This is just heart breaking!

CiDeRmAn · 22-09-2012 9:23am

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Just want to get my word in here.

First off @CiDeRmAn: silent films may have been good in their day, but saying that because the best critics say they're great doesnt mean they're great. The same critics say that Donnie Darko and Drive are 2 of the best films ever made, when to most people they're complete and utter art house ****e!

Okay, the films you mentioned are both very divisive, Darko is cult rather than a widely acclaimed movie.
I found Drive to be a long winded, pretentious music video. Others loved it.
Hardly two examples of great modern cinema.
And great silent movies like the Harold Lloyd or Buster Keaton are still great films.

When I talk of games today I refer to awesomeness like Dark Souls or Super Mario 3d Land, not drivel like COD:MW3 and other games with a lifespan measured in terms of when the sequel is out.

As we all know, opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. And they will differ. Some people prefer older games for the fact that a great game was made within limitations, had a great story, etc. More of the younger people prefer graphics, frame rate, etc. Each to their own.

True, partially.
Some of my mates are, unlike me, just 20 or so and love all games, including the new stuff and the best of the stuff that has gone before.
Just because Pokemon Black 2 is on the way doesn't make Pokemon Blue on the Gameboy less fun and engaging.
I played Return to Castle Wolfenstein on the Xbox, PS2 and PC and all these years later its the original on the PC and the version on my GBA that I'll play again.

But to say they're wrong because they dont like the classics is also wrong.

,
It's not wrong, it's my opinion, and it's my opinion that his/their opinion is wrong.
How can being more inclusive be wrong?
It's troubling that people are becoming so conservative, so mainstream in their opinions, and at the same time claim to be gamers.

I'll always have a place in my heart for pong, centipede, smb, donkey kong, etc. I also have love for Soul Reaver, GT, Timesplitters, Rollcage. As I will for COD4, Uncharted, Assassins Creed, inFamous and more.

As it should be, you couldn't spread a bit of what you're taking around here could you?
It's getting like the Playstation forum around here!

Arcade & Retro forum FTW!

marshbaboon · 22-09-2012 11:03am

You simply can't draw an accurate comparison between games & movies.

Games have a primary element which none of the other forms of media possess: active participation. The participation is reliant on the core mechanics, and overall feel of the game.

How well a game ages is dependant on the game in question. I've picked up and played 10 year old games which I've never played before and gotten more enjoyment out of them than new titles. It's nothing to do with nostalgia.

To be honest anyway, anyone who thinks borderlands is a better game than deus ex or system shock 2 has terrible taste in games, and doesn't deserve to have an opinion... no offence.

Magill · 22-09-2012 11:22am

Regarding acting now being better than the, 1960's, that is wrong, not my opinion it is wrong just empirically wrong, as any critics Best Movie list will attest.

Really, its not but ok.. i guess it must be one of the few modern professions that has been stagnant for 60 years, no possible way that people have improved on technique or training methods.

Borderlands 2 is just out and yet we have here people who hold it up as proof positive that modern gaming is superior to all gaming that went before.
Now that is short sighted, knee jerk opinion.
And when Black Ops 2 comes out that'll be the new "best game ever".

I'm am sorry for people with this point of view, I pity them.
Such a wealth of great games that go disregarded.

I used borderlands 2 because it was brand new, not because i think its the greatest game ever made.. it was just an example of how modern games are technically superior in almost every way.

When players have long forgotten Borderlands 2, Assassins Creed 2 and Fifa 13 they'll still be playing Metal Slug, Super Mario World, Super Metroid and Gradius V.

And, by the way, those games look and play spectacularly, haven't aged a bit either.

I've never disagreed with this, those games are hardly the classics of this generation, making that lasting impact requires a game to be head and shoulders above the rest of the current games.

You also seem to miss the part where i said i agree that games like Super Metroid/ Super Mario World are probably still the best platformers around. Platform games were in their prime during the snes generation, there was very little gameplay wise that could be added, its a very simple genre (In a good way). Its also a genre that is for the most part confined to indie developers and handhelds these days. I would love to see what some of the GOOD big developers could do with a 2D platformer.. unfortunately that'll probably never happen. The same can be applied to sidescrollers really.

At this stage I have over 50 consoles and have been gaming since the 70's, I figure I might know what I am talking about.
Sure, sure you have every console you've owned since the NES.
If that is so, then, why?
I mean haven't you "Moved on" from all those old games?
Why keep them around?
If you are indeed an owner of such a collection, and I've no reason to doubt you, it's incredible that you could take the position you have iterated here.

