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?

1235

Posts

  • justininhojustininho Registered User
    edited September 2008
    1. Take into consideration the technology available at the time. When I was just past a dirty thought in my dad's head he took me to the teachers' college he was training at which had one computer that had NO video display, printed out everything in dot matrix as visual feedback and could only play tic-tac-toe. Yes, boring beyond belief, and never has anything - except wanting a girl's attention - made me want to run outside and kick a ball around so bad.

    2. To say what came before today is shit is partly right because civilization is about improving on the current situation but it is also a failure to acknowledge that what we have today is because of what we had yesterday. The games of today are decended from the games yesterday - accept it or understand now that you're already having your mid-life crisis now - and if you're under 40 then you're fucked.

    3. Take into consideration TODAYS technology and the emphasis that games place on it. A game with minimalist but effective graphics and a storyline that evolves will always beat a the most advanced graphic orientated game that bypasses narrative. In short - old games had to have a proper storyline because they couldn't fall back on the images. As graphics developed in quality, narrative declined.

    Nuff said

  • SeolSeol Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    justininho wrote: »
    3. Take into consideration TODAYS technology and the emphasis that games place on it. A game with minimalist but effective graphics and a storyline that evolves will always beat a the most advanced graphic orientated game that bypasses narrative. In short - old games had to have a proper storyline because they couldn't fall back on the images. As graphics developed in quality, narrative declined.
    Seriously? You think that the storytelling in old games was more developed than it is now?

  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    They had better plot twists back in the old days.


    The princess is in another castle.

    holy fuck.

    scarab you have mental problems
  • brandotheninjamasterbrandotheninjamaster Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Seol wrote: »
    justininho wrote: »
    3. Take into consideration TODAYS technology and the emphasis that games place on it. A game with minimalist but effective graphics and a storyline that evolves will always beat a the most advanced graphic orientated game that bypasses narrative. In short - old games had to have a proper storyline because they couldn't fall back on the images. As graphics developed in quality, narrative declined.
    Seriously? You think that the storytelling in old games was more developed than it is now?

    Not in all cases, but I do notice that present games tend to focus more on marrying the story with the graphics then just to have a super awesome story that would stand on its own two feet even if the graphics sucked. But I guess that is a natural progression.

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I guess I don't "get it", but there are just about no old games I play for any reason other than the novelty. "Play what's fun", yeah... but now that I've been exposed to modern gaming that stuff just doesn't seem fun anymore.

    Everyone's different, though, which is why I think this thread's premise is silly. I don't find old games fun, but plenty of people do.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Seol wrote: »
    justininho wrote: »
    3. Take into consideration TODAYS technology and the emphasis that games place on it. A game with minimalist but effective graphics and a storyline that evolves will always beat a the most advanced graphic orientated game that bypasses narrative. In short - old games had to have a proper storyline because they couldn't fall back on the images. As graphics developed in quality, narrative declined.
    Seriously? You think that the storytelling in old games was more developed than it is now?

    Not in all cases, but I do notice that present games tend to focus more on marrying the story with the graphics then just to have a super awesome story that would stand on its own two feet even if the graphics sucked. But I guess that is a natural progression.

    But perhaps that means old games were less developed by not marrying the story with the graphics.

    How many old games can you name that have a super awesome story that stands on its own two feet? Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Megaman, Pacman, Asteroids, Pitfall?

    If you want to take this to an extreme, to the text adventure, the original Adventure and Zork have no good narrative or story, the entire gimmick at the time was simply interaction. In contrast, modern text adventures do have super awesome stories that stand on their own two feet - see the likes of Anchorhead, Spider and Web, Shade, etc.

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • AntihippyAntihippy Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Curse of monkey island?

    10454_nujabes2.pngPSN: Antiwhippy
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Also I've almost never felt like, playing an older game (excepting some RPGs), they possess amazing stories. Super Mario Brothers? Uh, you're rescuing a princess. That's about it. I'm not sure why old game purists insist that's a 'good' story or anything.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Antihippy wrote: »
    Curse of monkey island?

    Is that considered ancient history now? Secret of MI is old, if anything.

