Are PC games from 10+ years ago really superior to today's titles, gameplaywise?

  • 51 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for The_Capitalist
The_Capitalist

10838

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 17

User Lists: 0

#1 The_Capitalist
Member since 2004 • 10838 Posts

A few weeks ago, I came upon a discussion on a message board comparing Baldur's Gate with Dragon Age: Origins. Almost everyone who posted in the thread claimed that Baldur's Gate, with few exceptions, is a far more "superior" game than Dragon Age, at least from a gameplay standpoint.

Now, since I haven't played Baldur's Gate, I can not seriously confirm from my perspective if Baldur's Gate is REALLY better than Dragon Age. (I have played Dragon Age, however.) But I have noticed a pattern in these sort of discussions that compare older games with their newer counterparts.

Here is the pattern: Usually, regardless of the genre of the two games being compared to each other, the older game usually wins more praise than the newer one. This has been the same with every old game/new game comparison that I have examined.

Now, here is a question for you all:

Are older titles usually more "superior" from a gameplay standpoint than newer ones in your eyes? Or, is it out of our conservative bias for older titles that we declare them to be better, on the spot?

Any thoughts?

Avatar image for Daytona_178
Daytona_178

14962

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#2 Daytona_178
Member since 2005 • 14962 Posts

Mario Sunshine > Super Mario World

There i said it!

Avatar image for dont-read-this
dont-read-this

825

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 dont-read-this
Member since 2009 • 825 Posts
Depends on the genre, for example 90's RPGs have aged very well, and really few games match up to the depth of Fallout 1, BG2, etc.
Avatar image for -wildflower-
-wildflower-

2997

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 -wildflower-
Member since 2003 • 2997 Posts

I think the old games are better (much better to be honest). Games used to be made by people who loved games and gaming in general was much more of a niche hobby than it is today. These days games are BIG business and as a result they are made by marketing teams and bean-counters. Gaming has been watered down and simplified in an effort to appeal the broadest audience possible.

It's no longer about a passion for making games as much as it is about a desire to make money, lots and lots of money. It's kind of like the difference between a small budget independent film vs. a big, dumb and bombastic Michael Bay movie.

Avatar image for gamer620
gamer620

3367

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 gamer620
Member since 2004 • 3367 Posts
I wouldn't say usually, but there are definitely several games that are still much better from years ago compared to modern counterparts. Planescape: Torment, System Shock 2 and Fallout 2 come to mind (being better than games like Dragon Age (in this case, Torment wins merely because of Story Telling and setting..., DA Is other wise still a fantastic game), Bioshock and Fallout 3 respectively). Many people still prefer UT classic to UT3 (although I prefer 2k4 personally)
Avatar image for OoSuperMarioO
OoSuperMarioO

6539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 OoSuperMarioO
Member since 2005 • 6539 Posts

Gameplay today is far more sophisticated, but 10+ years ago the gameplay for new genres offered a new experience that will never be experienced again until the standards for game design changes again. In terms of overall games, I will say gamplay today is superior, but there are older games that I still prefer to play as the pinnacle for a particular genre( I can still setup a N64 for Goldeneye 007 and play multiplayer endlessly with buds).

Avatar image for mattuk69
mattuk69

3050

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 mattuk69
Member since 2009 • 3050 Posts

We are in the graphics>gameplay era, Still good games accept online was alot better years ago. SOF2, Rven Shield, Call of duty, Counter Stike etc were for fun. The only online game i like now is TF2 cause its epic.

Avatar image for _alex_
_alex_

364

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 _alex_
Member since 2003 • 364 Posts

While I'm certainly not the oldest gamer out there(the first console I can remember getting is the NES and a Gameboy). I think games have improved in some aspects, however a lot of interesting old ideas have been completely forgotten by the big business. I'll focus on mainstream games so that people can relate.

