Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Old games: Are they shit?
Posts
Modern gaming i'm waiting for your rebutal.
Some (Donkey Kong Country) are overrated pieces of mediocrity coasting on nostalgia.
That simple, really.
However some of the real classics are still good. Pacman is still a fun game, as is asteroids etc.
Selling my 16GB Wifi iPad 1. UK people only, £150. PM me.
The original two X-Coms have aged fairly well. Syndicate, by comparison, has not.
It also depends on the presentation of said game. The X-coms for instance, being sprite-based, don't look all that bad. Final Fantasy 7 looks fucking horrible. I'm sorry to break it to all of you, but Cloud is basically a triangle with hair.
I appreciate how people went "Oh wow!" and declared it "BEST GAME EVAR" at the time, but in retrospect I think we can agree that this is not the case. It was the story which kept me going most of the way, but despite the praise the FF fanboys give it, it is not exactly Shakespere. The combination of an above-average storyline and what at the time were groundbreaking graphics are what caused it's staggering popularity, and while it is certainly still playable by modern standards... that's just barely. I doubt you'll get the kids who're growing up with Halo and Gears of War to give FFVII a second glance.
So what determines how a game lasts against the test of time then? I guess it can basically be summed up as "It'll last, as long as nothing better comes along to replace it". Farcry, although above-average, will sink (or already has sunk) into obscurity, because games which are better in every way have come and gone. Better graphics, better controls, and more fun gimmicks. Its still worth a playthrough today, if you can pick it up from a bargain bin and you like really hard FPS's, but in ten years time when Crysis 3 and Half-life 4 episode 12 are out? I doubt it.
TL;DR:
No, but some of them are.
Mechanic-driven games are more likely to be superceded by strictly superior games, although that's never a given. Asset-driven games, however, are timeless when they're done well.
Generally what I am considering here is the fact that I can easily pop in Sonic 1 and play through a level or two, cheat to any level I feel like breezing through, that sort of thing. But how likely am I to pop in God of War for a level or two?
I can either play through a Sonic/Mario in one sitting, or make a little bit of headway in a massive and grand adventure that I'm not likely to finish, or even particularly enjoy due to not having my full range of powers. Old games let you progress much faster without big cutscenes and time-waster segments without any more content than looking pretty.
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
I know there are a bunch of "it's all about gameplay mechanics! Games don't need to be complex!" people around here, but I cringe every time that concept is heralded as an absolute truth. If the entirety of PC gaming turned to one-trick-pony XBLA games I'd die a little bit inside.
But the games you mentioned show exactly what I mean. Cave Story is pick-up-and-play in the same capacity of Sonic, Megaman etc. I can start a quick game of Cave Story. As much as I enjoy it, I can't really start a quick game of Shadow of the Colossus.
Extensive character progression and story development run counter to the concept of replaying old games. You've already experienced the story before, and while at times it can be fun to relive it, you're not going to be happy if that story is your primary motivation.
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
And I guess it's like reading a book twice. I've no problems reading good books multiple times, knowing the outcome alters, but doesn't diminish the experience.
As an aside, one of the reasons I was so eager to get a Wii is to experience games that may very well have started their own genres. Same with Spore. Needless to say the Wii has been a little disappointing on that front.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
They left the game almost untouched, and it more then holding its own when comes down to sales. So I think the answer to your question is this; some games are timeless, others left by the wayside (Jouneyman Project Turbo anyone?), but as long as person can get lost in a awesome story, then there will be a demand to achive that means regardless of the art's age (kinda like the lord of the rings movies based on books are from what the 40's or 50's?).
30's and 40's - Tolkien wrote the bulk of it during WW2.
Of course, something with the full scope of LOTR would get the "TL;DR" treatment today - as it vaguely did in the movies, but that was still a way for people to experience the epic story without having to "read."
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
Don't see that happening any time soon though!
Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. There will always be a market for the classics. There will always be people who want to revisit the classics. There will always be people who want to play them for the first time. As long as there is gaming, people will fire up Pac-Man and Super Mario Brothers and Metal Gear Solid.
An undeniable fact sir. I think what the Op was trying to say was that he acknowledges that people still play old games, but how do they fare against the games of today.
fake edit: no, I haven't been to slashdot in years
No one is going to play an early video game to get the same experience as a current game, they are going to play it to get the unique experience games from a different era offer. I think that's part of the reason why Geometry Wars turned out to be such a sweeping cult hit. It gave many gamers something that either hadn't had in years, or had never had before. The experience was decidedly retro, but for many folks it was also different than anything else they had played.
edit: but yes, it is essentially like asking if old films, books or songs are good. Some are, just as some modern examples will be timeless too. Skills and technology advance, some people put them to good use, others don't.
