Old games = fun . . . Today's games = boring

Beware, retro gamer rant here. You've been warned! :)

When I was a kid back in the late 80's until the mid 90's, I was playing the best games that would come out between then and at least 2009. Whoa 2009, here we are and I'm still waiting for some great new games. What do we have these days? Let's see here. You control a character in a 3D world, running around always searching for the next thing to do. Searching, searching, searching, searching, searching, searching. Where do I go next? Searching, searching, searching. Oh ok here we go. What's my reward? A cutscene! So my reward is to stop playing and watch a cutscene. Blah blah blah, boom! Blah blah blah, ok we need this and that, go find it and meet us at such and such location k thx bye! Uh, ok. Back to searching, searching, searching. Enemies attack you and you shoot at them. Pew! Pew! Pew! There's no reason to try hard, you get unlimited respawns anyway. So what is the point of these battles? I dunno but ok, back to searching. A new area, finally. Woohoo another cutscene, because I really wanted another one of those. Well, at least you get a break from searching for things. But, when does the fun begin? I've been doing these chores for 2 hours and I'm still waiting for the fun to start. Unfortunately it never does.

Old games are fun, and they are fun from the minute you turned them on to the minute you turned them off. Put in a game, turn it on, go through a quick menu or two and boom you're in the action, action meaning playing! You're constantly executing attacks, evading enemy attacks, jumping, climbing and falling. You have to be skillful too or else you won't get very far. So you're fighting for your life! There's never a dull moment. Gameplay is nonstop fun, level designs are clever and artistic, and the sound effects and music have you turning up the stereo loud. Racing games are unrealistic but so what? They're way more entertaining with a much greater sense of speed. RPGs are simpler and put you into the battles quickly without the need for tutorials and overly complicated battle mechanics.

Today way too much developement effort is invested in graphics, animation, voice acting and special effects. None of those things have anything to do with gameplay. Gameplay seems like an afterthought these days, like the main purpose of playing modern games is to be in awe over the graphics and the whole movie-like experience that you get. It's like you're going through an exhibit, a demonstration of what modern technology is capable of. The gameplay itself is slow, repetitive and easy. With all that it costs to produce these behemoths, developers are forced to stick with proven formulas to avoid disasterous losses. Therefore the same games are released over and over and over again. There's no room for creativity and interesting game design anymore. What a mess!

Older games don't have all that extra fat weighing them down, they're right to the point about what they are, GAMES. The graphics and sound are easily made so that the main focus can go straight into the gameplay. Developement is easily adaptable to creative ideas since it doesn't consume large amounts of resources to make major changes to a game. For gamers the games are simple and easy to understand with no bs attached.

The day modern gamers stop chasing after novelties like graphics and "I'm playing a movie!" is the day games might be able to be fun again. How long will that take? Will my games from back in the day be more fun than the games of 2020?

Well as they say, "To each their own.". Personally I'm enjoying gaming these days more then I ever have. I still enjoy picking up and playing some of the classics but I get way more fun out of playing the stuff they put out now. The amount of high-quality top-notch games developers put out nowadays really impresses me.

i could really care less about graphics. hell they trying to make games more and more realistic now, you might as well just go sit down and watch a movie. i mean seriously the cutscenes in some gamesare longer than the gameplay itself. i'm an oldschool gamer too, and i enjoy playing the retro games a lot more than the games they have today.

Graphics have nothing to do with gameplay? How fun are games that run at choppy framerates, have texture pop in, and a poor draw distance and haziness? I suggest you go read the review of Farcry on the Wii at IGN. It's subtitled "Why graphics matter". The hobby has obviously passed you by, and using graphics and presentation in general as some sort of boogey man to explain away your growing lack of interest in it is a problem that exists on your end, entirely. I also have no idea how you can say the gameplay is too easy these days, if anything the gameplay in previous eras was too hard, on average. Games had to be designed cheap in my childhood to make them last, as they were actually quite short, and the technology did not exist to create genuinely challenging AI. The day "retro gamers" stop trying to blame advancing graphics power for a growing lack of interest in this hobby, is the day they realize they aren't the center of the universe, and in the greater pool of gamers in the world, they are a very tiny minority.

