Last edited by The 1 2 P; 07-05-2009 at 04:32 PM.
ALL HAIL THE 1 2 P
Originally Posted by THE 1 2 P
I believe I posted EXACTLY why I think their age matters:
Someone who's 10 thinks the Wii is the best console ever madeATARILEAF SAID: Threads like this one and the one about which era of gaming was the best really need the author of each post to post their age. I think its very easy to see that if someone says the current generation is the best or N64/PS1 era is the best, etc, then they grew up with that system and clearly has a nostalgic factor that drives their choice.
A 25 year old might think the Genesis or SNES is the best
A 30 year old loves the NES the most.
A 40 year old (like me) thinks Atari is King (ahem, it IS)
However you occasionally get someone who's 15 years old that LOVES Atari and older consoles beyond his years. You may get someone who's my age who hates the old consoles and only plays whats new.
So for me the answer is obvious: its interesting to see the reason why someone chooses a certain console or certain era for their gaming preference and the answer most of the time is because of the age they were when their favorite console was released. Usually, not always, the first one they were introduced to.
If their reason isn't the obvious one, related to the age they were when said console was released, then it becomes more interesting to hear WHY they chose another console.
Hopefully I've explained myself better this way.
MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
http://www.youtube.com/user/atarileaf
If nostalgia is the only reason you play certain games, it's a sign that you need to move on.
Kidfenris.com: Never Updated.
Nostalgia is only part of it. These older games are still extremely fun and playable today. I don't think there's much point in collecting and not playing.
MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
http://www.youtube.com/user/atarileaf
I think it's 'better' to put your money towards whichever style of gaming that you prefer as an individual, and that there isn't a 'correct' choice.
You can be a modern gamer and not have to fork out a lot of money if you're prudent. You can also be a classic gamer and continually get new games if you support the homebrew community.
I think arguing that one is truly right is, in other words, totally wrong.
Time will be when the broadest river dries
And the great cities wane and last descend
Into the dust, for all things have an end
For me it really depends on my mood. lol, most often though when I'm stoned I end up on my more classic systems like snes/sega gen/ or nes
Like others have stated, which is "better" is up to the individual. In a technical sense the "retro" style of play and concept has never really went away. It just shifted to different platforms (handhelds, online web games on PC) before it was brought back to the current consoles (Wii, PSN and XBLA).
Comparing the two are seriously apples and oranges. Many of the games of old were a lot less complex in the control department but were tough-as-nails to get through or achieve a high score. No real "narrative" or story unless it's in the instruction manual or whatever little blurb is written on an arcade cab's display glass to help spur the imagination. Many of the popular modern games can best be described as "narrative experiences". They typically aren't overly tough but can carve out 8 to 30 hours of your gaming time in order to beat it or at least complete the main storyline. Rather than score, the payback is being a part of the story and anyone that's enjoyed games like BioShock can tell you that the twist was well worth the time invested to get there.
So is either better? Sorry, don't have an answer. For me I like them all, though typically i have tendency to partake of the modern more often than the retro.
For sure, that'll be a trip and a half.
I'm in the middle on this one. Sure, I prefer the classics, but that preference came from familiarity and time investment. Conversely, I really enjoy when a new game does the old stuff with a twist and a facelift. Or even when it's a completely new concept, but has that classic vibe (Art Style Nintendo DSi releases immediately come to mind, and the Bit Trip stuff on Wii).
The paradox I experience with the new stuff is; The more gaming reaches for realism (physics, ect.) and/or photo real visuals it's likened to a trip through the uncanny valley. There is something... repulsive about it that's just out of reach of your defining. It's like a tour of a wax museum conducted by a zombie playing the vocal part of the tour (which is read really badly with an obviously fake accent) through a speaker on it's back.
