's desensitation to porn.

You first discover it, it's this magical, shocking thing - forbidden fruit. Angelina Jolie's tits = finishing moves in Mortal Kombat, back in 1991.

But as we progress and become exposed to more and more of this shocking thing, our tastes change. Angelina Jolie's tits just don't do it for us anymore, so we seek out greater thrills. And before we know it, we are on a path of total desensitization, getting our base jollies off on things that any normal human being would be totally reviled by.

And as games get more and more realistic, the shock factor isn't so cartoony anymore, like it was playing Resident Evil on PS1 or DOOM on your PC. Tearing people apart in The Darkness 2 as they scream in agony, helpless to defend themselves. That's fucked up. Really, really fucked up.

But, like porn, it's cathartic, it releases our stresses of the day. But really, how healthy is that for our brains? Especially when more and more games these days rely on such over the top violence?

I do not, by any means, think violent video games incite violent people, but consider this: People bitch and whine about politicians like Jack Thompson, but really if you think about it, is it any wonder there's such a strong petition by government officials when they are shown examples of what a modern video game is?

[FieryReign]

Have any of you seen the news? One of the most popular stories was the Boston Bombings, continuously showing a dude with both legs blown off, trying to be saved by some mexican dude(in a cowboy hat) wrapping something around the mess to keep from bleeding. Not to mention some of the rest of the gore from the people who lost limbs. I won't get into how some people think it was all staged or all that.

You can easily place the blame on the news stories as well. And basic human nature when people stop and look. Its not just because people want to help thy fellow man, the paramedics and professionals are there to handle that. Folks just want to be nosy and hope to see something...

[bb_hood]

If I may, I feel like violence in video games today is a lot like a person's desensitation to porn.

You first discover it, it's this magical, shocking thing - forbidden fruit. Angelina Jolie's tits = finishing moves in Mortal Kombat, back in 1991.

But as we progress and become exposed to more and more of this shocking thing, our tastes change. Angelina Jolie's tits just don't do it for us anymore, so we seek out greater thrills. And before we know it, we are on a path of total desensitization, getting our base jollies off on things that any normal human being would be totally reviled by.

And as games get more and more realistic, the shock factor isn't so cartoony anymore, like it was playing Resident Evil on PS1 or DOOM on your PC. Tearing people apart in The Darkness 2 as they scream in agony, helpless to defend themselves. That's fucked up. Really, really fucked up.

But, like porn, it's cathartic, it releases our stresses of the day. But really, how healthy is that for our brains? Especially when more and more games these days rely on such over the top violence?

I do not, by any means, think violent video games incite violent people, but consider this: People bitch and whine about politicians like Jack Thompson, but really if you think about it, is it any wonder there's such a strong petition by government officials when they are shown examples of what a modern video game is?

Quite frankly I dont see much difference between cartoonish violence vs. realistic violence. Modern games may be more 'realistic' and bloody but in the end they are just images on a tv screen. I was playing Farcry 3 on ps3 yesterday and you can run-over tons of bad (and good guys) in the vehicles. How is this different from running over the bad guys in Jackal on Nes? How many times have you seen Elmer Fudd literally shove a shotgun into Bugs Bunny's mouth? I think simple images of violence can be as impressionable as realistic ones, especially to young minds.

There will always be violence in video games as well as movies and literature, and there are always non-violent alternatives. Got a kid? Get a Wii instead of the PS3 or XBOX. People just have to understand that in a civilized society violence just is not acceptable, and moreover its the parents' responsibilty to teach this to their kids.

[Koa Zo]

I like good games.
I don't like downloadable content, system updates, or other uses of internet connections.
I don't like games which require an extensive tutorial to learn the controls.
I don't like glorified excessive violence.
I'm aware there are many first class recent games which don't fall under any of the above - I'm not missing them, I've got plenty else to play.

There are more good games than I can ever play from the 2600 era up to PS2, "Modern" gaming has lost me.

[ShinobiMan]

I've really said and argued all I feel I should on the topic of modern day video game violence and the longterm desensitization we as a society have embraced.


If I may, I feel like violence in video games today is a lot like a person's desensitation to porn.

You first discover it, it's this magical, shocking thing - forbidden fruit. Angelina Jolie's tits = finishing moves in Mortal Kombat, back in 1991.

But as we progress and become exposed to more and more of this shocking thing, our tastes change. Angelina Jolie's tits just don't do it for us anymore, so we seek out greater thrills. And before we know it, we are on a path of total desensitization, getting our base jollies off on things that any normal human being would be totally reviled by.