People are playing modern games right now, and are having fun, right now. You aren't. That doesn't make you special, it doesn't make you unique, and it doesn't mean you have some special insight on the "truth" or are enlightened in any fashion. You're just a guy with an opinion, one of billions. Get used to it.

i could really care less about graphics. hell they trying to make games more and more realistic now, you might as well just go sit down and watch a movie. i mean seriously the cutscenes in some gamesare longer than the gameplay itself. i'm an oldschool gamer too, and i enjoy playing the retro games a lot more than the games they have today.

krazy_guy931

yup i do. and does NES have more gamplay over graphics? yes. does SNES have more gameplay over graphics? yes. even N64 has more gameplay over graphics. plus if we are jus gamers with opinions, why are you making such a big deal about this? hmm?

plus the games they have out today ARE way too easy compared to the older games. sure you play for awhile and then you beat it. thats it. wanna try again ok then play the hard mode, expert mode, master mode. you beat it on master mode. awww no more? not much of a challenge huh? how many games out there today let you play a game for about 15 mins, beat it, and have it loop over and over again with the difficulty getting higher and higher each time you restart the levels and then it becomes virtually "impossible" to beat the level? with no special weapons or anything. just jumping and ducking and avoiding.

yup i do. and does NES have more gamplay over graphics? yes. does SNES have more gameplay over graphics? yes. even N64 has more gameplay over graphics. plus if we are jus gamers with opinions, why are you making such a big deal about this? hmm?

krazy_guy931

My opinion doesn't make me special, some people don't seem to realize that about their own, that was the only point being made. Also, "Yup i do", what is that an answer for? Not very clear. Does the SNES have more gameplay over graphics? That's subjective, and depends on if you are one of the people who get hung up on that stuff and feel the illogical need to separate the two, when in truth they both are integral parts of the making of a great game. Those great gameplay experiences on the SNES? Most of them also had some fo the best presentation for their time on the system. That is not a coincidence. I grew up gaming in the eighties the same way many "retro" gamers did, and I can tell you in all honesty that the crap to good game ratio has improved every single generation, without fail. Their was no golden era of gaming, that is only enabled by the rose colored glasses of nostalgia.

Where is this flood of games that have great graphics and crap gameplay? Where is this flood of shallow games that are taking the shelf space of good games, and are increasingly being released more frequently because they sell better than honestly great games? They don't exist. Retro gamers are the creationists of the videogame world, both of them base all of their arguments on myths.

let me just put it this way...

the most challenging game of all, is the game that never ends.

let me just put it this way...

the most challenging game of all, is the game that never ends.

krazy_guy931

plus the games they have out today ARE way too easy compared to the older games. sure you play for awhile and then you beat it. thats it. wanna try again ok then play the hard mode, expert mode, master mode. you beat it on master mode. awww no more? not much of a challenge huh? how many games out there today let you play a game for about 15 mins, beat it, and have it loop over and over again with the difficulty getting higher and higher each time you restart the levels and then it becomes virtually "impossible" to beat the level? with no special weapons or anything. just jumping and ducking and avoiding.

krazy_guy931

I find older games had a longer replay value than recent games

how many games out there today let you play a game for about 15 mins, beat it, and have it loop over and over again with the difficulty getting higher and higher each time you restart the levels and then it becomes virtually "impossible" to beat the level? with no special weapons or anything. just jumping and ducking and avoiding.krazy_guy931

let me just put it this way...

the most challenging game of all, is the game that never ends.

krazy_guy931

Dude, here is my Internet ProTip for the day!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man_fallacy

Read that, and then read your post again. Edit as needed.

I would disagree with that. I think someone who prefers the 3d generations could easily display the early ressurgance of gaming in a negative light. Just as you do about recent developments.

I like new games that have highly developed story and atmosphere, most of the games who don't have this suck or just are boring. Retro games... well i didn't like them and didn't actually play VG until the new age of gaming

Personally, I tend not to care how old a game is, asI can find a game fun no matter how old it is (if it was good then,its good now),in all honesty, youre just as likely to find me playing my PS1 or Saturn as you are to find me playing my PS3, the age of a game means little to me.