    But these Monkey Island games have too many graphics! Why can't they have a good story that stands on its own, rather than having all these graphics to get in the way!

    Actually I think it's more about the writing in MI than the story, per se. You don't often find writing that good in most media.

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • ImpersonatorImpersonator Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Also I've almost never felt like, playing an older game (excepting some RPGs), they possess amazing stories. Super Mario Brothers? Uh, you're rescuing a princess. That's about it. I'm not sure why old game purists insist that's a 'good' story or anything.

    You're doing it wrong.

    Bioptic wrote: »
    Lemmings was pro-Communist propeganda. All are created equal, sorted into specific jobs and roles that they will hold for the rest of their lives by a higher authority, and must sacrifice continuously for the good of the group. Success is measured by meeting quotas and nothing else. Also, nuclear holocaust.
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Seol wrote: »
    justininho wrote: »
    3. Take into consideration TODAYS technology and the emphasis that games place on it. A game with minimalist but effective graphics and a storyline that evolves will always beat a the most advanced graphic orientated game that bypasses narrative. In short - old games had to have a proper storyline because they couldn't fall back on the images. As graphics developed in quality, narrative declined.
    Seriously? You think that the storytelling in old games was more developed than it is now?

    Not in all cases, but I do notice that present games tend to focus more on marrying the story with the graphics then just to have a super awesome story that would stand on its own two feet even if the graphics sucked. But I guess that is a natural progression.

    But perhaps that means old games were less developed by not marrying the story with the graphics.

    How many old games can you name that have a super awesome story that stands on its own two feet? Mario, Zelda, Metroid, Megaman, Pacman, Asteroids, Pitfall?

    If you want to take this to an extreme, to the text adventure, the original Adventure and Zork have no good narrative or story, the entire gimmick at the time was simply interaction. In contrast, modern text adventures do have super awesome stories that stand on their own two feet - see the likes of Anchorhead, Spider and Web, Shade, etc.

    I dont know whether you are being serious here but neither Mario, Zelda Metroid, Megaman, Pacman asteroids nor pitfall had anything but an awful story.

    scarab you have mental problems
  • AntihippyAntihippy Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    99' is old to me.

    Curse of Monkey Island has very nice cartoon graphics though.

    And the writing is in fact very good.

    10454_nujabes2.pngPSN: Antiwhippy
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Also I've almost never felt like, playing an older game (excepting some RPGs), they possess amazing stories. Super Mario Brothers? Uh, you're rescuing a princess. That's about it. I'm not sure why old game purists insist that's a 'good' story or anything.

    Purists don't call that a good story. Maybe some literature majors would spend hours examining the social and cultural implications of what is considered our penultimate good vs. evil, save-the-princess classic story, but nobody plays Mario for the story. Unless it's Mario RPG.
    The_Scarab wrote: »
    I dont know whether you are being serious here but neither Mario, Zelda Metroid, Megaman, Pacman asteroids nor pitfall had anything but an awful story.

    I know dude, I don't know whether you are being serious here but I was listing off games that one might classify as old and questioning whether he would consider those good.

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Also I've almost never felt like, playing an older game (excepting some RPGs), they possess amazing stories. Super Mario Brothers? Uh, you're rescuing a princess. That's about it. I'm not sure why old game purists insist that's a 'good' story or anything.

    You're doing it wrong.

    Yes... I think I am.








    So, to be more clear. What older (pre 3d, I guess) games do people say had really good stories? I could see it for several RPGs but for typical action/2d platforming/shoot 'em ups... anything like that... I honestly can't think of one game that has an enthralling story that 'stands on its own and doesn't use graphics to cheapen its message' or some such sacrosanct shit.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • Darth NathanDarth Nathan Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Willeth wrote: »
    I have not read the thread, but to be honest it's pointless to do so.

    The vast majority of games will not be played in the future. The good ones will and already have done.

    Super Metroid is still great. Half-Life 2 is still great. I fully expect people to be discussing the finer points of Bioshock in 2012. I still expect people to be playing World of Warcraft. I doubt they'll be talking about Cloning Clyde (is anyone even talking about it now?) or Heavenly Sword, just as no-one really cares about Kid Chameleon or Croc.