They were expensive, they are part of my childhood, they might be worth some money at some stage ! Multiple reasons why i keep them really. Maybe some day i'll get an urge to play some platform games again (Like i said before, i haven't been into these games since the snes days).

To recap, some modern games are great and will be played for years to come as classics, Dark Souls for example.
But modern gaming is only the current bleeding edge of gaming.
Some is amazing, more are derivative and many are junk.
The past of gaming is the same but, by virtue of the time span involved, there are so many, hundreds if not thousands, games worth playing.

You should get along to an Arcade & Retro night out and see for yourselves what we are talking about.
We have had Steel Batallion on the Xbox with the massive controller, Boulder Dash and modern Beat'em Ups sharing time, projected onto the ceiling.
We've had Super Ghouls & Ghosts and G-Darius play through.
Metal Slug X and Dino Rex have been featured.
We had SSFIV tournaments and played indie pc horror as well as classic PS2 j-horror titles.
It's a blast!

Im not disagreeing with any of this, im just saying that for the most part games have improved a ton over the years, especially in the 3D genres. Dues Ex + DE:Human Revolution is probably the best example, imo if both games where released today HR would be considered by far the better game(Not just because of the shiny's). However Deus Ex will be considered a "classic" forever because of how much of an impact it had on gaming, HR will probably not be and thats fine. Sensible Soccer will probably always be regarded as a class football game.. can it really be argued that it is a better game than fifa12 or fifa13.. no.

Grimebox · 22-09-2012 11:54am

Magill wrote: »

....

Im not disagreeing with any of this, im just saying that for the most part games have improved a ton over the years, especially in the 3D genres. Dues Ex + DE:Human Revolution is probably the best example, imo if both games where released today HR would be considered by far the better game(Not just because of the shiny's). However Deus Ex will be considered a "classic" forever because of how much of an impact it had on gaming, HR will probably not be and thats fine. Sensible Soccer will probably always be regarded as a class football game.. can it really be argued that it is a better game than fifa12 or fifa13.. no.

I couldn't agree with this any more. I somehow missed Deus Ex and am only playing it for the first time now. The only thing it has over HR is the plot. That's it, it is a huge plus though. The AI is woeful, voice-acting sub standard, graphics are poor, gun mechanics are rubbish. It feels like a choir playing it some of the time. I am really trying to like the game. If the two game out tomorrow, HR would be superior from an objective point of view.

CiDeRmAn · 22-09-2012 12:02pm

Magill wrote: »

Sensible Soccer will probably always be regarded as a class football game..

Couldn't agree with you more, at last, a consensus!

can it really be argued that it is a better game than fifa12 or fifa13.. no.

Well, that didn't last long!
If we were comparing like with like I'd agree, Fifa 12 is, possibly, the best football simulations so far.
Sensi soccer though, that's a beautiful game all of it's own.
There is nothing like it and, aside from the misguided PS update, it is a perfect franchise.

But comparing Fifa 13 to Sensi soccer is like comparing Forza 4 to Championship Sprint.

johnny_ultimate · 22-09-2012 12:18pm

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Just want to get my word in here.

First off @CiDeRmAn: silent films may have been good in their day, but saying that because the best critics say they're great doesnt mean they're great. The same critics say that Donnie Darko and Drive are 2 of the best films ever made, when to most people they're complete and utter art house ****e!

As we all know, opinions are like arseholes: everybody has one. And they will differ. Some people prefer older games for the fact that a great game was made within limitations, had a great story, etc. More of the younger people prefer graphics, frame rate, etc. Each to their own.

Yes its a shame that the youth of today dont recognise classic games, but what are we to expect? They're growing up in a world where the media is telling them that COD and Halo are the best games out there, that graphics are the be all and end all of games. Those with a bit of sense will see passed all this and may give the older classics a whirl. But to say they're wrong because they dont like the classics is also wrong.

I'll always have a place in my heart for pong, centipede, smb, donkey kong, etc. I also have love for Soul Reaver, GT, Timesplitters, Rollcage. As I will for COD4, Uncharted, Assassins Creed, inFamous and more.

Sorry, but that's absolute nonsense. The great silent films are as great as they were on release. Battleship Potemkin, Sunrise: A Tale of Two Humans, The General, Sherlock Jr., Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Earth, The Gold Rush, Man With a Movie Camera etc...: these films are just as entertaining and informative to watch today. Some are genuinely funny, some bold in their thematic concerns, others valuable historical records. Many still have yet to be surpassed in terms of their sheer invention and creativity.

