Login to Account Create an Account
New Generation Games Vs. Old Generation Games
Posted 20 May 2003 - 04:31 AM
Posted 20 May 2003 - 04:47 AM
How new games work these days:
1. Go and Retrieve someone/something important and they get captured or killed in your reach and you have to kill ultimate evil.
2. You're working for a business and you get betrayed by them.
3. Missions and crap
4. etc. etc. etc. BORING
(I still like the fighting games and RPGs cause they're very cool 4 me )
Now the Old Generation had games like sonic, megaman, and mario. Those were cool. They were new inventive ideas that appealed to many people. Most of my favorite games were on systems that are almost obselete or are obselete. Now, we get all the games that try to put special affects and abilities to make it seem cool and junk.
Old skool all tha way!
PS: How "new" are we talking here? PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube wise?
Posted 20 May 2003 - 01:04 PM
Posted 20 May 2003 - 01:45 PM
with video games, its usually the plot and gameplay that suffer. with movies, its the plot awell, but also the dialogue. music of today just has nothing to it at all.
like with most things, its not a question of, "can we do it?", as much as it should be a question of, "should we do it?".
Posted 20 May 2003 - 03:34 PM
Hated the pointless trekking around turned of in the end.
Its all changed we need some classic 2-d games again instead of.
The new action adventure in a rich full 3d enviorement.
Posted 20 May 2003 - 07:22 PM
There are the odd modern game that wows me with a combination of great gameplay and great graphics but it is rare.
But for me it's old games all the way. Which is why I love emulation
Posted 20 May 2003 - 07:35 PM
Posted 20 May 2003 - 11:39 PM
Atari 2600 had some games you couldn't beat, just got harder and harder..
These days, it's all about the quality of a game gaphic-wise, not plotwise or lengthwise.. what annoys me is when i hear critics say "The game is a little long, it'll take you 12 to 15 hours to discover everything".. what the heck he talking about?!? Any game where you can find everything the first time through, or can beat it on your first time sitting there is NOT a fun game.
How about those games that they say are "challenging" but you can get through the game only dying once or twice? *YAWN* I like games where every time you come across a boss you have a good chance of (and usually will) dying, a difficult spot in the game should not be "do this, and that, you're done" kinda thing.
This is what far too many games use these days.. I finally got myself a PSX and found a few good games on it.. but for the most part, the older systems still run the show.
Posted 21 May 2003 - 01:27 AM
As far as graphics being highlighted nowdays instead of gameplay I will agree with everyone on that. Gameplay should always be the focus of any development team, and then they should design the grapics around that solid concept/plot. In the old days, the grapic capabilitys of the machines just wasn't there so developers had to concentrate on gameplay. But, even then there were a lot of crap games Pac-Man and E.T. for the 2600 come instantly to mind. At least today you can rent before you buy. I spent a lot of hard earned allowance money on sh1t games when I was younger.
Posted 21 May 2003 - 03:46 AM
How "new" are we talking here? PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube wise?
Yes.. thats exactly what I mean.
I spent a lot of hard earned allowance money on sh1t games when I was younger.
Samething happened to me 80% of the time.
1. NBA All-Star Challenge [SNES] (WORST NBA GAME EVER)
2. Captain America And The Avengers [SNES] (COULDN'T GET PAST THE 1st LEVEL)
3. RoboCop [NES] (COULDN'T GET PAST THE 1st LEVEL)
And there is a ton more!!
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users