This is just heart breaking!

Dude111

Todays generation kids playing Atari,etc games!!

http://web.archive.org/web/20031108234529/http://www.egmmag.com/article2/0,4364,1338767,00.asp

THEY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT GOOD IS........ Very,very sad


I LOVE ATARI 2600!! (All games listed there i like)

Zillah

These games are all bad games and they only seem good to you because of nostalgia. Let's all go play cup-and-ball. Hey, don't be such a cup-and-ball hog!

Back in my day we'd dig a hole with a stick and be grateful for what we had.

ShadowHearth

Not really shocking for me. Kids these days are surrounded by so many gadgets that back in the day we could only dream about.
I am not that old and I was not in Atari times. My first console was Nes. I would not be surprised kids trying to play it now and say how **** it is by today's standarts. A lot of old games I can't play myself.
We are spoiled this generation with games.

Dude111

Zillah wrote:

These games are all bad games......

Oh my..........



I love most of them!!

Mr E

That article is 9 years old.

What's more heartbreaking is that the kids interviewed were morons.

Zillah

Dude111 wrote: »

I love most of them!!

Because you played them back in the day when they were brand new, novel and exciting. But honestly, Pong is literally a white square bouncing left to right with no variation or interaction of any sort, Donkey Kong is an ugly little platformer by modern standards it wouldn't even get played were it released as a web game now. The only reasons they are cool are historical and nostalgic.

I no more appreciate playing these games having played modern games than I would using a dial-up modem having gotten used to modern fibre broadband. It would be very naive and unreasonable to expect kids that gew up with Halo, Half-Life and Neverwinter Nights to play pixellated platformers and enjoy them.

Retr0gamer

I think Tetris was really the only really great game there. Space Invaders is alright on the 2600 but won't be impressing anyone these days and the 2600 version of Donkey Kong is appalling, the arcade version is a true classic though.

Sit them down with 4 player Warlords or Yar's Revenge and if any of them tell you it's crap neuter them.

deathrider

I grew up in the Snes/Megadrive days, and had little or no love for the age that came before it. I can only imagine how underwhelming those games seem to kids now.

Overheal

Handheld Football
Mattel • 1977
Everyone who grew up in the '70s owned one of these portable two-player pigskin sims, which used red LED lights to represent players.

Brian: What's this supposed to be?

EGM: Football. It's one of the first great portable games.

Brian: I thought it was Run Away From the Dots.

John: I don't see how this has anything remotely to do with football.

EGM: Which team are you playing?

Kirk: The red lines.

Tim: They could've just as easily called this game anything—Baseball, Bowling, Escape From the Monsters.

EGM: Did you score?

Kirk: I bumped into a dot.

Dozen Wicked Words

I have over 100 atari 2600 cartridges and they are almost all crap. Not to say the ones we had when we were young didn't give us hours of entertainment but they don't stand the test of time at all.
I still love playing some of them, entirely for the nostalgia. Activision decathlon is still a laugh after a few beers if there is a couple of you playing, but my kids eyes glaze over after about 30 seconds.

Mr.Saturn

Suppose this would've been a better compromise.




There's also a free playable version here:

http://members.shaw.ca/jeffv/halo2600.html

Dude111

Mr E wrote:

What's more heartbreaking is that the kids interviewed were morons.

Yes as most seem to be nowadays due to the crap they are exposed to daily

Retr0gamer

You kids don't know what you want. That's why you're still kids, 'cause you're stupid

CiDeRmAn

Those braindead numptys played some stonecold classics,
Space Invaders,
Tetris,
Pong,
Donkey Kong,
Super Mario Bros.
I have them all and they are great.
Pong, in particular is made for multiplayer, good fun and the craic is in seeing your opponent going for the FAIL and succeeding!

Sound of Silence

Retro Classics deserve their due reverence for laying the foundation.

You can't deny, however, that Video Games have become infinitely more innovative in the last ten or so years, especially on the PC.

Retr0gamer

You can't deny either that while some games have aged horribly some games are still as good as they ever were and I'd argue stuff like Mega Man 2, Super Metroid or Warlords haven't really ever been topped by today's games.

Magill

Haven't been topped by a 2D Platformer would be a more realistic agrument and i'd probably agree (Although I would rate Super Mario World/ MB3 over S.Metroid :P... but i haven't been a fan of 2D platform games since i was 8 or 9).

And in fairness, they're from the golden age of 2D Platformers, so its not really surprising.