I would disagree that games today lack fun, while it is true that my favourite gen is the 5th gen (95-00) of games, I enjoy many current gen games too, just like in previous generations, there are good games and bad onestoo.

you have to remember that games are made by programmers, people who will not feel content until they push the hardware theyre working on, so thats why some games can be light on gameplay and good with graphics.

I'm currently 34 years old and I've been gaming since the age of 3 so I've seen the entire evolutionary arc of this medium.

These types of threads and their accompanying arguments are always, without fail, pedantic, redundant and largely erroneous musings by pseudo-hardcore elitists who believe that old automatically equates better. I've trudged through countless posts like this and none of them have an original argument to put forth, nor do they ever demonstrate an actual working knowledge of this medium beyond the stale, oft-used bravado that claims today's gaming construct is woefully deficient when compared to the "golden age" of the medium which, according to these scholars, can be found anywhere between the late 80's and the early 90's.

Of course, having been there in the flesh and not prone to employing hyperbole or letting the effects of nostalgia warp or even obscure my viewpoint, I can attest that this "golden age" of gaming was rife with copious amounts of mediocre software, much of it flowing at a much higher rate than what you see today. All of the problems found in contemporary gaming were present then and in some cases were much worse.

While it's easy to sit back and wax nostalgic about NES games like Super Mario Bros. 3, many people forget the ridiculous amount of trash that was released on the NES, games that were in every sense of the word unplayable. The same thing could easily be said of the 16 bit era, where the past is painted with a liberal dose of denial and gamers contemplate games like Sonic and Super Metroid, forgetting completely that both the Genesis and SNES saw an unforgiveable glut of derivative action and platformer games, most of which were imbued with the artistic merit of a saltine cracker.

The harsh analytical deconstruction of the golden age mythos gets even nastier when you honestly examine the PS1/N64 era, which ushered in some brilliant software conventions but also had developers wrestling with the 3D directive and in some cases abandoning 2D gaming for an inferior construct.

Truth be told, even many of the "classics" don't hold up as well as some would postulate. Most games from the 8-bit and 16-bit era were incredibly short, their length artificially increased by cheap design conventions including respawing enemies, poor collision detection, and ridiculously paltry continue options. When I look back at the original NES Ninja Gaiden, it's a fun game but incredibly cheap where by contrast Ninja Gaiden Black is challenging in a way that rewards skill without debasing the gameplay with shoddy mechanics that lead to unavoidable deaths.

When I play a game like Batman: Arkham Asylum, I just can't bring my self to go back and play Sunsoft's Batman NES game and consider it on the same level anymore than I could watch Burton's Batman and claim it holds its own with Nolan's The Dark Knight. Like film, gaming continues to evolve and in most cases what we are playing now is vastly superior to what we were playing two decades ago. Some of those older games do retain their brilliance but we are also literally awash with brilliant, amazing games in the here and now that are unlike anything we could have imagined back then.

Do I appreciate the past? Absolutely.

However, what I will not do (or even abide) is venerating the past to a point where the accomplishments of the present are marginalized.

Sorry, but I'd rather play Uncharted 2 than Fester's Quest or Blaster Master, regardless of how great those games were two decades ago.

If the OP and his supporters sincerely feel that older games are more "fun', they are certainly entitled to their respective opinions but I actually pity them for what they are missing in regards to contemporary gaming.

I'm currently 34 years old and I've been gaming since the age of 3 so I've seen the entire evolutionary arc of this medium.

These types of threads and their accompanying arguments are always, without fail, pedantic, redundant and largely erroneous musings by pseudo-hardcore elitists who believe that old automatically equates better. I've trudged through countless posts like this and none of them have an original argument to put forth, nor do they ever demonstrate an actual working knowledge of this medium beyond the stale, oft-used bravado that claims today's gaming construct is woefully deficient when compared to the "golden age" of the medium which, according to these scholars, can be found anywhere between the late 80's and the early 90's.