And as games get more and more realistic, the shock factor isn't so cartoony anymore, like it was playing Resident Evil on PS1 or DOOM on your PC. Tearing people apart in The Darkness 2 as they scream in agony, helpless to defend themselves. That's fucked up. Really, really fucked up.

But, like porn, it's cathartic, it releases our stresses of the day. But really, how healthy is that for our brains? Especially when more and more games these days rely on such over the top violence?

I do not, by any means, think violent video games incite violent people, but consider this: People bitch and whine about politicians like Jack Thompson, but really if you think about it, is it any wonder there's such a strong petition by government officials when they are shown examples of what a modern video game is?

Little Miss Gloom, as usual I completely agree with your points. We're definitely on the same page, and your comparison of desensitization to porn being similar to that of violence I feel is very accurate. Not everyone will agree. I just hope some of the points we've made will make others stop and think twice.

[Little Miss Gloom]

<3 :3

[Bojay1997]

If I may, I feel like violence in video games today is a lot like a person's desensitation to porn.

You first discover it, it's this magical, shocking thing - forbidden fruit. Angelina Jolie's tits = finishing moves in Mortal Kombat, back in 1991.

But as we progress and become exposed to more and more of this shocking thing, our tastes change. Angelina Jolie's tits just don't do it for us anymore, so we seek out greater thrills. And before we know it, we are on a path of total desensitization, getting our base jollies off on things that any normal human being would be totally reviled by.

And as games get more and more realistic, the shock factor isn't so cartoony anymore, like it was playing Resident Evil on PS1 or DOOM on your PC. Tearing people apart in The Darkness 2 as they scream in agony, helpless to defend themselves. That's fucked up. Really, really fucked up.

But, like porn, it's cathartic, it releases our stresses of the day. But really, how healthy is that for our brains? Especially when more and more games these days rely on such over the top violence?

I do not, by any means, think violent video games incite violent people, but consider this: People bitch and whine about politicians like Jack Thompson, but really if you think about it, is it any wonder there's such a strong petition by government officials when they are shown examples of what a modern video game is?

I'm sorry, but if you believe that violent games don't incite violent people (a view I share by the way), then what does it matter if people are doing something that is in fact cathartic? Are we supposed to censor games simply because extremists like Jack Thompson could have visual evidence to show to the media if we don't? Where do we stop? Should games only support "traditional" notions of family or religion? Should we remove demons and creatures that don't comport with Christian conceptions of the world? What about other illegal or unethical practices in games? For example, when I play complex strategy games like Civilization, I can impose a dictatorship, I can engage in genocide, I can force people into poverty, I can steal from other players, etc...Aren't these also practices that are not acceptable in real life?

I've been playing video games for over 30 years now. I know many other people who do as well. I've never met a fellow video gamer who wasn't fairly intelligent, generous, compassionate and creative yet. These same "violent" video games are sold all over the world and with the exception of a few countries, they aren't edited for content in any manner. Those countries don't have anywhere the level of violence that we do in this country for the most part and in some cases, their domestic media is far more embracing of violence on regular broadcast television (have you ever watched the news outside of the United States and Canada?) and in many countries, sexuality is far more open than in the United States. There are obviously other societal or cultural factors that fuel this purported violence.

I also don't buy that porn is a gateway to deviant behavior. I would suspect that most men and lots of women have watched porn from time to time or even regularly and I can assure you that most of them aren't constantly looking for harder and harder core porn over time.

[ShinobiMan]

I'm sorry, but if you believe that violent games don't incite violent people (a view I share by the way), then what does it matter if people are doing something that is in fact cathartic? Are we supposed to censor games simply because extremists like Jack Thompson could have visual evidence to show to the media if we don't? Where do we stop? Should games only support "traditional" notions of family or religion? Should we remove demons and creatures that don't comport with Christian conceptions of the world? What about other illegal or unethical practices in games? For example, when I play complex strategy games like Civilization, I can impose a dictatorship, I can engage in genocide, I can force people into poverty, I can steal from other players, etc...Aren't these also practices that are not acceptable in real life?

I've been playing video games for over 30 years now. I know many other people who do as well. I've never met a fellow video gamer who wasn't fairly intelligent, generous, compassionate and creative yet. These same "violent" video games are sold all over the world and with the exception of a few countries, they aren't edited for content in any manner. Those countries don't have anywhere the level of violence that we do in this country for the most part and in some cases, their domestic media is far more embracing of violence on regular broadcast television (have you ever watched the news outside of the United States and Canada?) and in many countries, sexuality is far more open than in the United States. There are obviously other societal or cultural factors that fuel this purported violence.