    In summary, good games are good, and bad games are not.

    Sigh.

    Damnit, I care about Croc!

    Like the first game I ever bought with my own money. I still remember accidentally stumbling upon the code to unlock one of the hidden levels.

    And the story! One of the finest stories to ever grace gaming. A classic fish out of water tale of a big lovable crocodile in a gobbo's world.

    SOMEONE MAKE ME A SEQUEL!

    Edit: So as to be slightly on topic, I believe that as technology gets better, the number of still-entertaining games will increase, simply because gaming has had such a rapid advancement that classics were not really given all that much time to germinate.

    camo_sig2.png
  • XagarathXagarath Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Also I've almost never felt like, playing an older game (excepting some RPGs), they possess amazing stories. Super Mario Brothers? Uh, you're rescuing a princess. That's about it. I'm not sure why old game purists insist that's a 'good' story or anything.

    You're doing it wrong.

    Yes... I think I am.








    So, to be more clear. What older (pre 3d, I guess) games do people say had really good stories? I could see it for several RPGs but for typical action/2d platforming/shoot 'em ups... anything like that... I honestly can't think of one game that has an enthralling story that 'stands on its own and doesn't use graphics to cheapen its message' or some such sacrosanct shit.
    Pre-3D actually means pre-1980 (Battlezone, the first FPS), just so you know.
    Potentially older than that if you're pedantic about it.

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Ok I guess I should say pre PS1/N64... those are the last consoles I don't consider 'ancient', I guess.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • XagarathXagarath Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Ok I guess I should say pre PS1/N64... those are the last consoles I don't consider 'ancient', I guess.

    Then System Shock, the Ultima Underworld Games and Ultima 7 all pop up immediately, I believe.

  • AntihippyAntihippy Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Ok I guess I should say pre PS1/N64... those are the last consoles I don't consider 'ancient', I guess.

    Get some good ole' adventure games in you boy.

    Dangnabbit.

    Edit: Like, the longest journey, monkey island, grim fandango, etc, etc.

    10454_nujabes2.pngPSN: Antiwhippy
  • SeolSeol Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Antihippy wrote: »
    Curse of monkey island?
    Well, I think we have to distinguish narrative-driven games (RPGs, graphic adventures etc) from non-narrative-driven games (pretty much everything else). Comparing a narrative-driven game from 1990 to a non-narrative-driven game from 2005 - say Day of the Tentacle to Halo, for example - is just disingenuous.

    The point is that games which aren't driven by narrative have, generally speaking, better written and more comprehensive narrative now than they used to, and also genres which are not, gameplay-wise, driven by narrative are incorporating narrative in new and innovative ways (eg Half-Life). Furthermore, there's an expectation of narrative beyond simply "save the Princess".

    Obviously there are examples of older games where narrative was well developed, but the typical level was much lower (as was true of all production values).

  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    So, to be more clear. What older (pre 3d, I guess) games do people say had really good stories? I could see it for several RPGs but for typical action/2d platforming/shoot 'em ups... anything like that... I honestly can't think of one game that has an enthralling story that 'stands on its own and doesn't use graphics to cheapen its message' or some such sacrosanct shit.

    We were just talking about some: all the Monkey Island games.

    Look at these shitty graphics! This game must totally suck!

    screenshot8471du2.png

    mishotev7.gif

    full052tm0.gif

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I have never played any of these games. Granted where I grew up video games were shunned and I didn't start playing them until... 1995, I guess?


    EDIT: UncleSporky I never said shitty graphics make a shitty game.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • XagarathXagarath Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Except that the original System Shock was narratively ahead of Half-Life.

  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    EDIT: UncleSporky I never said shitty graphics make a shitty game.

    Of course not, and I never said you said that either.

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Man, this fucking book is all text. What does this asshole expect me to do, use my imagination and shit? Moar liek J.R.R. Tokin', amirite?

    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • darleysamdarleysam Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Graphics and story have no bearing on each other. If a modern game has a bad story, it's because the story was badly written, not because they gave all their writers a copy of Maya.

  • Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Mortal Sky wrote: »
    GSM wrote: »
    Mortal Sky wrote: »
    Is it wrong that I'm 14 and totally capable of enjoying something as old as the original Contra or Megaman games(the very definitions of aging pretty decently), as middle-aged as Super Metroid or the original MGS (which I have a copy or two of), a few years old like Shadow of the Colossus and Psychonauts, and as recent as TWEWY or Rock Band?

    Because apparently 13 or 14 are automatically ages of evil in terms of taste.

    You are probably an outlier, but I seriously hope not. How were you introduced to gaming, both classic and contemporary? Do your parents encourage/discourage playing games, or do they play as well? Do your peers seem to have a similar appreciation for the origins of the medium?

    I only ask because the stereotypical behavior for someone your age online is to scream shrilly into xbox mics.
    Gaming? Legend of Zelda:Link's Awakening, Final Fantasy Legend 2, and Tetris were my first video games on my dad's old gameboy, back around 98.

    That's cool.

    My son's first gaming was done on a Sega Master System. I figured if I was going to allow him to play some games, I'd start him off there. That's was a few years back. He's a few years younger than you but now has similarly broad tastes. He thinks Sonic the Hedgehog and Super Mario Bros. are just as awesome as Star Wars Battelfront or whatever other recent game he's playing. His concern is fun, not impressive graphics. I like to think I was a part of that.

    (His favorite band is also the Beatles, he likes jazz, and he reads books on the Civil War. So that's neat.)

  • Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Xagarath wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Also I've almost never felt like, playing an older game (excepting some RPGs), they possess amazing stories. Super Mario Brothers? Uh, you're rescuing a princess. That's about it. I'm not sure why old game purists insist that's a 'good' story or anything.

    You're doing it wrong.

    Yes... I think I am.








    So, to be more clear. What older (pre 3d, I guess) games do people say had really good stories? I could see it for several RPGs but for typical action/2d platforming/shoot 'em ups... anything like that... I honestly can't think of one game that has an enthralling story that 'stands on its own and doesn't use graphics to cheapen its message' or some such sacrosanct shit.
    Pre-3D actually means pre-1980 (Battlezone, the first FPS), just so you know.
    Potentially older than that if you're pedantic about it.
    You know what he meant.

  • SilvoculousSilvoculous Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Damnit, I care about Croc!

    Like the first game I ever bought with my own money. I still remember accidentally stumbling upon the code to unlock one of the hidden levels.

    And the story! One of the finest stories to ever grace gaming. A classic fish out of water tale of a big lovable crocodile in a gobbo's world.

    SOMEONE MAKE ME A SEQUEL!

    Are you being sarcastic? Because uh, there was.

  • DjiemDjiem Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    darleysam wrote: »
    Graphics and story have no bearing on each other. If a modern game has a bad story, it's because the story was badly written, not because they gave all their writers a copy of Maya.

    What if everyone there's a 3D artist and they pull some out for story writing?

  • darleysamdarleysam Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Djiem wrote: »
    darleysam wrote: »
    Graphics and story have no bearing on each other. If a modern game has a bad story, it's because the story was badly written, not because they gave all their writers a copy of Maya.

    What if everyone there's a 3D artist and they pull some out for story writing?

    Depends if they're good writers.

  • shyguyshyguy Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Seol wrote: »
    shyguy wrote: »
    And, again, I would consider the Mega Man games modern games. They have a protagonist, a rudimentary plot, clear goals and a clear finale, etc.. More recent games may have a lot more flash and frou frou thrown in, but by and large a lot of them aren't doing anything fundamentally different than the Mega Man games.
    Donkey Kong had all of those (yes, it looped if you reached the end, but it still had a clear finale), whereas Gran Turismo has no protagonist, no plot, and no finale. I question your definition of "modern game".

    Those two games aren't the same genre. Obviously I don't apply the same standards to platformers as sports games. Sorry if I was unclear.

  • OrikaeshigitaeOrikaeshigitae Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2008
    Sporky, I came in here to post, but you were saying it all for me. I love you.