Of course, having been there in the flesh and not prone to employing hyperbole or letting the effects of nostalgia warp or even obscure my viewpoint, I can attest that this "golden age" of gaming was rife with copious amounts of mediocre software, much of it flowing at a much higher rate than what you see today. All of the problems found in contemporary gaming were present then and in some cases were much worse.

While it's easy to sit back and wax nostalgic about NES games like Super Mario Bros. 3, many people forget the ridiculous amount of trash that was released on the NES, games that were in every sense of the word unplayable. The same thing could easily be said of the 16 bit era, where the past is painted with a liberal dose of denial and gamers contemplate games like Sonic and Super Metroid, forgetting completely that both the Genesis and SNES saw an unforgiveable glut of derivative action and platformer games, most of which were imbued with the artistic merit of a saltine cracker.

The harsh analytical deconstruction of the golden age mythos gets even nastier when you honestly examine the PS1/N64 era, which ushered in some brilliant software conventions but also had developers wrestling with the 3D directive and in some cases abandoning 2D gaming for an inferior construct.

Truth be told, even many of the "classics" don't hold up as well as some would postulate. Most games from the 8-bit and 16-bit era were incredibly short, their length artificially increased by cheap design conventions including respawing enemies, poor collision detection, and ridiculously paltry continue options. When I look back at the original NES Ninja Gaiden, it's a fun game but incredibly cheap where by contrast Ninja Gaiden Black is challenging in a way that rewards skill without debasing the gameplay with shoddy mechanics that lead to unavoidable deaths.

When I play a game like Batman: Arkham Asylum, I just can't bring my self to go back and play Sunsoft's Batman NES game and consider it on the same level anymore than I could watch Burton's Batman and claim it holds its own with Nolan's The Dark Knight. Like film, gaming continues to evolve and in most cases what we are playing now is vastly superior to what we were playing two decades ago. Some of those older games do retain their brilliance but we are also literally awash with brilliant, amazing games in the here and now that are unlike anything we could have imagined back then.

Do I appreciate the past? Absolutely.

However, what I will not do (or even abide) is venerating the past to a point where the accomplishments of the present are marginalized.

Sorry, but I'd rather play Uncharted 2 than Fester's Quest or Blaster Master, regardless of how great those games were two decades ago.

If the OP and his supporters sincerely feel that older games are more "fun', they are certainly entitled to their respective opinions but I actually pity them for what they are missing in regards to contemporary gaming.

Grammaton-Cleric

I hated Fester's Quest and Blaster Master gave me nightmares. Otherwise, that's a really good post.

Canvas_Of_Flesh

Fester's Quest is damn-near unbeatable.

I loved Blaster Master as a kid but that game, like most Sunsoft titles, was insanely difficult.

And thanks for the kind words.

I know what you mean. The only games i have found entertaining over the past year are Killing Floor and L4D, but this is probably just because im a huge zombie fan =p. Everything else tho seems exactly the same.Iantheone

Yeah! Killing Floor should suit your needs. It looks like crap, there's no cutscenes, and you're fighting for your life!

In all seriousness though, it's a great game. Older games have a more arcade feel. While I liked Contra 3 on the SNES, I wouldn't trade that for any of my games today.

These types of threads and their accompanying arguments are always, without fail, pedantic, redundant and largely erroneous musings by pseudo-hardcore elitists who believe that old automatically equates better. I've trudged through countless posts like this and none of them have an original argument to put forth, nor do they ever demonstrate an actual working knowledge of this medium beyond the stale, oft-used bravado that claims today's gaming construct is woefully deficient when compared to the "golden age" of the medium which, according to these scholars, can be found anywhere between the late 80's and the early 90's.

Grammaton-Cleric

Well put. Myself, I've been playing games since the 2600, and find the generalization that "old games = good, new games = bad" to be incredibly inaccurate.

This is not to say that there weren't good old games that still hold up well today; there were. This is not to say that all new games are great; there are examples that definitely aren't. However, the topic of this thread is absolutely false, and quite honestly, has been done to death.

Graphics and Gameplay are two halves that complete a videogame. Strong presentation is just as important as strong gameplay.

TC, I am with you that the older games are generally more fun but you presented an argument that is totally not thought out well at all.