I also don't buy that porn is a gateway to deviant behavior. I would suspect that most men and lots of women have watched porn from time to time or even regularly and I can assure you that most of them aren't constantly looking for harder and harder core porn over time.

The issue we're bringing attention too is not the content of games; be it demons, creatures, gangsters etc.

We're talking about the actual depictions of extreme violence. It's the blood and guts. It's the decapitations and spewing of violent imagery that is becoming more and more realistic looking the further we develop the technology. And it's the amount of freedom the player is allowed to act out this violence that is becoming slightly perverse.

Throughout the history of gaming we've enjoyed stories of demons, witches, ghosts and goblins, good versus evil, you name it. But it's getting to the point where developers are taking something shocking (the violence) and exploiting it because sadly it sells. Of course I don't believe that violence in the media is the leading cause of horrific acts such as Sandy Hook, but I do think it's our responsibility as a people to take a step back from the fantasy we enjoy and really ask ourselves "What longterm effect is this type of widespread intense fantasy violence going to have on future generations." Let's take ourselves out of the equation and really ask, "Just because It's excepted by the masses, does that make it right?" And yes, that same statement can be applied to porn.

[Atarileaf]

There will always be violence in video games as well as movies and literature, and there are always non-violent alternatives. Got a kid? Get a Wii instead of the PS3 or XBOX. People just have to understand that in a civilized society violence just is not acceptable, and moreover its the parents' responsibilty to teach this to their kids.

Interesting. It seems violence in video games, even very realistic graphic violence is acceptable to some since it's just "pixels on a screen". Its not real life.

So if simulated murder is acceptable in a video game why not simulated rape? Simulated child physical or sex abuse? Why not a video game where you torture puppies in gruesome and realistic ways? Would anyone like to tell their friends and family that they bought the latest child rape simulator for the PS4?

If the argument is that violence in a video game is ok because its not real then why are not these other equally taboo subjects acceptable in video games?

[Atarileaf]

Fighters haven't been popular since the 90's.True when capcom had success with SFIV the genre made a come back,but it's not as big as it use to be.Now where do you think every one plays like MK !? Capcom,SNK and Arc system have there own style.Now of them of copy what netherealm studio's did with there recent mk.

Sorry I'm a little lost on what you're trying to say. When I say fighting games I'm talking about any game where one character fights another with special combos and finishing moves. I'm not really talking about anything more then the generalities of the genre.

[bb_hood]

Why not a video game where you torture puppies in gruesome and realistic ways? Would anyone like to tell their friends and family that they bought the latest child rape simulator for the PS4?

If the argument is that violence in a video game is ok because its not real then why are not these other equally taboo subjects acceptable in video games?

I think that nobody really wants this type of horrible stuff in video games, and even in movies.

I think the main problem with media today, be it video games or movies, is that the people who produce them dont give us WHAT we want but what they THINK we want. Everything has to be so intense, and they do constantly up the violence in many ways. Much is done simply for shock value. But in the end, yeah its all just a bunch of pixels. Everyone is responsible for their actions. Blaming violent behavior on tv and video games is no excuse.

[Zing]

I like good games.
I don't like downloadable content, system updates, or other uses of internet connections.
I don't like games which require an extensive tutorial to learn the controls.
I don't like glorified excessive violence.
I'm aware there are many first class recent games which don't fall under any of the above - I'm not missing them, I've got plenty else to play.

There are more good games than I can ever play from the 2600 era up to PS2, "Modern" gaming has lost me.

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/sm/cmicsfee.gif

I could have typed this myself.

[Bojay1997]

The issue we're bringing attention too is not the content of games; be it demons, creatures, gangsters etc.

We're talking about the actual depictions of extreme violence. It's the blood and guts. It's the decapitations and spewing of violent imagery that is becoming more and more realistic looking the further we develop the technology. And it's the amount of freedom the player is allowed to act out this violence that is becoming slightly perverse.

Throughout the history of gaming we've enjoyed stories of demons, witches, ghosts and goblins, good versus evil, you name it. But it's getting to the point where developers are taking something shocking (the violence) and exploiting it because sadly it sells. Of course I don't believe that violence in the media is the leading cause of horrific acts such as Sandy Hook, but I do think it's our responsibility as a people to take a step back from the fantasy we enjoy and really ask ourselves "What longterm effect is this type of widespread intense fantasy violence going to have on future generations." Let's take ourselves out of the equation and really ask, "Just because It's excepted by the masses, does that make it right?" And yes, that same statement can be applied to porn.