In 4X4 Evolution people on Mac's, PC's, the Dreamcast, and I feel like there was a 4th option could all be in one game. The cross platform worked magic because it made the community bigger. Another interesting feature in that game was that when you joined a pre "race" lobby the hosts map choice was automatically distributed to people without the map/track. So anybody could make a challenging course and distribute it to anybody regardless of their platform. The game itself had poor physics, and a loading splash screen had a picture of a truck you could not get, so in some ways it represents what you used to get in gaming. It had tons of amazing fun, but lacked visuals and certainly any complicated physics. But because it was an arcade game the physics where not first priority, and the tracks took advantage of the physics it did have by adding washboard sections, big jumps and drops and fun water hazards. There are tons of games today that could be cross platform and very fun, however since they choose not to be, 4X4 evo from the Y2K offers more creativity and more features despite having less advanced technology to do it, so it is superior to most racing games today. I've avoided comparing it to new racing games because most of the good ones are console exclusive and this is about PC games. I'll use GRID just because it can be had in the PC flavor. GRID is a terrible game by any measure of the word game(except the figure 8). Most of the racing in GRID brings no creativity to the genre, it's an arcade style game without arcade style elements, the tracks are supposed to seem real, the cars are too, there are no jumps or interesting turns too dangerous for real life courses and the crashes are trying to be realistic. This means that 4x4 evo is superior as an arcade game and as I mentioned before, it's cross platform!

Counterstrike is a very popular game today, but back when I played it on a Pentium 2 350Mhz powered computer it was a fairly fresh concept. It introduced a game that I feel represent what many games have become. It was more like a sport than an actual game, when I started playing it before steam took over, a lot of my friends in junior high didn't like it because it was too simple and it felt like quake for people who couldn't function when things moved too quickly or moved vertically. Counterstrike was possibly superior ~10 years ago because it was a newer idea and it hasn't changed much at all in nearly 10 years, so it's up to you to decide.

Command and Conquer is another game series that has moved through time and as far as most old gamers opinions go, it has become worse. I've played since the first one through to C&C3 and lost interest as the years moved on The series hasn't changed much from 1995 up until generals, however at generals they seem to have gone a new direction. The new direction generals took focused on less is more and made the game more like a generic 3D strategy game by taking out the key feature of the game which is strategy. Quite often people say that Generals was great because it simplified C&C and made it faster, but they seem to forget that C&C is supposed to be a strategy game so those to things they like about it actually make it not a strategy game. The recent releases definitely aren't superior to the old ones and in some respects they offer less, but they also offer far better graphics. To sum C&C up, neither the old or the new are superior, it all depends on who you are. Though I'm obviously not a fan of the new stuff.

Need for Speed is another game that has been around for a fair span of time and it also has a fair amount of discussion about which is better. While the old games where more "fun" and arcade-like, they certainly lacked when compared to car selection and eye candy. But they always showed that they where created by people and not the pretend people who work for a huge business. They had amazing and often fitting music, awesome intros and the occasional outlandish car. The new ones seem to focus on grit and pop culture, using real music also manufactured by pretend people in other industries. But they do succeed in beating the old games at a few things, mainly a slightly better use of physics, a larger selection of cars and tracks. So though the old games are superior as games, you won't feel as cool playing them because you won't be in a Mercedes on 30 inch rims with a 2 lane wide wide body kit listening to FatJoe rap about how money is great.

The point all of this is getting at is that the gaming industry has a few main issues that make gamers like myself feel that the older games are usually better, and all of them come down to what a game is, and not what a game has.

Oh and the future should have cross platform multiplayer because the point of multiplayer is not to play by yourself.

Avatar image for deactivated-5d3f5f1ece8fb
deactivated-5d3f5f1ece8fb

865

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 deactivated-5d3f5f1ece8fb
Member since 2004 • 865 Posts

Mario Sunshine > Super Mario World

There i said it!

Daytona_178

take it back!

Super Mario World/Mario 64>>>>>>Mario Sunshine/Mario Galaxy

Avatar image for jetpower3
jetpower3

11631

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 jetpower3
Member since 2005 • 11631 Posts

Well, I can't vouch for gameplay, but based on entire experiences, I can't say I've played many games if any at all that have moved me more than say Grim Fandango and Half-life 1.

Avatar image for polarwrath11
polarwrath11

1676

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 polarwrath11
Member since 2006 • 1676 Posts
Fundamentally, valve games on the source engine are gameplay>graphics (on an unrelated note), although you get some nice graphics too!
Avatar image for dakan45
dakan45

18819

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#12 dakan45
Member since 2009 • 18819 Posts
Older games> newer games...ofcourse there are expetiions!!!
Avatar image for MyopicCanadian
MyopicCanadian

8345

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 0

#13 MyopicCanadian
Member since 2004 • 8345 Posts

I don't think you can make a general rule. Some people tend to look at older games in a very nostalgic way, so opinions can of course be jaded. However, with regard to Baldur's Gate specifically.. it is the superior title. It has pretty much everything DA:O has, but with a more interesting story and better characters.. and a better ruleset and world.