First of all, I know you're making a generalization about modern games but what actually makes them not fun? Why don't you like the cutscenes? Why don't you like a deeper sense of story? Or is a deeper story the problem? What is the difference between searching in a Zelda game versus searching in Oblivion? In both games, you have to search for stuff? Or how about classic Metroid versus modern Metroid? Same formula except one is in 3D.

Secondly, games today probably don't go into enough development. Unless you bring up a relative argument that teams were much smaller then so they took longer to develop (which isn't always necessarily true either).

Thirdly, animation, special effects, voice acting and graphics do have something to do with gameplay. They are usually used to enhance the gameplay. What happens is that some games focus on those things more so than the gameplay.

Lastly, it seems like you're harping FPS's. That's just the vibe I get when I read this.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

These types of threads and their accompanying arguments are always, without fail, pedantic, redundant and largely erroneous musings by pseudo-hardcore elitists who believe that old automatically equates better. I've trudged through countless posts like this and none of them have an original argument to put forth, nor do they ever demonstrate an actual working knowledge of this medium beyond the stale, oft-used bravado that claims today's gaming construct is woefully deficient when compared to the "golden age" of the medium which, according to these scholars, can be found anywhere between the late 80's and the early 90's.

Dire_Weasel

Well put. Myself, I've been playing games since the 2600, and find the generalization that "old games = good, new games = bad" to be incredibly inaccurate.

This is not to say that there weren't good old games that still hold up well today; there were. This is not to say that all new games are great; there are examples that definitely aren't. However, the topic of this thread is absolutely false, and quite honestly, has been done to death.

Yeah, I've been gaming for 31 years and like Grammaton said, the picture the 'modern games suck and all old games were perfect' crowd is so far from reality I think lots of the guys who talk that way are kids who weren't there.

yup i do. and does NES have more gamplay over graphics? yes. does SNES have more gameplay over graphics? yes. even N64 has more gameplay over graphics. plus if we are jus gamers with opinions, why are you making such a big deal about this? hmm?

krazy_guy931

No, it really doesnt, nes doesnt have gameplay or graphics, and it doesnt have good gameplay BECASUE of its graphics, graphics engines are the backbone of gameplay.

Liking old games is one thing, but trying to say the NES, which in reality sucked pretty hard, is better than new games, is just sad.

This is also coming froma retro gamer, whos has played more nes/snes games than probably 95% of the people here.

Well as they say, "To each their own.". Personally I'm enjoying gaming these days more then I ever have. I still enjoy picking up and playing some of the classics but I get way more fun out of playing the stuff they put out now. The amount of high-quality top-notch games developers put out nowadays really impresses me.

Archangel3371

took the thoughts right outta mah brain.

Quit a few games are like that. Some games that I really like are Left 4 dead(no cutscenes just fun gameplay), Ninja Gaiden, Call of Duty games and Tales of symphonia.

Grammaton-Cleric, thanks for taking the time to write your thorough response. You make a lot of assumptions however, and you're quick to dismiss arguments of this kind as "pedantic, redundant and largely erroneous musings by pseudo-hardcore elitists who believe that old automatically equates better". Whoa whoa whoa, hold on there. This made up stereotype of yours has no real basis and it's not an accurate portrayal of me or other retro gamers. I'm not an elitist, I don't think I'm better than anyone and if my arguments are erroneous musings, how about you address them and prove them to be without merit?

I'm putting forth an observation and expressing my frusteration and disappointment over what I see as an entertainment industry that has lost it's balance. I don't think old automatically equates to better, however I also don't believe new automatically equates to better either. Do you? Should everyone stop listening to old music and embrace today's hip hop and dance? After all, it's new, popular, enjoys big sales and is more technologically advanced. It's more evolved, so it's gotta be better than all older music right? This kind of thinking is the underlying premise of your post.

While it's easy to sit back and wax nostalgic about NES games like Super Mario Bros. 3, many people forget the ridiculous amount of trash that was released on the NES, games that were in every sense of the word unplayable.Grammaton-Cleric

I agree, this was a bad and embarrassing aspect of a young industry that was still working out the kinks. The video game industry has improved in regards to shovelware, absolutely. However, I'm speaking about the high quality, popular trend setting games of the past, present and future.