I'm sorry, but people have been making this same argument for centuries about all forms of media. Not so far in our past, certain books were burned and banned because they portrayed interracial relationships or sex outside of marriage. Comic books came under scrutiny in the 1950s for violence and sexual content. People tried to ban Dungeons and Dragons in the 70s and early 80s because of claims that it led to satanic violence. The problem with your argument is that if you go down the road of arguing some kind of overriding cultural moral code, there is no turning back. There are people that have problems with all sorts of things in media and will stop at nothing to see those products banned.

Personally, I prefer games that are intellectually challenging and outside of the AAA shooter/action/adventure genre, but I recognize that graphic violence is a valid form of expression in television, movies and video games and sometimes is central to the storytelling and experience. I don't think our culture or society suffers because of it and frankly, I think we have far more serious and pressing social problems in the world to worry about than video games being too graphic or realistic.

[ShinobiMan]

I'm sorry, but people have been making this same argument for centuries about all forms of media. Not so far in our past, certain books were burned and banned because they portrayed interracial relationships or sex outside of marriage. Comic books came under scrutiny in the 1950s for violence and sexual content. People tried to ban Dungeons and Dragons in the 70s and early 80s because of claims that it led to satanic violence. The problem with your argument is that if you go down the road of arguing some kind of overriding cultural moral code, there is no turning back. There are people that have problems with all sorts of things in media and will stop at nothing to see those products banned.

Personally, I prefer games that are intellectually challenging and outside of the AAA shooter/action/adventure genre, but I recognize that graphic violence is a valid form of expression in television, movies and video games and sometimes is central to the storytelling and experience. I don't think our culture or society suffers because of it and frankly, I think we have far more serious and pressing social problems in the world to worry about than video games being too graphic or realistic.

All of this taken for granted, I still think you're missing a core element to my argument. That because of our technology improving, it allows us to journey farther into the darkness of the human imagination, and there is a line I feel has been crossed.

If Skynet were to actually launch and the human race was wiped out because technology took over, wouldn't we want to question what went wrong. How we'd gone to far?

That's all, I just feel like video game violence has gone to far.

[bb_hood]

If Skynet were to actually launch and the human race was wiped out


If robots take over and kill everybody I wouldnt say fictional violence is to blame. If anything it will prepare us for WHEN the robots take over. Because lets face it, its not an IF but WHEN situation here...

[ShinobiMan]

If robots take over and kill everybody I wouldnt say fictional violence is to blame. If anything it will prepare us for WHEN the robots take over. Because lets face it, its not an IF but WHEN situation here...

LOL That wasn't my point. Of course fictional violence wouldn't be the reason robots kill everyone...

My point was that we shouldn't question the route we are going as a society after it's too late. That there IS a line that ultimately will be crossed the further we travel down this road.

[Bojay1997]

All of this taken for granted, I still think you're missing a core element to my argument. That because of our technology improving, it allows us to journey farther into the darkness of the human imagination, and there is a line I feel has been crossed.

If Skynet were to actually launch and the human race was wiped out because technology took over, wouldn't we want to question what went wrong. How we'd gone to far?

That's all, I just feel like video game violence has gone to far.

I think you're continuing to miss my point. People have been arguing this for centuries. People argued it when the printing press was invented and again when radio was invented and again with film and television and every other medium. Every generation argues that the next is worse and that the new technology will be the end of civilization. Ultimately it isn't and people are the same now as they were 100 years ago. Heck, graphically violent movies have been around for many decades and that hasn't resulted in a massive increase in the percentage of sociopaths. In fact, violent crime is down and has been trending down for many, many years in most urban areas. If you don't like a game, just don't buy it. Ultimately, developers and publishers will react in the way that is best for their bottom line.

[VG_Maniac]

Here's an interesting article where the author explains why he finds classic gaming more appealing than modern gaming:

http://retrowaretv.com/growing-up-in-a-gaming-world-that-isnt-ours/


As for me, classic gaming all the way. My Xbox 360 collects dust, while my NES and SNES are being played regularly. My reasons for not liking modern games very much have mostly already been covered by other people here: too many cutscenes in games, lengthy tutorials and steep learning curves, too much violence and graphic content, too many shooters and Call of Duty clones, etc.

[TheRetroVideoGameAddict]

As I've said in my video in the first post, its just all preference. There really is no right or wrong answer here. I prefer simple graphics and gameplay as well as a game that isn't massively huge with too much to do, so that's why I avoid most of today's games.

It all comes down to personal taste.