You know why 'critics' say they're amongst the best ever made? Because the critics have watched them all, studied them, understand them and have come to an educated decision about their importance, legacy and quality. Classic cinema still has so much to offer audiences. I was born, what, roughly seven decades after the advent of sound, and I know I still get a thrill out of watching silent films at home or on the big screen. And as for arthouse and world cinema film, so often dismissed as mere pretension (and Donnie Darko and Drive are two extremely random examples, and IMO not nearly the best cinema has to offer - check out astonishing current releases like Holy Motors or About Elly for the true rush of genius)? Ambitious filmmakers carry on the legacy of the silent greats, while mainstream filmmaker is increasingly populated by focus-grouped products with very rare exceptions. The Avengers is OK for what it is, but critics will surely point out dozens if not hundreds of better films released this year. And you know what? They're completely right.

All of this could apply to games too. Early gaming was straddled with technical limitations, which ensured the creators were brave and innovative. The best games from their respective eras still can get by because they're so gloriously creative and ambitious. Super Metroid's worldbuilding was astonishingly grand, and it still stands up today. Ocarina of Time and Mario 64s bold experiments with perspective are still engaging and thrilling despite the ongoing march of technological improvements. The level design and challenge of Ghosts and Goblins or Megaman are unequaled in their ingenuity and inspired meanness. Time, when it comes to true classics, has been kind. And yes, great games continue to be made, from Journey to Dark Souls. They can enhance and expand our appreciation for the classics while still presented new and inventive experiences.

Sure, games age, especially ones from the early 3D period. I'd even say games have it a tad worse than films when it comes to the ageing process. But I have played games like Earthbound and Chrono Trigger for the first time in recent years, and they still offer amazing experiences with few if any contemporary equivalents.

Yes, many older games are primitive and basic. Yes, others have and will continue to be lost as technology marches forward. But as film (and before it literature and art) has proven, the classics will endure, and for the enthusiast or open-minded can still amaze and entertain afresh.

Retr0gamer · 22-09-2012 2:23pm

Grimebox wrote: »

I couldn't agree with this any more. I somehow missed Deus Ex and am only playing it for the first time now. The only thing it has over HR is the plot. That's it, it is a huge plus though. The AI is woeful, voice-acting sub standard, graphics are poor, gun mechanics are rubbish. It feels like a choir playing it some of the time. I am really trying to like the game. If the two game out tomorrow, HR would be superior from an objective point of view.

It sounds like you are expecting Deus Ex to play like a FPS. An amateur but understandable mistake. Deus Ex is an RPG with a first person perspective. Don't focus on the dodgy AI and gun mechanics. Instead focus on the amount of choice each level affords you in how you approach. Also focus on the level of choice that the RPG upgrades afford the player. No other modern game comes close to that.

Also don't focus on the dodgy AI and the gun mechanics. Instead look at what the game achieved within those limitations. The gun mechanics had to be a bit dodgy for it to work in an RPG setting. No point in having elaborate RPG mechanics for gunplay if it played like CoD and you were perfectly accurate no matter what gun you carried. Also look at what the game designers achieved in level design despite stuff like dodgy AI and a dated engine. Despite these limitations they created very inventive levels with a huge amount of ways to approached them that also took into account the eccentricities of the AI. Play the game more and when you become powerful and the RPG mechanics click with you and you realise how well they are implemented then I'd like to hear what you think of the game.

Grimebox · 22-09-2012 2:50pm

Okay complaining about the gun mechanics was wrong of me. That was a design choice, albeit one I found frustrating at first.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It sounds like you are expecting Deus Ex to play like a FPS. An amateur but understandable mistake. Deus Ex is an RPG with a first person perspective. Don't focus on the dodgy AI and gun mechanics. Instead focus on the amount of choice each level affords you in how you approach. Also focus on the level of choice that the RPG upgrades afford the player. No other modern game comes close to that.

Also don't focus on the dodgy AI and the gun mechanics. Instead look at what the game achieved within those limitations.

This makes me groan. Why should I have to look at what it achieved within those limitations? If it is one of the best games of all time, it can stand on its on two feet regardless. I feel like your asking me to ignore flaws in the game. I played Chrono Trigger ten years after it was released and I didn't have to make such accommodations to see it was an excellent game.