Truth be told, even many of the "classics" don't hold up as well as some would postulate. Most games from the 8-bit and 16-bit era were incredibly short, their length artificially increased by cheap design conventions including respawing enemies, poor collision detection, and ridiculously paltry continue options.Grammaton-Cleric

Modern games don't have respawning enemies? If you want to call out old games on cheap design conventions then I'm going to use achievements against new games. Now there's a cheap design convention to artificially increase the length of games. I'm not sure how poor collision detection lengthens games so I have no comment on that. As for paltry continue options, that's not the case for all classic 2D games. Series like Mega Man, Final Fantasy and Zelda save your progress or give you passwords. Yet they still offer very challenging gameplay and offer many many hours of entertainment including a high replay value. The high replay value is a testament to how much fun these old games are. I hear more people talking about the old classics than even the games of last gen.

If the OP and his supporters sincerely feel that older games are more "fun', they are certainly entitled to their respective opinions but I actually pity them for what they are missing in regards to contemporary gaming.Grammaton-Cleric

Look, I get some enjoyment out of modern games. Me and my brother played Borderlands for hours last night and had a lot of fun. However the only reason it was fun was because I was playing it with him and he knew where to go because he already played it. I could not play through that game alone, it's much too tedious. I am not missing anything. I'm here, I'm in touch with modern games and I see what's out there. Everytime I try a new game it reeks of boredom. I can't stand it. It's so frusterating because I love video games and I want to have great new games to play that are comparable to or even more fun than the old classics. But these modern games just don't live up to the standard. In that regard, it does appear that the golden era in gaming has passed. I wish it wasn't so but it is what it is.

.

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p95sgTburKY

It doesn't get any better than this, at least not yet.

1. If you want to call out old games on cheap design conventions then I'm going to use achievements against new games. Now there's a cheap design convention to artificially increase the length of games. Tauu

Problem: Achievements are not a forced gameplay implementation. It can easily be ignored.

I could not play through that game alone Tauu

Well, it is a co-op based shooter. It is not the optimal pick for a single player experience.

Everytime I try a new game it reeks of boredom.Tauu

I feel sorry for you.

"But these modern games just don't live up to the standard. "

Your personal preferences are not an objective standard for excellence.

I would disagree about your view of achievements as cheap ways to lengthen games. Games have always been goal-oriented. Finishing a game in general to finishing it without continuing, dieing, certain amount of time, etc. is what most gamers did way back since they first came out. The only difference now is that they were all self-created goals set by ourselves or others as competion. With achievements there is at least a tangible reward and a legitamite means of verification that can be recognized by fellow gamers. I think they're one of the greatest recent additions to games these days.

Grammaton-Cleric, thanks for taking the time to write your thorough response. You make a lot of assumptions however, and you're quick to dismiss arguments of this kind as "pedantic, redundant and largely erroneous musings by pseudo-hardcore elitists who believe that old automatically equates better". Whoa whoa whoa, hold on there. This made up stereotype of yours has no real basis and it's not an accurate portrayal of me or other retro gamers. I'm not an elitist, I don't think I'm better than anyone and if my arguments are erroneous musings, how about you address them and prove them to be without merit?

I'm putting forth an observation and expressing my frusteration and disappointment over what I see as an entertainment industry that has lost it's balance. I don't think old automatically equates to better, however I also don't believe new automatically equates to better either. Do you? Should everyone stop listening to old music and embrace today's hip hop and dance? After all, it's new, popular, enjoys big sales and is more technologically advanced. It's more evolved, so it's gotta be better than all older music right? This kind of thinking is the underlying premise of your post.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

I agree, this was a bad and embarrassing aspect of a young industry that was still working out the kinks. The video game industry has improved in regards to shovelware, absolutely. However, I'm speaking about the high quality, popular trend setting games of the past, present and future.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]Truth be told, even many of the "classics" don't hold up as well as some would postulate. Most games from the 8-bit and 16-bit era were incredibly short, their length artificially increased by cheap design conventions including respawing enemies, poor collision detection, and ridiculously paltry continue options.Tauu