Retr0gamer

Well I'd take System Shock 2 and Deus Ex over any FPS game released in the last decade.

As fro saying they have only not been topped by a 2D platformer? I'm sorry but you are talking about Super Metroid.

Seriously though a good game will stay as good as the day it came out. Graphics don't matter anything and really there hasn't been anything in the last 15 years truly new or that automatically makes games so much better than games before, just iterating on past ideas.

Grimebox

I thought that article was quite funny

Magill

Really its all subjective, and you being Retr0gamer its obvious that you'd still rate these games as highly or higher than anything released recently. 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... its just an superior game technically and if it was released back in 1999 you'd probably be saying "System what 2 ?". Dues Ex:HR is a technically superior game to the original in almost every way aswel.

However... will you enjoy them as much as you enjoyed those games when you first played them tho ? Probably not.. because the standard of games these days is much higher than it was in the late 80's/90's,so we aren't as easily wow'd anymore.

At least thats how i feel when people compare old games to new.

CiDeRmAn

Magill wrote: »

Really its all subjective, and you being Retr0gamer its obvious that you'd still rate these games as highly or higher than anything released recently. 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... its just an superior game technically and if it was released back in 1999 you'd probably be saying "System what 2 ?". Dues Ex:HR is a technically superior game to the original in almost every way aswel.

However... will you enjoy them as much as you enjoyed those games when you first played them tho ? Probably not.. because the standard of games these days is much higher than it was in the late 80's/90's,so we aren't as easily wow'd anymore.

At least thats how i feel when people compare old games to new.

I'm sorry, but what a load of old cobblers!

Since when did a specs sheet make a difference on whether a game was worthwhile or not?
The first games that date are the polygon based ones.
No arguments accepted.
It's a fact.

So, naturally, Deus Ex is going to look a little dated compared to it's modern equivalent, but Deus Ex told an excellent story, gave you enormous flexibility in how to complete a mission, more than the newer title does.
If you play the recent Deus Ex release you can feel the dev closing walls around the available areas to be played in, very similar to the original in that respect.

You can't compare System Shock 2 to much these days because there isn't anything in it's league, perhaps the story told in Bioshock comes close, but even that excellent game hamstrings the player in ways that System Shock 2 does not.

And, you neatly skirt around all the non-polygon games that have been released over the years, from Super Mario Bros 3 to FFVI, from Sonic 2 to Chronotrigger.
Have you played a modern Sonic game?
They stink, or make massive compromises in the interests of being "modern" and catering to brainless morons who reckon that unless it has 60fps fully loaded 3D blurring by it isn't worth playing.
Here's a news flash, there hasn't been an essential Sonic game since the Megadrive, some would argue more like since Sonic 2!

Polygons date, even good polygon based games date.
Remember when Gran Turismo was state of the art?
No?
Well it was, and now it's a mess of lo-res textures and tearing polygons.
Try something more recent?
The PS2?
Okay, did you play Need for Speed Underground?
Love it then?
Play it recently?
Looks and sounds dreadful.
The 360 maybe?
Have you played PGR3?
Again, looks lousy now, so many compromises all over the place.

So, the message is, no matter how amazing you think the modern game is, games based on polygons will date and date fast.

Forza 4 will seem like a dogs dinner in 5 years, especially to people who measure the worth of a game based on frame rates and the size it takes up on a disk.

But, return for a moment to retrogames, sure, there was a lot of muck released then.
Lousy film and tv licences abounded.
But, just as now, gems were here and there to be found, and that's what more open minded gamers can appreciate.

You see, truth is, a retrogamer, a fan of games of the past, is really a fan of all games, from every time.

We have more systems than you can shake a stick at, certainly more than the average person reading these posts.
We own current as well as older machines.
We buy new releases when they are good, same with older games.
We are... agnostics when it comes to videogames, all a game needs to be to warrant purchase is be a good game,

So, I buy Mass Effect 3 for my 360 and I buy Gigawing for my Dreamcast.
I buy Super Mario 3D Land for my 3DS and I get Gradius Gaiden for my PS.

So, to recap, your argument of why modern games are better than old games is, pardon me, rubbish.
You are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong.
By your argument, Transformers recent cinema outings are better than 2001, the recent movie Brave is better than The Jungle Book, all by virtue of better tech now.
And, I am sorry to say, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

At least thats how i feel when people compare new games to old.