The gun mechanics had to be a bit dodgy for it to work in an RPG setting. No point in having elaborate RPG mechanics for gunplay if it played like CoD and you were perfectly accurate no matter what gun you carried. Also look at what the game designers achieved in level design despite stuff like dodgy AI and a dated engine. Despite these limitations they created very inventive levels with a huge amount of ways to approached them that also took into account the eccentricities of the AI. Play the game more and when you become powerful and the RPG mechanics click with you and you realise how well they are implemented then I'd like to hear what you think of the game.

Sneaking around is a large mechanic in this game that falls apart because of the poor AI imo. This is a purely technological limitation. It is simply done better nowadays. That is a bold sweeping statement and I'm racking my brain for exceptions to it (which I'm hoping you will point out). I will have to push on and finish it so I can have a more rounded opinion. Who knows, maybe I'll end up eating my words.

Retr0gamer · 22-09-2012 2:59pm

Grimebox wrote: »

This makes me groan. Why should I have to look at what it achieved within those limitations? If it is one of the best games of all time, it can stand on its on two feet regardless. I feel like your asking me to ignore flaws in the game. I played Chrono Trigger ten years after it was released and I didn't have to make such accommodations to see it was an excellent game.

Great art comes from working within limitations. I don't know about you but I found that the game worked and was fun despite the limitations of the game. If it was something that broke the game or made it unplayable then I'd have a problem.

Also some games like Thief purposefully made the AI stupid when during development it was a lot tougher and more realistic. It was to make the game more fun to play rather than frustrating and since a lot of Thief people worked on Deus Ex I'd say the same philosophy was in place. MGS does the same, really stupid AI that's a blast to mess around with.

Grimebox wrote: »

Sneaking around is a large mechanic in this game that falls apart because of the poor AI imo. This is a purely technological limitation. It is simply done better nowadays.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess it's because you were using the hand mounted crossbow. It's quite possibly one of the worst weapons in a game and totally useless. Tranq a guy and he still has time to set off an alarm

Stealth works a lot better when you use better weapons. I would agree that the crossbow is a bit of a flaw in the game.

Grimebox · 22-09-2012 3:04pm

Thief is actually a great example of an entire series that goes against what I said

Mark Hamill · 22-09-2012 3:13pm

Magill wrote: »

The fact is something as recent as borderlands 2 is a far superior game to Dues Ex or System Shock in almost every department. Graphics are better, gameplay is better, sound is better, dialog is better, multiplayer is better,the gameworld is bigger and the environments more diverse...

None of the stuff in bold actually make a game better. Or is Duke Nukem Forever a better game than System Shock 2? The only time these are relevant in a comparison is every other aspect of the games are equal.

The underlined stuff is subjective. And wrong. Borderlands aims for a massively different style to System Shock or Deus Ex, so you cant directly compare their gameplay, sound or dialog to each other in an objective way. Does Angry Birds have better sound than Battlefield 3? What you can do is say whether each games gameplay, sound and dialogue fit their respective styles well and, imo, they all do.

o1s1n · 22-09-2012 3:41pm

The ignorance towards games past saddens me to be honest. I really hope future generations realize the importance of many and are able to critique them as such.

People won't be playing Boarderlands in a few years. They'll most certainly still be playing Chrono Trigger/Panzer Dragoon Saga/Earthbound/Super Metroid/SOTN/and a mountain of others.

Similarly, people won't be Watching Transformers and other Michael Bay tripe soon enough (I'd imagine most have stopped watching it already) - Can't exactly say the same about films by Hitchcock, Lynch, Stone, Miyazaki, Coppola etc

There are films for the masses to sit back, switch off and much on popcorn to and then there are films which genuinely push the medium forward.

Games are the exact same in that regard. You have your blockbuster, sell a million copies, popcorn muching graphics fests - which are soon forgotten about - and then genuinely genre progressing ones which will always be remembered.

People who deny this or simply say 'old games suck! LOL' are probably the same types which went to see Ted and laughed their arse off...but I'm sure if you sat them down to watch something which actually requires a bit of thought they'd come back to you with 'wtf is this arty ****e?'

There's no arguing with ignorance to be honest. Best just leave it be and let it continue to numb its mind with X Factor, Halo, One Direction and whatever the next big blockbuster film is.

Sparks43 · 22-09-2012 3:46pm

Well my 8 year old loves the new Kirby games

Doesnt stop her playing the Kirby games that are nearly 20 years old

Maybe there is a lesson there :cool:

Grimebox · 22-09-2012 3:58pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

None of the stuff in bold actually make a game better. Or is Duke Nukem Forever a better game than System Shock 2? The only time these are relevant in a comparison is every other aspect of the games are equal.