Modern games don't have respawning enemies? If you want to call out old games on cheap design conventions then I'm going to use achievements against new games. Now there's a cheap design convention to artificially increase the length of games. I'm not sure how poor collision detection lengthens games so I have no comment on that. As for paltry continue options, that's not the case for all classic 2D games. Series like Mega Man, Final Fantasy and Zelda save your progress or give you passwords. Yet they still offer very challenging gameplay and offer many many hours of entertainment including a high replay value. The high replay value is a testament to how much fun these old games are. I hear more people talking about the old classics than even the games of last gen.

If the OP and his supporters sincerely feel that older games are more "fun', they are certainly entitled to their respective opinions but I actually pity them for what they are missing in regards to contemporary gaming.Grammaton-Cleric

Look, I get some enjoyment out of modern games. Me and my brother played Borderlands for hours last night and had a lot of fun. However the only reason it was fun was because I was playing it with him and he knew where to go because he already played it. I could not play through that game alone, it's much too tedious. I am not missing anything. I'm here, I'm in touch with modern games and I see what's out there. Everytime I try a new game it reeks of boredom. I can't stand it. It's so frusterating because I love video games and I want to have great new games to play that are comparable to or even more fun than the old classics. But these modern games just don't live up to the standard. In that regard, it does appear that the golden era in gaming has passed. I wish it wasn't so but it is what it is.

In regards to collision detection in older games, itcaused incalculable cheap deaths. Thus, poor collision detection equals a longer game, albeit facilitated in an incredibly cheap manner.

As to respawning enemies, there's a significant difference between the way they were used 20 years ago versus today. In the older games, specifically during the 8-bit and 16-bit era, you could literally scroll back a few inches and an enemy would respawn instantly, which was lame two decades ago and remains lame today.Regardless of these aforementioned conventions, the fact remains that games today are much longer than they were 20 years ago, and in most cases by a significant margin. Older games were short but so incredibly unforgiving (often in a cheap way) that it was difficult or even impossible to beat them, making them seem much longer than they actually were.

The achievement issue isn't really an issue at all. Like others have pointed out, you can strive for them or choose to ignore them; they have nothing to do with the length of a game and rather give some people an incentive to play atitle again. Most people agree that achievements are a positive addition to the medium but for somebody like you, who's obviously hell bent on deriding the current state of gaming, it's no surprise you find them to be a negative thing.

Also, I spend time in various circles where gamers congregate and I hear far more people talking about the present and future rather than the past. Certain games do continue to inspire conversation even two decades later and there are several games from that era I consider to be among the best ever made but there's also some truly brilliant software being pushed out all the time which can match if not exceed anything that's been done previously.

The reality is that your opinion is in the vast minority because it's not particularly compelling. I grew up in your mythical golden age and most of those games are damn near unplayable today because the medium has progressed so far since then. Even the best games of that era have been matched and surpassed, at times to such a degree that the originals are rendered obsolete. One of my absolute favorite games of all time, Bionic Commando, was completely nullified by GRIN's Bionic Commando: Rearmed, released just last year.

Also, what of the games that were impossible ten or twenty years ago? Dead Rising is an amazing experience and something like that could have never been achieved on the NES or SNES. What about Batman: Arkham Asylum, the first game in 30 years of the medium to finally get Batman right? Do you sincerely think a game ofthat qualitycould have been accomplished on16-bit hardware?

If every new game you play reeks of boredom then the problem isn't with the medium but rather yourself. There are literally tons of divergent games out there, some catering to the old school, hardcore mentality you claim to venerate. You want a challenge? Go play Ninja Gaiden Black on hard. Or Bionic Commando: Rearmed. What about a game like BRAID, which takes the conventions you claim to love, and purposely flips them around? How many games have you really played because frankly, you don't appear to have played much beyond the high profile titles that everybody else plays.

Have you played Demon's Souls, which makes even most NES games look mild in comparison in terms of difficulty? How about Punch Out! On the Wii, a brilliant infusion of old school gaming and contemporary presentation?