Even try and compare something like DA:O to Ultima VII.. now that's an old game, and it had so much great RPG stuff in it. Where are games like those today?

There are many older games that I realize I loved at the time, and they may not have been all that.. I can't get into Starfox for the SNES as much as I could when I was a kid. It's still cool, but it just isn't the same. However, with RPG's.. there are a lot of older gems that can still destroy today's games if you disregard the graphics.

Avatar image for deactivated-59d151f079814
deactivated-59d151f079814

47239

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#14 deactivated-59d151f079814
Member since 2003 • 47239 Posts
Some are.. There are certain unique games that have no real match in it self.. Furthermore the main draw to games now a days are graphics, where a decade back graphics were as big a deal and developers had to produce creative ways of getting the consumer to enjoy.
Avatar image for HOMIE_G64
HOMIE_G64

1482

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 18

User Lists: 0

#15 HOMIE_G64
Member since 2005 • 1482 Posts
There are definitely some older games that are better than newer games. You can try for yourself: buy the original Fallout and Fallout 2 and be absolutely amazed at how you are getting one of the best RPG experiences you've ever had despite its age. Honestly, to me there really hasn't been any evolution in gameplay in any areas other than the online FPS genre (nod to the original Modern Warfare here).
Avatar image for chapman86
chapman86

583

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#16 chapman86
Member since 2004 • 583 Posts

and then there were fewer games 10 years ago than now, I really didnt have much choice than playing what I could buy.

Avatar image for Shazard
Shazard

80

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#17 Shazard
Member since 2006 • 80 Posts

I think it's more about nostalgia. Most old games are total crap even though we keep hearing good things about them. Games get better but they just don't make us feel the way we did back in the day. For example the op said Baldur's Gate > Dragon Age; consider that someone who never played BG but played DA would say the same thing when another epic RPG comes out in the future.

Avatar image for Grodus5
Grodus5

7934

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18 Grodus5
Member since 2006 • 7934 Posts
[QUOTE="hi_im_dave"]

[QUOTE="Daytona_178"]

Mario Sunshine > Super Mario World

There i said it!

take it back!

Super Mario World/Mario 64>>>>>>Mario Sunshine/Mario Galaxy

Bah! You are almost right! Not quite, it really goes: Super Mario 64 just a smidge better than Galaxy>>> Sunshine. On topic, some games are better, to be sure, but its not a universal thing. I played Fallout 1 and didn't like it as much as Fallout 3, mainly due to the accursed time limit, and because I never beat Fallout 1, I never went on to Fallout 2, which I'm sure I would've like more than 1. Other games, like Freespace 2, just age incredibly well.
Avatar image for thusaha
thusaha

14495

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19 thusaha
Member since 2007 • 14495 Posts
Dungeon Keeper and System Shock 2.
Avatar image for deactivated-5ac102a4472fe
deactivated-5ac102a4472fe

7431

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#20 deactivated-5ac102a4472fe
Member since 2007 • 7431 Posts

that REALLY depends, out of all the 10+ year old titles we only remember a handful, these were the utter best in thier category, the other games we forget ofcourse, there were alot of junky titles back then aswell :P

So when we hold up a new title and compare it to an old one, it is the best title from back then.

Even so there are differences... devs have shifted focus and target groups since then, they rarely experiment as much as they did back then (a game that fails can pretty much sink a company, it couldnt back then).

Now I often feel like they focus on looks, but feel and atmosphere are thrown out the window as fast as they can be said.

Then there is the biggest problem in my mind (true for all games, not just PC games).

Back then Devs got an idea for a game, that game might have had a very small userbase, because themes and setting did not appeal to a mass audience, but they made them because it was a game THEY wanted to make.

Now it is all about the broadest demographic, the biggest installbase, meaning that it often becomes a game that aint very complex (yeah there really are people out in the world who have the mental capasity and or will to dive into the rules of a game more complex then point and shoot).

It also reflects on what genres are comming out. Sadly genres the devs know there is a large installbase for will mostly win over games that is unproven.

It really does shows when alot (and there is alot) of newer gamers complain about older games difficulty, it is not that they were hard, but the player was left to think for himself about his actions, versus today where you cant shoot people you might need, and basicly have to kill everything that does not talk to you (except boss fights).