Retr0gamer

Magill wrote: »

Really its all subjective, and you being Retr0gamer its obvious that you'd still rate these games as highly or higher than anything released recently. 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... its just an superior game technically and if it was released back in 1999 you'd probably be saying "System what 2 ?". Dues Ex:HR is a technically superior game to the original in almost every way aswel.

However... will you enjoy them as much as you enjoyed those games when you first played them tho ? Probably not.. because the standard of games these days is much higher than it was in the late 80's/90's,so we aren't as easily wow'd anymore.

At least thats how i feel when people compare old games to new.

No I'm sorry but that's just a load of rubbish right there. It doesn't matter how technically superior a game is, all that matters is gameplay and if a game is good then it's good. A good game will work within the limitations of the machine so even if there's no voiced dialogue, polygon shaders or the world is smaller who really cares as long as the game is good fun? Basically what you are saying is the same as saying black and white films or silent films are crap compared to todays films because they have colour, sound and CGI.

What ciderman says about polygon graphics dating is true although games with good art like Okami will never date. However games with good pixel art will always look great. Try and find me a better looking game than Metal Slug or one that looks and sound better than Chrono Trigger. Actually don't bother because you won't.

Grimebox

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

....

Forza 4 will seem like a dogs dinner in 5 years, especially to people who measure the worth of a game based on frame rates and the size it takes up on a disk.

Just want to chime in here. Frame rate is huge to me. I will reduce the graphics every time to get a more stable frame rate. I do not enjoy bells and whistles if the game grinds along at "busy" moments.

By your argument, Transformers recent cinema outings are better than 2001, the recent movie Brave is better than The Jungle Book, all by virtue of better tech now.
And, I am sorry to say, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

I don't think your metaphor works here. Transformers is a pile of **** that looks good and 2001 actually still looks fantastic. Deus Ex looks like **** so it can't really be compared to 2001. Borderlands looks good and has other worth, unlike Transformers

CiDeRmAn

Grimebox wrote: »

Just want to chime in here. Frame rate is huge to me. I will reduce the graphics every time to get a more stable frame rate. I do not enjoy bells and whistles if the game grinds along at "busy" moments.

I don't think your metaphor works here. Transformers is a pile of **** that looks good and 2001 actually still looks fantastic. Deus Ex looks like **** so it can't really be compared to 2001. Borderlands looks good and has other worth, unlike Transformers

Borderlands and Deus Ex can't be compared anyway.
The only thing they share is a first person perspective.
And my comparison is perfectly valid.
No one will care about Borderlands in 3 years time, it will be dated and no one will play it outside of a handful of fans.
Doom on the other hand will still be played by many, and held up as a classic.
Deus Ex broke the rules, made much of the story telling rules that we see in the best of FPS today.

Frame rate drops have always been a problem and modern releases can be just as susceptible, this is why many visually busy games look the rate to 30 fps, to avoid the inevitable drops from 60.

In an older game the frame rate may be lower but could still be consistent.
Besides, this issue is non-existent in most of the non polygon games, outside of Shmups.

There is no problem with appreciating good games from every era on my part, but there seems to be a shallow dismissal of older games from others.
And these people are typically misguided and it's unfortunate that they restrict their experiences like that.

I'm sure EA, Sony and MS Studios have plenty to keep you folk happy.

We get to enjoy all of that, plus all the great games from the past 30 years of gaming as well.

Grumpypants

I was at a recent tech show and they had a ton of old machines everything from the first electronic typewriter up to PS3 and where did you find all the kids crowded around the mega drive playing Sonic.

Mario on my SNES still is first on the list of visiting small relations. Good games just last.

Magill

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I'm sorry, but what a load of old cobblers!

Since when did a specs sheet make a difference on whether a game was worthwhile or not?
The first games that date are the polygon based ones.
No arguments accepted.
It's a fact.

So, naturally, Deus Ex is going to look a little dated compared to it's modern equivalent, but Deus Ex told an excellent story, gave you enormous flexibility in how to complete a mission, more than the newer title does.
If you play the recent Deus Ex release you can feel the dev closing walls around the available areas to be played in, very similar to the original in that respect.

You can't compare System Shock 2 to much these days because there isn't anything in it's league, perhaps the story told in Bioshock comes close, but even that excellent game hamstrings the player in ways that System Shock 2 does not.

And, you neatly skirt around all the non-polygon games that have been released over the years, from Super Mario Bros 3 to FFVI, from Sonic 2 to Chronotrigger.
Have you played a modern Sonic game?
They stink, or make massive compromises in the interests of being "modern" and catering to brainless morons who reckon that unless it has 60fps fully loaded 3D blurring by it isn't worth playing.
Here's a news flash, there hasn't been an essential Sonic game since the Megadrive, some would argue more like since Sonic 2!