[ShinobiMan]

I think you're continuing to miss my point. People have been arguing this for centuries. People argued it when the printing press was invented and again when radio was invented and again with film and television and every other medium. Every generation argues that the next is worse and that the new technology will be the end of civilization. Ultimately it isn't and people are the same now as they were 100 years ago. Heck, graphically violent movies have been around for many decades and that hasn't resulted in a massive increase in the percentage of sociopaths. In fact, violent crime is down and has been trending down for many, many years in most urban areas. If you don't like a game, just don't buy it. Ultimately, developers and publishers will react in the way that is best for their bottom line.

I understand what you're saying, I do. I also think what youre saying tries to justify why things are the way they are, and that we should just accept it. I'm glad we didnt take that stance during WWII with Nazi Germany.

I'm just not happy to see Video Gaming go down this road when there was once something so innocent and fun about it.

I feel there is a lot that is morally wrong with what developers are putting into games, especially with how realistic it can now be depicted.

I guess I'm just one of those guys now.

[bb_hood]

I can understand people not liking gore in video games, and thats ok.
I think some violent games are awesome though, like DOOM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USuAifAFfUU

For the last 20 years DOOM has always been not just a violent, but bloody game. Its a game thats BOTH classic and modern. You take away the blood and gore there is not much left. If you were to impose too many restrictions on the people who create these games, what would get? Alot more uninspired crap like Superman 64. Take out all the violence and you get just 'flying through endless rings' and 'picking up cars and flying away'. Not only is this shit boring but its nonsensical. When did superman ever need to fly through rings, for any reason?


I just dont think its fair to impose moral standards when it comes to what other people consume or produce. Once you start imposing restrictions based on 'morality' where do you stop? And who is fit to judge?

[Bojay1997]

I understand what you're saying, I do. I also think what youre saying tries to justify why things are the way they are, and that we should just accept it. I'm glad we didnt take that stance during WWII with Nazi Germany.

I'm just not happy to see Video Gaming go down this road when there was once something so innocent and fun about it.

I feel there is a lot that is morally wrong with what developers are putting into games, especially with how realistic it can now be depicted.

I guess I'm just one of those guys now.

Apparently history isn't your strong suit. We didn't go to war with Nazi Germany until we were attacked by the Japanese and Hitler declared war on us. We certainly assisted the British with Lend-Lease among other programs, but we sat out of WWII for more than two years. Indeed, we very quickly worked with many former Nazi scientists and military officers immediately after the war as the Cold War started. Heck, there is pretty good evidence that we even had some knowledge of the Holocaust starting well before joining the war and yet did nothing to help. So, your example is terrible and frankly, this isn't WWII or the Holocaust. This is a tired argument from closed minded people worrying about the choices other people have. Nobody is forcing you to watch or play anything.

[Atarileaf]

For the last 20 years DOOM has always been not just a violent, but bloody game. Its a game thats BOTH classic and modern. You take away the blood and gore there is not much left. If you were to impose too many restrictions on the people who create these games, what would get? Alot more uninspired crap like Superman 64. Take out all the violence and you get just 'flying through endless rings' and 'picking up cars and flying away'. Not only is this shit boring but its nonsensical. When did superman ever need to fly through rings, for any reason?



I'm not sure why you're comparing Superman 64 with Doom - they're completely different gaming experiences.

You mention that without violence we would have a lot more "uninspired crap". I disagree. Its the heavy reliance on violence and gore that has given birth to uninspired crap as every new FPS tries to out-gore the last guy. Show me a developer that can do something new, take gaming in a new direction, create new genres and new experiences, perhaps without a lick of violence. THEN you may see some inspiration. However as long as every developer sees dollar signs in the pools of ever increasing bloodshed, you won't find any kind of inspiration.

What I personally find interesting is that the fun in video games seems to be directly related to the violence and gore, as your bolded statement above demonstrates.

[bb_hood]

What I personally find interesting is that the fun in video games seems to be directly related to the violence and gore, as your bolded statement above demonstrates.

Well, I would say for me fun in video games is directly related to the action. The added blood and gore is a bonus!

Concerning Superman 64, they should of had Superman kicking the shit outta bad guys, not flying through rings.

[Atarileaf]

Concerning Superman 64, they should of had Superman kicking the shit outta bad guys, not flying through rings.

I agree, that's a whole other discussion though. ;)

[FFStudios]

To me, there is no distinction between classic gaming and modern gaming. If I'm playing on a 2600 and it's 2013, to me, that is modern gaming. Because I'm gaming in modern times. There's a lot of nonsenical elitism that gets introduced when you start saying stuff like "Well, classic games are better because they laid the framework that newer games completely ruin", and "Newer games are better because of all the technological advancement". It's a lot of hogwash for a lot of games that are excellent in their own rights.

