dont you find the more you play new games , the more old games kinda suck ?

[Joe Redifer]

I have not taken the time to read this entire thread, but here's my input:

dont you find the more you play new games , the more old games kinda suck ?

That's a very blunt way to put it. Instead I marvel at how far the graphics and sound capabilities of games systems have come. But to be honest, I don't think that old games suck in comparison.

Old games are better because:
-Better music. Games these days have mostly ambient or movie-score type music, nothing memorable.
-Pick up and play capability. You don't have to boot up the system, select the game, load the game and go through a dozen menu screens just to start playing. You generally can dive right in and start playing.
-Replay value. Once you beat one of those big, epic games on current systems, it seems more like a chore to ever play them again since they are not level-based and you have to "get into" them, so they sit on the shelf.
-The games aren't trying to be interactive movies.


Old games are worse because:
-They can't offer the same types of gameplay due to their limited graphical capabilities. New genres of games have resulted that couldn't be done with any justice on old machines.
-Nearly every new games saves. That can come in very handy and adds value.
-The sound quality... you just can't feel the impact of explosions like you can with uncompressed 7.1 digital audio that most PS3 games offer.

[The Coop]

-Nearly every new games saves. That can come in very handy and adds value.

I believe that bolded part's a very debatable point, as there's also something to be said for how much less challenging a game is when all you have to do is save every minute to avoid replaying a section.

[17daysolderthannes]

I believe that bolded part's a very debatable point, as there's also something to be said for how much less challenging a game is when all you have to do is save every minute to avoid replaying a section.

there's also something to be said about how annoying and ultimately frustrating it is to play through the SAME section over and over again. IMO, even the old games only made you replay the early levels every time to compensate for the short length of the game and the cost of save technology. I mean, putting yourself to the test to do a no-continue run is fine, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

[genesisguy]

My modern gaming experiences aren't that much. I finally got a ps2 this summer and although I've enjoyed the GTA series that's about all that's held my attention. I don't get rockband or guitar hero. I'm a real guitarist and I think that's a waste of time. I don't like how in modern games there's an emphasis on reality and first person play. 8 bit and 16 bit games really just feel like video games to me. I love the NHL series on the Genesis and today's sports games take so much time to learn the control you might as well just go play the real thing.

[The Coop]

there's also something to be said about how annoying and ultimately frustrating it is to play through the SAME section over and over again. IMO, even the old games only made you replay the early levels every time to compensate for the short length of the game and the cost of save technology. I mean, putting yourself to the test to do a no-continue run is fine, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

It made you get better at the game though, didn't it? Sure made reaching that end feel more like an achievement as well.

Perhaps I'm just too oldschool for the attitude toward save states these days, but they simply wreck the game in my opinion. There's no challenge anymore when you can save your way through a tough section, instead of having to learn it and get better. Sure, you can simply not use them (and I don't), but I see no reason for them to be there in the first place.

I guess that's part of why I still enjoy playing those older games... the challenge or knowing if you die, you're starting over, period. Having that pushing you to get better adds to the game for me.

[WarmSignal]

Perhaps I'm just too oldschool for the attitude toward save states these days, but they simply wreck the game in my opinion. There's no challenge anymore when you can save your way through a tough section, instead of having to learn it and get better. Sure, you can simply not use them (and I don't), but I see no reason for them to be there in the first place.

But isn't there a lot more to games nowadays than just a series of eight or so levels? Imaging having to beat GTA III, all of the missions in one run, if you die, you start all the way over.

[Puffy2k316]

In regards to the save debate, I enjoyed it more when it was actually an accomplishment to beat a game rather then just sitting in your chair and pressing buttons long enough. They've gotten pretty lazy with saves the past 10 years or so.

[The Coop]

Why do the notification e-mails keep sending me to posts on page three?

But isn't there a lot more to games nowadays than just a series of eight or so levels? Imaging having to beat GTA III, all of the missions in one run, if you die, you start all the way over.

Anyway, "sand box" games are a whole different beast from shmups, platformers, FPSs, and even RPGs and strategy games. And even then, being able to save anywhere is a hindrance to me. RPGs back in the 16-bit period had it right, in that you can only save in certain spots as you made your way through the game. The Saturn version of Doom also did it right, in that you could only save (well, get a password) after you completed a mission. You had to strive for that save point or that password. You had to earn it. That's gone more often than not these days, even with console games.

Any RTS or "sand box" game that makes you finish a mission before you can save is doing it right in my opinion. Make the player earn that progressive save... don't let them keep hitting the mystical quick-save key (© Yahtzee).

I'm sure some folks are rolling their eyes right now, but it's how I feel about the concept of saves. Unless the game takes more than two hours to beat, I just don't see a reason for saves and save states.

[genesisguy]

I guess that's part of why I still enjoy playing those older games... the challenge or knowing if you die, you're starting over, period. Having that pushing you to get better adds to the game for me.

I've started games on my ps2 and used the save the state only to return to the game months later at some advanced state in the game where I've lost all my skill and controller knowledge for the game. I started playing Castlevania on the NES monday night for the first time in over a year. I sucked at it, but because I have to keep stating over I've been able to rebuild my skills.

[Joe Redifer]

I am posting this just so Coop gets another annoying notification e-mail.

[The Coop]

HA HA!

You've been thwarted Joe. It brought me to this page this time

[Puffy2k316]

There was a version of Doom that made you go through a whole level before saving? That must have been pretty rough. That game was hard being able to save anywhere.

[The Coop]

There was a version of Doom that made you go through a whole level before saving? That must have been pretty rough. That game was hard being able to save anywhere.

Yep. The PS1 version is the same way... which shouldn't be surprising, since the PS1 version was ported to the Saturn (poorly). Supposedly the Japanese Saturn version was optimized better than the U.S. version, but I've never gotten to see it in action.

[Namakubi]

People that posts threads like this are the same kind of people who think movies like Citizen Kane, Metropolis or Casablanca suck: No sense of history.

More and more I find myself going back to older games, or modern games with a retro sensibility, not so much out of nostalgia, and more out of a need to play games that aren't so damn complex or time consuming.

[Joe Redifer]

HA HA!

You've been thwarted Joe. It brought me to this page this time

But you're still getting e-mails. I am polluting the web.