Polygons date, even good polygon based games date.
Remember when Gran Turismo was state of the art?
No?
Well it was, and now it's a mess of lo-res textures and tearing polygons.
Try something more recent?
The PS2?
Okay, did you play Need for Speed Underground?
Love it then?
Play it recently?
Looks and sounds dreadful.
The 360 maybe?
Have you played PGR3?
Again, looks lousy now, so many compromises all over the place.

So, the message is, no matter how amazing you think the modern game is, games based on polygons will date and date fast.

Forza 4 will seem like a dogs dinner in 5 years, especially to people who measure the worth of a game based on frame rates and the size it takes up on a disk.

But, return for a moment to retrogames, sure, there was a lot of muck released then.
Lousy film and tv licences abounded.
But, just as now, gems were here and there to be found, and that's what more open minded gamers can appreciate.

You see, truth is, a retrogamer, a fan of games of the past, is really a fan of all games, from every time.

We have more systems than you can shake a stick at, certainly more than the average person reading these posts.
We own current as well as older machines.
We buy new releases when they are good, same with older games.
We are... agnostics when it comes to videogames, all a game needs to be to warrant purchase is be a good game,

So, I buy Mass Effect 3 for my 360 and I buy Gigawing for my Dreamcast.
I buy Super Mario 3D Land for my 3DS and I get Gradius Gaiden for my PS.

So, to recap, your argument of why modern games are better than old games is, pardon me, rubbish.
You are entitled to your opinion but you are wrong.
By your argument, Transformers recent cinema outings are better than 2001, the recent movie Brave is better than The Jungle Book, all by virtue of better tech now.
And, I am sorry to say, you couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

At least thats how i feel when people compare new games to old.

Jesus.. calm down. I don't care if your game collection is bigger than mine. Next time try to reply to all of the points in someones argument instead of cherrypicking one thing and rambling on about how you think your argument is more solid because your a "retrogamer". I've still got my nes.. and pretty much every console from then to now, i've played most of the classics, i loved most of the classics, i've moved on.

No I'm sorry but that's just a load of rubbish right there. It doesn't matter how technically superior a game is, all that matters is gameplay and if a game is good then it's good. A good game will work within the limitations of the machine so even if there's no voiced dialogue, polygon shaders or the world is smaller who really cares as long as the game is good fun? Basically what you are saying is the same as saying black and white films or silent films are crap compared to todays films because they have colour, sound and CGI.

If you read my post you'd see that gameplay was one of the area's that i said borderlands 2 is superior in.. its not even so much of an opinion as it is fact.. the game plays better than pretty much any pre 00's shooter, half life 2 plays better than anything from the 90's.. RTCW plays better than wolfenstein 3D.

The black and white/ silent film is a good analogy tho... because for the most part that is also true, generally the acting/fx/writing is much better in today's films compared to films from the 50's/60's. Progression is part of human nature.

Grimebox

Well I think I'm playing devils advocate here to a degree since I ultimately agree with. I just think you are being a little short sighted to think the graphics of a game have as little of an impact as your leading us to believe. A friend of mine who's a hardcore gamer will always push his old PC's gfx to the max because he gets far more enjoyment out of games when they look good (drives me insane when I see him struggling with >10 fps). To use a comparison to film, Avatar was a cliched over hyped blockbuster yet I enjoyed the spectacle. Pretty games aren't without charm, better graphics/technology can give a more wholesome experience.

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

...
I'm sure EA, Sony and MS Studios have plenty to keep you folk happy.
....

This made my blood boil to be honest I don't consider myself "one of those". I don't know why I continue to argue with you guys since you seem to have your mind made up a lot of time.

CiDeRmAn

Look, it's not "retro gamers", as Magill attempts to use in a derogatory fashion, who have the closed world view, we welcome all games, it's those that shut them out with the blinkers on.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Potential-Monke

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.

marshbaboon

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...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

no.

CiDeRmAn

marshbaboon wrote: »

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...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

no.

Post of the week.

And to think I wasted 3 or 4 paragraphs to say the same!
Well done that man!

CiDeRmAn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark Hamill

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

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

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

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

Carry on guys.

johnny_ultimate

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

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

Damn, posted that gif a few seconds too early!

Grimebox

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

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!!