I can imagine a similar situation between people arguing about home appliances.

>Bathroom sinks are awesome!
-Yeah, but not as cool as showers
>At least I can brush my teeth with a sink
-Yeah but you could brush your teeth in a shower
>I could bathe in a sink too, if I really wanted to!

Meaningless bickering. The two are totally different.

[Tron 2.0]

Sorry I'm a little lost on what you're trying to say. When I say fighting games I'm talking about any game where one character fights another with special combos and finishing moves. I'm not really talking about anything more then the generalities of the genre.
Well,when you said fighting i did assume you did mean fighters such as a one on one match.Some people can get into them others can not any more,because how much they have changed.Going back to SFII and Fatal Fury they were more simpler to play and now it's gotten carry away.With what you mention so 'far as combo's go etc i still enjoy the genre but that's just me.For others you mention that you consider modern still i play them,but in a very limited fashion and just not as much.

I do think FPS have over saturated the market.That western developers think it's the only way to make any profit now.

[ShinobiMan]

Apparently history isn't your strong suit. We didn't go to war with Nazi Germany until we were attacked by the Japanese and Hitler declared war on us. We certainly assisted the British with Lend-Lease among other programs, but we sat out of WWII for more than two years. Indeed, we very quickly worked with many former Nazi scientists and military officers immediately after the war as the Cold War started. Heck, there is pretty good evidence that we even had some knowledge of the Holocaust starting well before joining the war and yet did nothing to help. So, your example is terrible and frankly, this isn't WWII or the Holocaust. This is a tired argument from closed minded people worrying about the choices other people have. Nobody is forcing you to watch or play anything.

Again, that was just an example. What difference does it make to what extent we helped during WWII... does arguing the validity of my example strengthen your stance on not caring?

Anyway, anyone else feel this has become a tired argument? I'm ready to move on with my life!

[Nature Boy]

I respect that others feel the need to choose one over the other, but respect them more when they keep their reasoning pretty much to themselves.

Especially those who are adamant that one is somehow better than the other. If you feel the need to justify your choice to me for some reason then maybe you should examine why you feel that need instead of boring me with the same old arguments. It's not like the reasoning ever changes.

[chilimac]

I find modern games to be boring because they lack challenge, there is no penalty for failure, and they're designed to consume as much of my time as possible. I don't play games to kill time, I play them to have fun. Walking around huge environments while collecting hidden items, and completing a list of chores, and watching cutscenes is not an enjoyable experience to me. Also, without challenge or a penalty for failure, there is no excitement. Classic games get my heart pounding and the sweat rolling down my face; they make me feel alive. Modern games, on the other hand, make me feel like a mindless zombie.

[FFStudios]

Classic games get my heart pounding and the sweat rolling down my face; they make me feel alive. Modern games, on the other hand, make me feel like a mindless zombie.

I think this might be a result of the modern games you've decided to play, rather than modern gaming as a whole

There are an overwhelming amount of awful modern games, but that's not to say that there aren't awesome games that toss you around too.

[chilimac]

I think this might be a result of the modern games you've decided to play, rather than modern gaming as a whole

There are an overwhelming amount of awful modern games, but that's not to say that there aren't awesome games that toss you around too.

I've played just about every noteworthy game on the PS3/360 and, if you exclude XBLA/PSN games and import shmups, I can count on one hand the games that were challenging. That's not enough to make buying the new consoles worthwhile, which is why I now play classic games only.

[Submissive421]

I play what I feel like playing on a certain day. One day I feel like playing an awesome game from my childhood like Donkey Kong Country 2, so I plug my system up and play. Then on other days I feel like playing co-op with my boyfriend so we pop in Borderlands 2.

I will say that I'm more drawn to retro games because they tie in with nostalgia and the awesome times I had as a kid. I feel like the older games are better then today's modern titles. I'm not making as many memories of being completely drawn into all of the titles of today. I won't say that they are terrible but it just seems like their isn't as much heart put into games today. They don't really stay with me and I easily forget what happened in a game after I stopped playing it after a month or so.

Of course with retro games, I can still remember every nook and cranny in the older games and where everything is hidden. The awesome times when I was going crazy around Christmas time and opening up my Nintendo 64 and playing the loving crap out of it. I don't feel that way anymore opening new systems and that's sad.

[Neb6]

I've played hundreds of modern games and possibly thousands of classic video games.