  • OrikaeshigitaeOrikaeshigitae Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2008
    Seol wrote: »
    Antihippy wrote: »
    Curse of monkey island?
    Well, I think we have to distinguish narrative-driven games (RPGs, graphic adventures etc) from non-narrative-driven games (pretty much everything else). Comparing a narrative-driven game from 1990 to a non-narrative-driven game from 2005 - say Day of the Tentacle to Halo, for example - is just disingenuous.

    The point is that games which aren't driven by narrative have, generally speaking, better written and more comprehensive narrative now than they used to, and also genres which are not, gameplay-wise, driven by narrative are incorporating narrative in new and innovative ways (eg Half-Life). Furthermore, there's an expectation of narrative beyond simply "save the Princess".

    Obviously there are examples of older games where narrative was well developed, but the typical level was much lower (as was true of all production values).

    Are you kidding? Grim Fandango rapes the shit out of current 'narrative-based' games like Mass Effect or KOTOR.

  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Seol wrote: »
    The point is that games which aren't driven by narrative have, generally speaking, better written and more comprehensive narrative now than they used to, and also genres which are not, gameplay-wise, driven by narrative are incorporating narrative in new and innovative ways (eg Half-Life). Furthermore, there's an expectation of narrative beyond simply "save the Princess".

    There are obviously lots of examples of adventure games that were narrative driven which had truly excellent stories and writing.

    Games that aren't narrative driven, in general, I would suppose are getting more "narrative" than they used to be. But that doesn't necessarily make them better games, since it's only one factor. Likewise, a lack of a story doesn't necessarily make an older game less fun.


    That said, I just wanted to reply because there are older action games and platformers with stories that were done at least fairly well.


    Ninja Gaiden Trilogy comes to mind.

  • slash000slash000 Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I'm not sure exactly why we're focusing so much on story right now. I know that Organichu made the comment that he doesn't think that most older games have compelling stories.

    But story is only one facet of a game that might draw you to play it. Many older games, and newer games alike, the main draw is the gameplay. If it's fun to play, that is what is important.


    One may think that the story of "Princess kidnapped, go save her" is a simplistic story, because it is. But people that enjoy games such as Super Mario Bros. aren't playing it for the story. They're playing it because it's a fun, excellent platforming action game.


    To say that, "I don't get old games - most of their stories are crap and/or simple. Why would I want to go back to that compared to now?" Is basically questioning all genres of games, and in fact all games, for which story isn't supposed to be the primary draw. I would still certainly play Super Mario Galaxy today despite its simplistic story, because it's an extremely fun platforming / action game.

    There are still tons of games out today that are not story-driven. Yes, many of them have "plots," but ultimately most of these games have really forgettable or lame plots anyway. Not unlike the plot of Super Mario Bros, except now, these "plots" or stories are often told with cutscenes or FMV. If I'm going to play some of these games, it's going to be for the fun of the gameplay, not because of their forgettable stories.


    To say it conversely, it would be like asking - "Why would I want to play this RPG? It's gameplay is so slow, there's hardly any real action, most stuff is done by menus, and there is just tons of text that gets in the way of what little gameplay there actually is." That sounds just as bad, to me, because it's only focusing on one factor.

  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Sporky, I came in here to post, but you were saying it all for me. I love you.

    Man you must search the forums for the string "text adventures" every day because last page was the first time I have mentioned them in like a year.

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • OrikaeshigitaeOrikaeshigitae Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2008
    hah, no i was just pleased i hit 'last post' and it was you talking about lucasarts adventures

  • SeolSeol Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Seol wrote: »
    Antihippy wrote: »
    Curse of monkey island?
    Well, I think we have to distinguish narrative-driven games (RPGs, graphic adventures etc) from non-narrative-driven games (pretty much everything else). Comparing a narrative-driven game from 1990 to a non-narrative-driven game from 2005 - say Day of the Tentacle to Halo, for example - is just disingenuous.

    The point is that games which aren't driven by narrative have, generally speaking, better written and more comprehensive narrative now than they used to, and also genres which are not, gameplay-wise, driven by narrative are incorporating narrative in new and innovative ways (eg Half-Life). Furthermore, there's an expectation of narrative beyond simply "save the Princess".