So the more popular gaming becomes the less depth goes into them, out of fear that people will not understand the concepts... sad really...

Avatar image for pvtdonut54
pvtdonut54

8554

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 9

User Lists: 0

#21 pvtdonut54
Member since 2008 • 8554 Posts

Gameplay wise? Certainly not.

Avatar image for HenriH-42
HenriH-42

2113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#22 HenriH-42
Member since 2007 • 2113 Posts

Even if the modern games would be superior gameplay wise (which they in most cases aren't), the older games are still more impressive because they were better for their time. Take a look at System Shock 1, System Shock 2 and Bioshock for example. SS1 was WAAAAAAYY ahead of it's time in every possible way (just like every LGS game really), SS2 imo improved it - the games were evolving. But then comes Bioshock, which is inferior in every way except graphics to System Shock 2 and heck, even to System Shock 1. It's dumbed down. How could I be impressed with a game when a better version of the game was released 10+ years ago? That's really the biggest problem with games today, there is no innovation, everything is just a carbon copy of older games.

There are of course exceptions. Remember in the 80's and 90's, when the best PC games came out of mostly from US, UK and maybe Canada? Well, nowadays they make pretty much nothing but garbage. Then take a look at what countries like Germany, Sweden, Poland, Russia (+ex-USSR countries like Ukraine) etc. are doing. They are making games with complexity, ambition and depth, just like what PC games used to be all about in the good old days. I mean heck, titles like Risen, Penumbra, Europa Universalis, The Witcher, STALKER, Cryostasis, King's Bounty etc. They are not noob-friendly, they are complex and have actual depth, and most importantly - they are ambitious. They aren't just another generic action or sports game made for money, they are made because the devs want to make good games. They remind me of 90's PC games in every way. Remember Interplay with their slogan "By gamers, for gamers"? That's what those devs are doing.

Avatar image for nutcrackr
nutcrackr

13032

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 72

User Lists: 1

#23 nutcrackr
Member since 2004 • 13032 Posts

A good proportion of new games have streamlined gameplay. However in contrast to that I would contend that most games these days are much smoother, better paced and generally games you play, come back to later, keep playing and have very few frustrating sections.

If you needed an example of this it would be regenerative health. In games of old the majority seemed to use health packs or health stations. Now all you need to do is hide behind a rock and bingo bango your health is restored. This ultimately means you don't have absurdly difficulty sections (although some would contend with that also). There are other examples, auto save systems, pseudo saving always and much much much more QA testing. Unfortunately I think quite a bit of the depth is lost, but it's not a horrible trade off.

Avatar image for OoSuperMarioO
OoSuperMarioO

6539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 OoSuperMarioO
Member since 2005 • 6539 Posts

Even if the modern games would be superior gameplay wise (which they in most cases aren't), the older games are still more impressive because they were better for their time. Take a look at System Shock 1, System Shock 2 and Bioshock for example. SS1 was WAAAAAAYY ahead of it's time in every possible way (just like every LGS game really), SS2 imo improved it - the games were evolving. But then comes Bioshock, which is inferior in every way except graphics to System Shock 2 and heck, even to System Shock 1. It's dumbed down. How could I be impressed with a game when a better version of the game was released 10+ years ago? That's really the biggest problem with games today, there is no innovation, everything is just a carbon copy of older games.

There are of course exceptions. Remember in the 80's and 90's, when the best PC games came out of mostly from US, UK and maybe Canada? Well, nowadays they make pretty much nothing but garbage. Then take a look at what countries like Germany, Sweden, Poland, Russia (+ex-USSR countries like Ukraine) etc. are doing. They are making games with complexity, ambition and depth, just like what PC games used to be all about in the good old days. I mean heck, titles like Risen, Penumbra, Europa Universalis, The Witcher, STALKER, Cryostasis, King's Bounty etc. They are not noob-friendly, they are complex and have actual depth, and most importantly - they are ambitious. They aren't just another generic action or sports game made for money, they are made because the devs want to make good games. They remind me of 90's PC games in every way. Remember Interplay with their slogan "By gamers, for gamers"? That's what those devs are doing.

HenriH-42

What's your personal perspective on these FPS: Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2, Far Cry, F.E.A.R, Mirror's Edge, Portal, Half Life 2 and Prey?