This signature is dedicated to all those
cyberpunks who fight against injustice
and corruption every day of their lives
I never realized there were so many people here who were biased against modern gaming. I mean, I suppose this was posted in the classic gaming section, so I don't know what I expected, but aren't we all gamers? While there are plenty of games today that are complete crap, there were plenty from every era that sucked royal ballsack™. Likewise, there are plenty of games made recently that are legitimately fun and interesting. While newer games may not always be innovative, that's not really as important as most people today make it seem. Hell, if you look at any other genre, innovation really just means redoing what someone else has done only better. Imagine if after Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, no one ever wrote another science fiction novel. Share the love guys, you can enjoy both classic and modern games and be a much happier person for it.
I prefer the classic stuff simply because I have a lot more fun playing them, but I play a good amount of modern stuff as well. I wouldn't say I'm biased against modern games, I just like classic ones a lot more in terms of overall fun.
sure classic gaming is better then modern,,,,,, you dont have too have 4 years of college too figure out the controls
The problem is that your tastes will ossify unless you seek out games beyond the ones you played when you were younger. Look at your favorite TurboGrafx-16 titles video, which fails to mention any of the later games that improved on your favorites. Have you never tried Bonk's Revenge, Devil's Crush, or other Compile shooters?
Kidfenris.com: Never Updated.
Considering the fact that 'classic' gaming encompasses a much larger span of time and creative output than modern gaming does, I think it's a pretty unfair comparison.
I have been feeling a little bit of regret since starting this thread, because I detect I may have generated a bit of hostility between people. It wasn't my intention to start a flame war, I honestly wanted to hear what others had to say. Also, I am sorry that my original question was so subjective and impressionistic. I did try to fix it, several comments later.
In any case, I am fascinated by two comments in particular. the first one
I am very interested in this response. Why would you enjoy classic gaming more than modern gaming when you are stoned?Chemdawg
For me it really depends on my mood. lol, most often though when I'm stoned I end up on my more classic systems like snes/sega gen/ or nes
The other comment that interested me:
I must admit, I do not understand the wax museum and zombie reference, but I think I completely agree with the sentiment. I think I had a very similar idea in mind when I first thought of the article. I was thinking about something Aristotle said in a book about Poetics (i.e. ancient plays). He said that the best kind of stories are about universals, rather than particulars. For example, that little square in 'Adventure' (2600) was a representation of a hero. Not any particular hero, but the abstract idea of a hero. It could be male/female young/old it could be anyone or anything. And that made it just a little bit epic, I think. In modern games you play a particular hero. You give it a name, and with each added level of realism, it becomes a particular, rather than a universal. Does that make any sense? Is that kinda what you were getting at?Icarus Moonsight
The paradox I experience with the new stuff is; The more gaming reaches for realism (physics, ect.) and/or photo real visuals it's likened to a trip through the uncanny valley. There is something... repulsive about it that's just out of reach of your defining. It's like a tour of a wax museum conducted by a zombie playing the vocal part of the tour (which is read really badly with an obviously fake accent) through a speaker on it's back.
Another thing I wanted to ask:
Do you think that old music is as respected as old games? Do you think it ought to be?
MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
http://www.youtube.com/user/atarileaf
Pot increases cholinergic activity in the brain and reduces oxygenated blood flow to the brain. This sedates as well and creates a feeling of euphoria in the user, basically having an antidepressant effect. Any activity that the user partakes in during drug usage will be more enjoyable to them. Also with the reduced oxygen to the brain comes reduced brain function. In this condition the drug user may find 3D games to be too complex or too demanding.
So... simple-mindedness + excessive happiness = simple games.
MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL:
http://www.youtube.com/user/atarileaf
I really hate making the distinction between "classic" and "modern". To me, they're just video games. Sure some are more simplistic and more about the immediate satisfaction, while others are complicated and may take weeks to get anywhere, but they all have the same purpose - to entertain.
Neither age group is "better" IMO, they both serve the purpose of entertaining me, they just do it in slightly different ways.
The only time I make a distinction on my games based on age is for which TV I play them on. The older ones I play on a CRT and the newer ones I play on a LCD.
Without having to read the rest of the thread, what was the verdict? I need to know, so I can stop playing the appropriate games. I don't need to be wasting any more time, if I have this valuable information at my disposal.