AJ2 soundtrack: NAME YOUR PRICE ON BANDCAMP! Album: BANDCAMP! iTunes Spotify Amazon UK
See: Ultima 7, Ultima Underworld, Elite, System Shock
Well X3 has a good stab at Elite, but it's Braben himself who says that he considers the GTA games to be the successor to Elite.
I'm really excited to see both The Outsider, and any news on Elite 4.
AJ2 soundtrack: NAME YOUR PRICE ON BANDCAMP! Album: BANDCAMP! iTunes Spotify Amazon UK
That's all I'm going to say in these threads anymore.
The X-Com pack on Steam. No, they're not all great, but the original is a gem that I have loved for around a decade and a half, and I can't imagine not loving it in the future.
Some games age better than others, but yes, I can imagine a day where people are still snagging 10+ year old games for good times, especially as things like Steam and the various console game download systems exist and are becomming cheaper, easier, more prolific, and better stocked.
Edit:
MD, you and I are on the exact same page. I tip my hat to you, sir.
How many people do you know who watch silent black and white movies, I’m going to guess it’s going to be in the minority? Now take that concept and quadruple it and you’re starting to get something like the speed at which video games are evolving. New games are developing an improved skill set at an astronomic rate and removing things that simply don’t work as a rule (how many modern games do you see with limited lives per game? Obviously ignoring those trying to replicate retro games). Now this doesn’t mean that retro games are no longer enjoyable at all, but it does make them harder to play and enjoy compared to modern titles – especially those that attempt more complex mechanics.
Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. Some games will always be timeless classics regardless of their appearance or the new technologies that have come along since, but proportionally, it'll never be too many.
AJ2 soundtrack: NAME YOUR PRICE ON BANDCAMP! Album: BANDCAMP! iTunes Spotify Amazon UK
How are limited lives something that doesn't work "as a rule"? That it's not longer in vogue doesn't mean it doesn't work, it just means that it's no longer in vogue. Limited lives are just another gameplay element and style choice.
Of course not. That's because 90 pecent of everything is crap. Ninety percent of the games out there right now are crap.
Again, that's kind of what I meant. 20 years from now, there will be some classics that people still play, or want ported to their latest console or whatever, but it will only be a small percentage of the games around at the moment. Similarly, there's only a small fraction of games from 20 years ago that actually deserve their lofty status, with a great many more being held up by little more than nostalgia.
AJ2 soundtrack: NAME YOUR PRICE ON BANDCAMP! Album: BANDCAMP! iTunes Spotify Amazon UK
Fixed.
Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
I still play the PS games, Shining in the Darkness, and M&M:GtAW on the Genesis (among others).
I still play Return Fire and Twisted on the 3DO.
Hell, I still fire up Venture, Wing War, River Raid, and Montezuma's Revenge on my Coleco.
I don't have time to list all the old games I still play on PC.
I'm sure a big part of my love for the old stuff is nostalgia, but many of the games have aged quite well.
Especially RPG's, which many times have a great story associated with them - and high replay value.
I have a 360, with a bunch of new games i've hardly touched. You know what i've been playing recently?
Gunstar and Astro Boy on the GBfuckingA.
OP is no more than an inflammatory opinion.
There's almost an equal love for old and new - they do things differently, they just have to do them well.
Look at how successful the Good Ole Games thread is to see people still buying games that were made around a decade ago. Many of which weren't high budget games.
Look at how successful the Final Fantasy re-releases have been on the GBA and the DS. I mean, I've spent probably 40 hours in the past week playing FF4, and the update to it's graphics bring it on par with those from FF7. So it's obviously not the cutting edge graphics that make me want to play it.
I will agree with you that yes, modern games sell more copies. Of course they do, as noone spends any money advertising Fallout 2 anymore. Yet people still buy copies of it (I found FO1 and FO2 DVD in a Wal-Mart 3 or 4 years ago and that was definately worth the 10$).
If your assertion was true, then people wouldn't be buying the re-released Super Mario's on the DS. But they sell well.
Plus, that is hardly a fair comparison, it's final fantasy. Otaku assholes will buy toothpaste with that logo on it.