Avatar image for kaze347
kaze347

1270

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#25 kaze347
Member since 2006 • 1270 Posts

Most "old game vs new version of old game" arguments end with the original being better, I dont always agree but it is something thats often true. Im new to pc gaming and this thread seemed as good of a place as any since its talking about old games so here goes: I just got a laptop for Christmas and its got A LOT of memory but its not for PC gaming because it has a weak graphics card and some other stuff so I can play games but they have to be old games mostly, so I ask you, what are the BEST games from before 2008? I really appreciate any replies to help me out. Maybe after I play some I can attribute to the conversation at hand lol

Avatar image for HenriH-42
HenriH-42

2113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#26 HenriH-42
Member since 2007 • 2113 Posts

What's your personal perspective on these FPS: Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2, Far Cry, F.E.A.R, Mirror's Edge, Portal, Half Life 2 and Prey?

OoSuperMarioO

Far Cry, FEAR and Half-Life 2 are not part of this gen so you can take them out right away.

Left 4 Dead is fun, and yes it is innovative and there was no other game like it. But just take a look at Left 4 Dead 2. Back in the day we called them expansion packs.

I haven't played Team Fortress 2, I don't care about competitive shooters.

Mirror's Edge? I liked it better when it was called Montezuma's Return and was made 10 years earlier. Though yes, there aren't many 1st person platformers. But it has been done. 10 years earlier.

Portal was decent.

Prey? You mean the shooter where you cannot die? LOL, talk about dumbed down. Also with Prey you can take Portal off the list since Prey was released earlier.

Once again, I guess I should've said most instead of everything, but eh. None of the games are really that good anyway compared to anything from 90's or early 00's, except maybe L4D but Valve has fallen into the "expansion pack = sequel" trend that is popular with the Xbox generation developers.

Avatar image for OoSuperMarioO
OoSuperMarioO

6539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 OoSuperMarioO
Member since 2005 • 6539 Posts

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

What's your personal perspective on these FPS: Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2, Far Cry, F.E.A.R, Mirror's Edge, Portal, Half Life 2 and Prey?

HenriH-42

Far Cry, FEAR and Half-Life 2 are not part of this gen so you can take them out right away.

Left 4 Dead is fun, and yes it is innovative and there was no other game like it. But just take a look at Left 4 Dead 2. Back in the day we called them expansion packs.

I haven't played Team Fortress 2, I don't care about competitive shooters.

Mirror's Edge? I liked it better when it was called Montezuma's Return and was made 10 years earlier. Though yes, there aren't many 1st person platformers. But it has been done. 10 years earlier.

Portal was decent.

Prey? You mean the shooter where you cannot die? LOL, talk about dumbed down. Also with Prey you can take Portal off the list since Prey was released earlier.

Once again, I guess I should've said most instead of everything, but eh. None of the games are really that good anyway compared to anything from 90's or early 00's, except maybe L4D but Valve has fallen into the "expansion pack = sequel" trend that is popular with the Xbox generation developers.

One last question bud; can you list me FPS from countries like Germany, Sweden, Poland, Russia ect. that are innovative?

Avatar image for HenriH-42
HenriH-42

2113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#28 HenriH-42
Member since 2007 • 2113 Posts

One last question bud; can you list me FPS from countries like Germany, Sweden, Poland, Russia ect. that are innovative?

OoSuperMarioO

How about STALKER? Cryostasis? They don't really make that many FPS's tbh, mostly RPGs and Strategy. Ah, Crysis perhaps? inb4 "it's Far Cry with nano-suit." Though I'm not having high hopes for Crysis 2, considering that it's now multiplat.

Avatar image for flipin_jackass
flipin_jackass

9772

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#29 flipin_jackass
Member since 2004 • 9772 Posts

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

One last question bud; can you list me FPS from countries like Germany, Sweden, Poland, Russia ect. that are innovative?

HenriH-42

How about STALKER? Cryostasis? They don't really make that many FPS's tbh, mostly RPGs and Strategy. Ah, Crysis perhaps? inb4 "it's Far Cry with nano-suit." Though I'm not having high hopes for Crysis 2, considering that it's now multiplat.

+ Battlefield.
Avatar image for OoSuperMarioO
OoSuperMarioO

6539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 OoSuperMarioO
Member since 2005 • 6539 Posts

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

One last question bud; can you list me FPS from countries like Germany, Sweden, Poland, Russia ect. that are innovative?