I still play both classic and modern. However, I find that the classic ones offer many more types of gameplay. The modern games seem to fall into maybe ten different styles of gameplay (racing, FPS, shooting, dance/music, fighting, RPG, etc...). The classic games encompass at least 30 totally different styles or approaches to gameplay. At least it seems to be that way. Plus I like how convenient it is to play a quick session of a classic game and then put it away as opposed to a major gaming time-investment for a modern one. Oh, and I dig the fact that most classic games have an elegant and straight-forward control system. Amazing that one button and eight directions can still be fun.

Again, I like both classic and modern.

[Atarileaf]

I respect that others feel the need to choose one over the other, but respect them more when they keep their reasoning pretty much to themselves.



I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a thread asking for our stance, or why we choose one or the other, is why people are posting their reasoning behind their choice. Surprised you read this thread if you don't want to hear said reasoning's.

[Neb6]

If you feel the need to justify your choice to me for some reason then maybe you should examine why you feel that need instead of boring me with the same old arguments. It's not like the reasoning ever changes.

I think that, if the reasoning is consistent, then perhaps that's a good sign. Maybe there's something archetypal about certain kinds of gaming. If someone were to ask 100 people who enjoyed hiking why they liked going on hikes, I wouldn't be surprised if I heard most of them say something like, "I like the scenery, the fresh air, getting away from the fast pace of day-to-day life, the sense of peace, and the exercise." I figure they're just being honest about how they perceive things and that it shouldn't be surprising if many people pick up on the same types of things.

Personally, I think the observations that come out of discussions (or debates) like these can be helpful to developers. Just because people develop games doesn't mean they know everything about games or are 'tapped' into what people want. It's almost like market research, but without the various levels of data processing and investment-driven interests that tend to deviate from what many people actually want in their entertainment.

[BricatSegaFan]

Heres my stance.

I played fallout new vegas again recently, 30 min in the enemies are stuck in the floor and trees. I think nothing of it. Later the VATS system freezes and i just stand there while enemies wail away at me. Ok no problem, i handle the enemies without VATS then check my pip boy for more quests. The screen on the pip boy is blank and bright green. I reload the game and it freezes.....alot.

OK so next game! Maybe ill play skyrim. Game loads up and i have a million updates so i make a sandwich in the meantime. My game loads and one of my quest characters will not talk to me due to some kinda bug....

Eff this! I Turn on my Saturn and play Albert Odyssey. Game loads just fine no bugs....i play for hours uninterrupted.

Then i play some super star soldier on pce. No problems.

Thats my stance on classic vs modern gaming.

[Bojay1997]

Heres my stance.

I played fallout new vegas again recently, 30 min in the enemies are stuck in the floor and trees. I think nothing of it. Later the VATS system freezes and i just stand there while enemies wail away at me. Ok no problem, i handle the enemies without VATS then check my pip boy for more quests. The screen on the pip boy is blank and bright green. I reload the game and it freezes.....alot.

OK so next game! Maybe ill play skyrim. Game loads up and i have a million updates so i make a sandwich in the meantime. My game loads and one of my quest characters will not talk to me due to some kinda bug....

Eff this! I Turn on my Saturn and play Albert Odyssey. Game loads just fine no bugs....i play for hours uninterrupted.

Then i play some super star soldier on pce. No problems.

Thats my stance on classic vs modern gaming.

I don't know, I have plenty of glitchy and downright broken games on a variety of classic platforms. You're correct though that because of the complexity of modern games in many cases, the chances of glitches and bugs slipping through the cracks is probably greater. Having said that, I don't think that necessarily makes classic games better than modern as there are some types of experiences that just can't be done justice on limited hardware or limited memory or limited storage media.

[MetalFRO]

Yeah I know what you're saying. But let's look at the new Tomb Raider for
Example. The old tomb raider games had violence, but because of the limitations of the hardware, it looked fake.

The new Tomb Raider is so realistic looking and the hardware so capable that the designers went out of their way to create unique and extremely graphic death sequences for Lara Croft. Do I enjoy watching women get impaled through the neck by a tree branch? Not particularly. I think it's sick actually. So for a consumer like myself, a particularly exciting gaming experience is ruined by over the top violence.

I know this isn't a problem for everyone, but for me and surely some others, this is a major issue as to why modern gaming isn't as appealing.