The underlined stuff is subjective. And wrong. Borderlands aims for a massively different style to System Shock or Deus Ex, so you cant directly compare their gameplay, sound or dialog to each other in an objective way. Does Angry Birds have better sound than Battlefield 3? What you can do is say whether each games gameplay, sound and dialogue fit their respective styles well and, imo, they all do.

Yes I would argue the stuff in bold does make a game better. That stuff alone doesn't make a good game obviously. We all know Duke Nukem Forever was rubbish but it would be even worse with bad graphics, bad multi-player, smaller gameworld and uniform environments. One thing people constantly mention about Fallout 3 or Skyrim was the majesty of the environments.

Imagine playing a remade System Shock 2 (by the original team) that pushed the latest technology to its limits. If you think the old one would be better, you are delusional imo.

a5y · 22-09-2012 4:10pm

Carry on guys.

johnny_ultimate · 22-09-2012 4:10pm

Watch this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp5fTvEWdh4

Know why its amazing? Precisely because of technical limitations. The amount of effort put into it - and Keaton himself nearly died on numerous occasions over the course of his career - is awe inspiring. With primitive technology, inspired choreography and amazing stuntwork (basically farting in the face of health & safety regulations) they created a sequence that would be impossible to replicate anywhere near as impressively these days with any amount of CGI (just look at the recent Three Stooges film for evidence of how modern effects limit the impact of physical and slapstick comedy). Similarly, theses have probably been written on how the visual and editing language of Man with a Movie Camera or Battleship Potemkin have a greater understanding of form and storytelling than contemporary equivalents, and how without them cinema as we know it wouldn't exist. Won't bore you with that stuff.

Why I use film as an example is because almost a century later we're able to look back with the benefit of hindsight and admire the achievements and ingenuity of the early masters, and no amount of technical advancements can undermine that. We will see the same with classic gaming. We already can, albeit with a more restrictive time frame of two or three decades. Our knowledge of contexts and technological limitations of any given work should not restrict our appreciation of it: if anything, it absolutely enhances it.

Mark Hamill · 22-09-2012 4:17pm

Grimebox wrote: »

Yes I would argue the stuff in bold does make a game better. That stuff alone doesn't make a good game obviously. We all know Duke Nukem Forever was rubbish but it would be even worse with bad graphics, bad multi-player, smaller gameworld and uniform environments. One thing people constantly mention about Fallout 3 or Skyrim was the majesty of the environments.

Imagine playing a remade System Shock 2 (by the original team) that pushed the latest technology to its limits. If you think the old one would be better, you are delusional imo.

You kinda just proved my point:

Mark Hamill wrote:

The only time these are relevant in a comparison is every other aspect of the games are equal.

I'm not saying they aren't important or don't add to a game, but you can't call a game good or bad based on them. It's a lot easier for a game to be good despite have bad graphics than a game to be good despite having bad gameplay.

a5y · 22-09-2012 4:17pm

Damn, posted that gif a few seconds too early!

Grimebox · 22-09-2012 5:08pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You kinda just proved my point:

I'm not saying they aren't important or don't add to a game, but you can't call a game good or bad based on them. It's a lot easier for a game to be good despite have bad graphics than a game to be good despite having bad gameplay.

I somehow missed that you said:

The only time these are relevant in a comparison is every other aspect of the games are equal."

Well then don't compare Duke Nukem to System shock, let's compare Deus Ex:HR to Superman 64 instead and see what conclusions we can draw!

Dude111 · 22-09-2012 8:38pm

CiDeRmAn wrote:

I have them all and they are great.

Indeed they are!!

ATARI 2600 was the BEST console of the 80s!! -- I love it like crazy!!

Games now are pure evil and violence.... Terrible!!

CiDeRmAn · 23-09-2012 12:59pm

Dude111 wrote: »

CiDeRmAn wrote:

I have them all and they are great.

Indeed they are!!

ATARI 2600 was the BEST console of the 80s!! -- I love it like crazy!!

Games now are pure evil and violence.... Terrible!!

The 2600 was in no way the best, ahead of it are the NES, PC Engine, Gameboy, C64, Amiga, ST, Spectrum, Master System, just to name a few.

K.O.Kiki · 23-09-2012 5:44pm

o1s1n wrote: »

The ignorance towards games past saddens me to be honest. I really hope future generations realize the importance of many and are able to critique them as such.