HenriH-42

How about STALKER? Cryostasis? They don't really make that many FPS's tbh, mostly RPGs and Strategy. Ah, Crysis perhaps? inb4 "it's Far Cry with nano-suit." Though I'm not having high hopes for Crysis 2, considering that it's now multiplat.

http://www.ugo.com/games/legends-of-wrestlemania/images/ultimate-warrior.jpg

Personally, neither Stalker, Cryostasis or Crysis can come close to that of Portal, if we're specifically speaking Depth, Complexity and Innovative in terms of Gameplay. As simple as Portal is, there is an arsenal of amount of those elements to discover; essentially you're literally playing a FPS as a new, making a very healthy contribution to the genre.

I honestly believe many of us are bind by not only nostalgia, but the newness of of the FPS genre many years ago, that will never be experienced again. This is my opinion though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALNtMq7sD4I&

Avatar image for HenriH-42
HenriH-42

2113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#31 HenriH-42
Member since 2007 • 2113 Posts

Personally, neither Stalker, Cryostasis or Crysis can come close to that of Portal, if we're specifically speaking Depth, Complexity and Innovative in terms of Gameplay. As simple as Portal is, there is an arsenal of amount of those elements to discover; essentially you're literally playing a FPS as a new, making a very healthy contribution to the genre.

OoSuperMarioO

Portal is not a FPS though, it's a puzzle game. :|

Avatar image for Josh5890
Josh5890

1025

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 Josh5890
Member since 2007 • 1025 Posts

I think that there can certainly be debated that the 90's were more innovatied and had better gameplay. Games like Starcraft, Age of Empires 2, Half Life, Fallout, Myst, Bauldur's Gate, Mafia, Doom, Duke Nukem, Warcraft, Quake, Diablo, I could go on.

There is no denying that there are some great games these past few years though. Bioshock was amazing. Dragon Age: Origin's is fantastic. The problem is that games like Crysis rely on graphics alone to sell. Give me Half-life over Crysis any day. Another problem is that alot of companies are making a "new" game every year. Call of Duty and Left for Dead are like that. To the guy that said we used to call those expansion packs, I couldn't agree with you more. DLC is great in theory but once again, developers rape us with bogus DLC now like costume packs, gameplay "upgrades", and Day One DLC.

It all comes down to the fact that today's society, kids will whine and complain until they have every console and the new Call of Duty from Mommy or Daddy. Thismeans big bucks for companies on the same material every year.Why be innovative when you can make money easily.

Another reason to blame today's lack of innovation is the economy. Some dev's can't afford to take risks because of low budgets and have to rely on what sells for sure like CoD-like games and sequals to last year's games, which is sad but the truth.

Avatar image for OoSuperMarioO
OoSuperMarioO

6539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 OoSuperMarioO
Member since 2005 • 6539 Posts

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

Personally, neither Stalker, Cryostasis or Crysis can come close to that of Portal, if we're specifically speaking Depth, Complexity and Innovative in terms of Gameplay. As simple as Portal is, there is an arsenal of amount of those elements to discover; essentially you're literally playing a FPS as a new, making a very healthy contribution to the genre.

HenriH-42

Portal is not a FPS though, it's a puzzle game. :|

In addition, it's also First Person.

Avatar image for HenriH-42
HenriH-42

2113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#34 HenriH-42
Member since 2007 • 2113 Posts

In addition, it's also First Person.

OoSuperMarioO

Yes, but it's not a shooter. As a puzzle game, Portal is really really good. But as a shooter, it's pretty damn bad.

I will admit that Portal was one of the more enjoyable puzzle games I've ever played though. But it's severly overrated.

Avatar image for skrat_01
skrat_01

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#35 skrat_01
Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts
Depends what you define as superior.
Avatar image for OoSuperMarioO
OoSuperMarioO

6539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#36 OoSuperMarioO
Member since 2005 • 6539 Posts

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

In addition, it's also First Person.

HenriH-42

Yes, but it's not a shooter. As a puzzle game, Portal is really really good. But as a shooter, it's pretty damn bad.

I will admit that Portal was one of the more enjoyable puzzle games I've ever played though. But it's severly overrated.

I find that as an excuse to exclude it, but w/e. Let's consider Portal as a FPP then, even then, it's still superior then the mentions as a FP for the genre, lol...