    Obviously there are examples of older games where narrative was well developed, but the typical level was much lower (as was true of all production values).
    Are you kidding? Grim Fandango rapes the shit out of current 'narrative-based' games like Mass Effect or KOTOR.
    I was specifically talking about non-"narrative-driven" games, and comparing RPGs to graphic adventures is hardly a fair comparison - a graphic adventure is far more reliant on, and has a greater focus on, narrative than an RPG.

  • Mortal SkyMortal Sky FONOTUNE Electric FairytaleRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Willeth wrote: »
    I have not read the thread, but to be honest it's pointless to do so.

    The vast majority of games will not be played in the future. The good ones will and already have done.

    Super Metroid is still great. Half-Life 2 is still great. I fully expect people to be discussing the finer points of Bioshock in 2012. I still expect people to be playing World of Warcraft. I doubt they'll be talking about Cloning Clyde (is anyone even talking about it now?) or Heavenly Sword, just as no-one really cares about Kid Chameleon or Croc.

    In summary, good games are good, and bad games are not.

    Sigh.

    Damnit, I care about Croc!

    Like the first game I ever bought with my own money. I still remember accidentally stumbling upon the code to unlock one of the hidden levels.

    And the story! One of the finest stories to ever grace gaming. A classic fish out of water tale of a big lovable crocodile in a gobbo's world.

    SOMEONE MAKE ME A SEQUEL!

    Edit: So as to be slightly on topic, I believe that as technology gets better, the number of still-entertaining games will increase, simply because gaming has had such a rapid advancement that classics were not really given all that much time to germinate.

    I don't care for croc, but kid Chameleon is one of my Genesis favorites, and I fuckin love Genesis.
    Shoegaze99 wrote: »
    Mortal Sky wrote: »
    GSM wrote: »
    Mortal Sky wrote: »
    Is it wrong that I'm 14 and totally capable of enjoying something as old as the original Contra or Megaman games(the very definitions of aging pretty decently), as middle-aged as Super Metroid or the original MGS (which I have a copy or two of), a few years old like Shadow of the Colossus and Psychonauts, and as recent as TWEWY or Rock Band?

    Because apparently 13 or 14 are automatically ages of evil in terms of taste.

    You are probably an outlier, but I seriously hope not. How were you introduced to gaming, both classic and contemporary? Do your parents encourage/discourage playing games, or do they play as well? Do your peers seem to have a similar appreciation for the origins of the medium?

    I only ask because the stereotypical behavior for someone your age online is to scream shrilly into xbox mics.
    Gaming? Legend of Zelda:Link's Awakening, Final Fantasy Legend 2, and Tetris were my first video games on my dad's old gameboy, back around 98.

    That's cool.

    My son's first gaming was done on a Sega Master System. I figured if I was going to allow him to play some games, I'd start him off there. That's was a few years back. He's a few years younger than you but now has similarly broad tastes. He thinks Sonic the Hedgehog and Super Mario Bros. are just as awesome as Star Wars Battelfront or whatever other recent game he's playing. His concern is fun, not impressive graphics. I like to think I was a part of that.

    (His favorite band is also the Beatles, he likes jazz, and he reads books on the Civil War. So that's neat.)

    As said above, Genesis (AKA master System) kicks copious ass. I know I'd start my kid off on something similar (probably SNES or Genesis). And yeah, being a long-time game player (I don't like to call myself a gamer because that implies all I do is play games, which only take up about 6 hours of my time per week on average (though internet usage is a big timewaster)), I do think fun is an important part of games, but I also do think that better graphics and computing capability in both 3-d and 2-d planes allow for deeper mechanics. This is why I don't like most early 3-d games, because most just haven't aged well.

    And Beatles are one of the best, jazz is the best genre that I don't frequently listen to, and I think the Civil War gets written about too much, but there are some excellent books about it out there.

    Kochikens wrote: »
    oh man I saw an otter with a boner at the seattle one and this kid asked his dad, IS HE EATING A HOT DOG
    and I laughed forever
Sign In or Register to comment.