I'm with you on that - it's kinda sickening, but I understand that the realism you're referring to (that specific example) isn't just gore for the sake of gore. I love ultra-violence in the form of stuff like No More Heroes, because it's so over the top and stylized that it's obviously fake & self-parody. I also really enjoyed the God of War games, and those include some scenes where you can mow down innocent people to get life orbs. The nice thing about that kind of situation is, you have a choice. You don't HAVE to mow them down to get life orbs, but it makes sense to do so in the context of Kratos' story line and the type of guy he is. And it goes along with the whole "war is hell" idea, since each of those games is centered on major conflict. I think some of the M-rated games that get into the hands of teenagers today would be a lot better if they offered the option of turning down the gore and violence levels, sort of like those filters you can put on a TV. If parental control is turned on in the console's settings, the game defaults to a less violent "mode" where there aren't blood splatters for headshots, or mowed down baddies fade away after a few seconds, leaving behind only the items you can pick up (ammo, health, etc) like retro games often did out of necessity to limit the # of sprites on screen. Games like Call of Duty could be even bigger sellers like that - the reality of the violence of war should not be hidden from kids who can handle the games on an emotional level, but it doesn't have to be so photorealistic. I myself might even prefer to play some games like that more. Excessive gore doesn't bother me when I'm mowing down aliens, but fellow humans? Sometimes that gets to you after a while, and the excessive desensitization does make it harder to see the line between acceptable and not so much.

Back OT, I tend to think that any game you find enjoyable is one you should play and experience, provided time, funds and opportunity. I finally sprung for a PS3 back in January and have been enjoying it immensely. I played all the way through inFAMOUS, the entire God of War Saga set (don't have Ascension yet), have dabbled with Mass Effect and Little Big Planet Karting, and am having loads of fun with a friend doing Lego Batman 2 as co-op play. But then the game I'm working on now is FF7, and I'm also sort of working on Paper Mario via my N64, so I go back and forth. I will always have love for retro and classic gaming, but I've been gaming on more modern systems since I bought my PlayStation, then Gamecube, then Wii, and now PS3.

[JSoup]

If robots take over and kill everybody I wouldnt say fictional violence is to blame. If anything it will prepare us for WHEN the robots take over. Because lets face it, its not an IF but WHEN situation here...

Supposedly more true than once thought (the preparation, that is). I'd need to poke around for it, but a study was done a number of months ago to compare arms knowledge and usage between soldiers and people who have played craptons of modern FPS games. The study found that gameplaying civilians had uncanny amounts of tactile and usage information on standard military grade weapons and knew how to handle them on a level that shocked the researchers. The only real difference between the solider and the civilians in question was A) IRL experience and B) IRL training (those guns are pretty heavy).

Three conclusions were drawn from this:
1. Video games can be used as a cheap way of allowing troops to keep many of their firearms skills up without expending huge amounts of cash. This is something that has been experimented with since the early 90s, but now we know that we can do it effectively and cheaply.
2. If we ever need to draft a bunch of people, training won't be an issue. The video games can be used to help get people up to speed and we'll already have a high number of pre-trained civilians.
3. There are a few hundred thousand people out there who are trained and apparently capable of using military grade weapons and tactics. That's kinda scary.

[bigbacon]

Sorry, arm chair warriors have little to no real experience when the times comes. video games aren't going to prepare you for anything unless, maybe, they are a full on VR experience.

army using games can only do so much, they still need in field training to be able to work effectively (or as effectively as possible)

[JSoup]

Sorry, arm chair warriors have little to no real experience when the times comes. video games aren't going to prepare you for anything unless, maybe, they are a full on VR experience.

army using games can only do so much, they still need in field training to be able to work effectively (or as effectively as possible)

That was the point of the study. To see if modern games could be used as effective soldier trainer tools. When I say "they found this and that" I mean they took some soldier and some FPS gamers, gave'em guns and said "shoot that target over there". The solider performed as expected, the FPS gamers performed far above and beyond what was expected. To say that we have a bunch of video game programmed sleeper agents or something walking among the population is an exaggeration, of course, but we at least know that the practical knowledge aspect of the job (the other parts being experience and physical training) can be satisfied with a PS3.

Edit: Note that I'm not trying to make any claims here. Just reiterating an interesting study I read. I doubt anything will really come of most of it, aside from refining solider training programs.

[Guntz]

I guess I must be "sad" since I pretty much only play old games. The only modern consoles I have are the Wii U and 3DS, not even a New 3DS. I don't care at all for the PS4 or Xbone or new PC games. For me, there's at least two decades behind us with more games than I can realistically play. I enjoy the old far more than the new, I enjoy what I could not enjoy when I was younger.

[Nature Boy]

I guess I must be "sad" since I pretty much only play old games.

That is kinda sad. Do you only listen to music 20 years old or older? Or not watch newer movies?

It's one thing to limit what you play based on availability of funds. But using age as a limit seems so ... Foolish