Eager to see what you will consider Portal 2 with the potential addition of multiplayer to introduce targets within the environment.

Avatar image for OoSuperMarioO
OoSuperMarioO

6539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#37 OoSuperMarioO
Member since 2005 • 6539 Posts

Many years from now if I was to ask Henrih if there's a fps that is better then one of his favorites in the past, I'm confident it will be no. This will result back to my perspective of us being binded by nostalgia and the newness of the genre during that period.

Avatar image for HenriH-42
HenriH-42

2113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#38 HenriH-42
Member since 2007 • 2113 Posts

I find that as an excuse to exclude it, but w/e. Let's consider Portal as a FPP then, even then, it's still superior then the mentions as a FP for the genre, lol...

Eager to see what you will consider Portal 2 with the potential addition of multiplayer to introduce targets within the environment.

OoSuperMarioO

I'm not excluding it, it just doesn't belong in the same genre.

Speaking of that, I also consider Mirror's Edge to be more of a 1st person platformer than a shooter. Yeah, you can use guns in the game but it's not the main focus.

If Portal 2 has multiplayer where you shoot other people, it's a FPS. Portal 1 however doesn't have this, portal gun is not much of a weapon and more like a tool really.

Avatar image for HenriH-42
HenriH-42

2113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#39 HenriH-42
Member since 2007 • 2113 Posts

Many years from now if I was to ask Henrih if there's a fps that is better then one of his favorites in the past, I'm confident it will be no. This will result back to my perspective of us being binded by nostalgia and the newness of the genre during that period.

OoSuperMarioO

That completely depends on what direction the industry is going. If it keeps going the same way it is now headed, then yeah I'm pretty sure that there won't be a new FPS that I'd consider better than the older ones. But hey, there can always be surprises. If one obscure dev from Ukraine makes one of the best shooters ever made (Stalker), I'm sure it can happen again. Afterall, it already happened before with Serious Sam.

Avatar image for OoSuperMarioO
OoSuperMarioO

6539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#40 OoSuperMarioO
Member since 2005 • 6539 Posts

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

I find that as an excuse to exclude it, but w/e. Let's consider Portal as a FPP then, even then, it's still superior then the mentions as a FP for the genre, lol...

Eager to see what you will consider Portal 2 with the potential addition of multiplayer to introduce targets within the environment.

HenriH-42

I'm not excluding it, it just doesn't belong in the same genre.

Speaking of that, I also consider Mirror's Edge to be more of a 1st person platformer than a shooter. Yeah, you can use guns in the game but it's not the main focus.

If Portal 2 has multiplayer where you shoot other people, it's a FPS. Portal 1 however doesn't have this,portal gun is not much of a weapon and more like a tool really.

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Essentially a tool is a weapon, it all depends on how it is utilize. You can use the Portal Gun as a weapon, a very devastating weapon at that, lol...

Avatar image for Mr_BillGates
Mr_BillGates

3211

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#41 Mr_BillGates
Member since 2005 • 3211 Posts

I prefer games like Age of Empires over the new RTS games that only offers combat-game play. Replay value with those games are just bore-fest, even on LAN.

Avatar image for HenriH-42
HenriH-42

2113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#42 HenriH-42
Member since 2007 • 2113 Posts

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Essentially a tool is a weapon, it all depends on how it is utilize. You can use the Portal Gun as a weapon, a very devastating weapon at that, lol...

OoSuperMarioO

But you don't... ah whatever. :P

I don't consider Portal to be a FPS because you don't have a gun or a similar weapon that you can directly shoot at your enemies.

Avatar image for OoSuperMarioO
OoSuperMarioO

6539

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#43 OoSuperMarioO
Member since 2005 • 6539 Posts

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

The pen is mightier than the sword.

Essentially a tool is a weapon, it all depends on how it is utilize. You can use the Portal Gun as a weapon, a very devastating weapon at that, lol...

HenriH-42

But you don't... ah whatever. :P

I don't consider Portal to be a FPS because you don't have a gun or a similar weapon that you can directly shoot at your enemies.

We can finish this discussion on Steam or MSN bud, due to we theft this guys thread.

Avatar image for HenriH-42
HenriH-42

2113

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#44 HenriH-42
Member since 2007 • 2113 Posts

We can finish this discussion on Steam or MSN bud, due to we theft this guys thread.