People won't be playing Boarderlands in a few years. They'll most certainly still be playing Chrono Trigger/Panzer Dragoon Saga/Earthbound/Super Metroid/SOTN/and a mountain of others. [...]

Minor nitpick: unless SEGA, by some miracle, finds the source code (or Saturn emulation takes a giant leap forward) no one will be playing Panzer Dragoon Saga unless they're rich

Retr0gamer · 23-09-2012 6:11pm

Saturn emulation is pretty good now. My girlfriend uses one and it's pretty much perfect.

K.O.Kiki · 23-09-2012 8:41pm

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Saturn emulation is pretty good now. My girlfriend uses one and it's pretty much perfect.

The more you know

Hey, I still have a Saturn USB pad lying around, too...

Spunge · 23-09-2012 9:00pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjikLCPeUdo

Duggy747 · 24-09-2012 2:07am

Gaming is subjective, but you can't write off the old generation of games because the modern ones are superior in technical terms like their engines and sound quality.

I've the HTPC set up with a load of emulation so I tend to change from modern gaming to retro gaming quite frequently.

Latest game I played was Sleeping Dogs, which was pretty fun and looked great during wet sequences in 1080p.

Most recent game I completed was Zelda - Link To The Past on the Snes. Game had me addicted harder than crack. The game before that was Super Metroid which it's gameplay and soundtrack still blew me away.

The funny thing for me about playing retro games, be it of the old PC, console or arcade variations, is how I'll stick with them longer and feel more challenged rather than going through the motions with yet another FPS game I'll have completed in a few hours unless I go and play online.

Now, there was an enormous range of shìt games released during the console era of the 80's and 90's. The SNES had a relentless amount of bland, sometimes corporate (Cool Spot, anyone?), and terribly programmed platformers.

Mates used to take the piss out of me for spending more time playing the retro games rather than the latest stuff. Then whenever I brought the laptop and PS2 controllers around and hooked it up to a TV everybody wanted to play Street Fighter / Mortal Kombat.

Hell, we even spent hours playing this 70's game off our nut :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6c5gXc24Hw

Minus the annoying music, though.

Puzzle Bobble games were another big hit among them. The GF isn't big into games but loves playing Mario Kart Dash and the Snes Bomberman games.

Anyways, comparing Deus Ex and System Shock to something modern like Borderlands 2 is naff. Might as well say Limbo is better than Super Mario Bros. 3 since it has better graphics and a physics engine.

Grimebox · 24-09-2012 9:10pm

I would argue the two retro games you mentioned, Zelda: LTTP and Super Metroid, have good graphics and soundtrack still to this day. They have aged fantastically.

CiDeRmAn · 25-09-2012 4:59pm

Cool Spot was a great game, no more cynical a licence than a movie or cartoon tie-in.
The animation was great, the music great, even the opening screen was cool with the spot surfing on the bottle of 7up.
Level designs have been bettered but it remains good stuff.
The excellent graphics engine went on to do sterling work on Aladdin.

Yes there was a mountain of dreadful, bland tripe on the 16bit systems, but we then forget the vast quantity of dross made for the PS, PS2, 360 and every other console ever made.

We live in a golden era of gaming, with consoles still working from the start of video games til the present.
In time the more moving parts the more likely it is to break down and outside of virtual console type services there will be less and less opportunities to play classics, surprisingly on the likes of the DC, PS, PS2, 360 and any games machine that generates heat, they will all wear out and in time you'll be unable to play the great games they offer.

Dude111 · 25-09-2012 8:55pm

CiDeRmAn wrote:

The 2600 was in no way the best, ahead of it are the NES, PC Engine, Gameboy, C64, Amiga, ST, Spectrum, Master System, just to name a few.

Hmmm well i guess it depends on what ya like and what not right?

CiDeRmAn · 26-09-2012 8:40am

Dude111 wrote: »

CiDeRmAn wrote:

The 2600 was in no way the best, ahead of it are the NES, PC Engine, Gameboy, C64, Amiga, ST, Spectrum, Master System, just to name a few.

Hmmm well i guess it depends on what ya like and what not right?

I suppose, but I think you will have chosen a rather hard console to defend.
Very quickly the 2600 became a world of very very poor games. With such rudimentary visuals the games on the 2600 have to have good gameplay.
There are some classics, Defender 2 is a favourite of mine. But there are a lot of bad stuff.
The Nes and, in Europe's case, the Amiga were massive machines in the 80s and home to hundreds of classic titles, from Super Mario Bros to Carrier Command.

This is just heart breaking!

Comments