Personally, I think you're just one of those people who wants to be cantankerous and disgruntled which is your prerogative. The problem is that you want to share your views with a community that flatly rejects them, a reality that simply isn't going to change. Like I've stated previously, I was there for the golden age and your interpretation of it is nonsense. I would put my academic and practical knowledge of this medium up against practically anybody on the planet and I'm telling you that gaming in the past isn't the promised land, though it is a silly, pretty little delusion that some people will apparently push until the end of time.

Your personal preferences are not an objective standard for excellence._Tobli_

I wonder why that is?

Today way too much developement effort is invested in graphics, animation, voice acting and special effects. None of those things have anything to do with gameplay. Gameplay seems like an afterthought these days, like the main purpose of playing modern games is to be in awe over the graphics and the whole movie-like experience that you get. It's like you're going through an exhibit, a demonstration of what modern technology is capable of. The gameplay itself is slow, repetitive and easy. With all that it costs to produce these behemoths, developers are forced to stick with proven formulas to avoid disasterous losses. Therefore the same games are released over and over and over again. There's no room for creativity and interesting game design anymore. What a mess!

Tauu

You do realize this argument can also work the other way around too right?

Why not take it a step further and stick with text adventures then? Or board games? No need to preoccupy yourself with useless distractions like the sprites on Links garb, 2D backgrounds, or parallax scrolling...cuz none of that has anything to do with gameplay either.

Its not graphics thats the main issue with you....youre just using as some kind of justification to bash hi-def gaming.

It's really hand-eye coordination, concentration, and collection of stuff by the player. The graphics should aid in being able to see what's going on. Halo has great graphics but it's too simplistic to enjoy once past the nostalgia imo. In the end you bought the game for fun for you to play whenever you want. I'm happy I'm to the point I'll buy a game by looking at it mostly. If it looks like I can enjoy it for more than a half hour a day then I might buy it. But that's me. :D

[QUOTE="Tauu"]

Today way too much developement effort is invested in graphics, animation, voice acting and special effects. None of those things have anything to do with gameplay. Gameplay seems like an afterthought these days, like the main purpose of playing modern games is to be in awe over the graphics and the whole movie-like experience that you get. It's like you're going through an exhibit, a demonstration of what modern technology is capable of. The gameplay itself is slow, repetitive and easy. With all that it costs to produce these behemoths, developers are forced to stick with proven formulas to avoid disasterous losses. Therefore the same games are released over and over and over again. There's no room for creativity and interesting game design anymore. What a mess!

BladesOfAthena

You do realize this argument can also work the other way around too right?

Why not take it a step further and stick with text adventures then? Or board games? No need to preoccupy yourself with useless distractions like the sprites on Links garb, 2D backgrounds, or parallax scrolling...cuz none of that has anything to do with gameplay either.

Its not graphics thats the main issue with you....youre just using as some kind of justification to bash hi-def gaming.

Yeah, I've never understood people that denigrate the 'video' in videogames. Beauty has always been an important part of videogames (hard as it may be for some people to believe, there was a time when games like Asteroids and Dig Dug were praised for their pretty graphics).

Also, I just don't believe that the cost of games is responsible for the lack of innovation since innovation has been the exception to the rule in every form of commercial art (including videogames back in the days when they were developed by one guy).

I suspect the big problem is the conservatism of consumers and publishers. Most consumers aren't looking for surprises, they are looking for better versions of whatever piece of work drew them to a particular art form. An additional problem in the game arena is consumer identify more with franchises than the developers who made the franchise great (that is also something of a problem in the movie industry).

I'm all for gameplay over graphics, story and presentation, but to say that the older games are better than the newer ones is a rather worrying statement.

My only gripe is that with this era of gaming, some people play a game justto see a story unfold, rather than go through it and have fun while actually playing it. (My finger pointed primarily at the Tekken series.)

I feel your playing the wrong genres.

Try some of the simulation games out there like ArmA 2. You can choose to play the gamey campaign or download some (free) user made content and know how it is to play for 3 hours only to get sniped and lose it all.

let me just put it this way...

the most challenging game of all, is the game that never ends.

krazy_guy931

You mean Pitfall?