OoSuperMarioO

Nah, I think we're done here. Besides, I use neither. Only Xfire.

Now if you'll excuse me I shall go play some games :D

Avatar image for crazymaghie123
crazymaghie123

1209

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#45 crazymaghie123
Member since 2004 • 1209 Posts

I think the old games are better (much better to be honest). Games used to be made by people who loved games and gaming in general was much more of a niche hobby than it is today. These days games are BIG business and as a result they are made by marketing teams and bean-counters. Gaming has been watered down and simplified in an effort to appeal the broadest audience possible.

It's no longer about a passion for making games as much as it is about a desire to make money, lots and lots of money. It's kind of like the difference between a small budget independent film vs. a big, dumb and bombastic Michael Bay movie.

-wildflower-

1:People who make games now a days don't love games and gaming? huh? Are there any facts to support this ridiculous generalization?

2: A niche hobby? The NES which came out in the 80s has sold 61 million units.

3:Watering down and simplifying genres is what I would call streamlining the gameplay experience. Thiscan be negative butmany times can have a lot of positive results.

4: "Its the kind of like the difference between a small budget independent film vs. a big, dumb and bombastic Micahel Bay movie." hahaha...Yet another generalization. I'm sorry, but Uwe Boll's independent films aren't better than James Cameron's blockbusters.

Avatar image for Gladestone1
Gladestone1

5695

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#46 Gladestone1
Member since 2004 • 5695 Posts

Well myself was thinking of this the other day..Look at some older games people love an still play today..You have the biggest in starcraft..People are still playing it to this day its just amazing isnt it??Look at the diablo series, 10 yrs later its still loved, no one has come close other than titan quest...Sad if you think abou it..Lets see than there is the fallout series..Some still play the original..How ever i think myself i love fallout 3 for some reason..Maybe its bethestha an there love for games..You have simscity series, people still are enjoying that today..You said it yourself also baldurs gate still stands the test of time...

Love the games today also..Mass effect, dragon age o. assasins creed2, batman, there are really some decent games this generation..Gears of war 2 was epic in my eyes...So in some ways i miss the old days as a old time gamer such as myself..How ever some of the newer games are awesome also..Though when it comes to rpgs..Wish they would bring back the old days myself..Dao was good just not good enough in my eyes...It was fun dont get me wrong..Nothing compared to baldurs gate...

Avatar image for zomglolcats
zomglolcats

4335

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#47 zomglolcats
Member since 2008 • 4335 Posts

It really depends. In certain cases yes. But I feel a lot of times that a lot of games that are great are being viewed with nostalgia. Certain games that were awesome for their time are just simply games I could never go back to playing. Games are a lot more sophisticated now, not even just the graphics, but the gameplay. Some older games still hold up, but I think people need to be more realistic when comparing games from yesteryear.

For instance, Doom, while being an amazing game for its time is pretty much garbage by today's standards. That doesn't take away from its greatness, but the gameplay doesn't really hold up unless you're in the mood for a trip down memory lane. Not that anybody really claims Doom is better than modern FPS, I'm just making a point that sometimes old games are better off left in the past.

Avatar image for uas-2001
uas-2001

18781

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#48 uas-2001
Member since 2005 • 18781 Posts
Some games are better some are worse.
Avatar image for fudgeblood
fudgeblood

3165

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#49 fudgeblood
Member since 2008 • 3165 Posts
[QUOTE="HenriH-42"]

[QUOTE="OoSuperMarioO"]

One last question bud; can you list me FPS from countries like Germany, Sweden, Poland, Russia ect. that are innovative?

flipin_jackass

How about STALKER? Cryostasis? They don't really make that many FPS's tbh, mostly RPGs and Strategy. Ah, Crysis perhaps? inb4 "it's Far Cry with nano-suit." Though I'm not having high hopes for Crysis 2, considering that it's now multiplat.

+ Battlefield.

+ Operation Flashpoint/ArmA (Czech Republic though.)
Avatar image for redrezo
redrezo

256

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#50 redrezo
Member since 2009 • 256 Posts

A few weeks ago, I came upon a discussion on a message board comparing Baldur's Gate with Dragon Age: Origins. Almost everyone who posted in the thread claimed that Baldur's Gate, with few exceptions, is a far more "superior" game than Dragon Age, at least from a gameplay standpoint.

Now, since I haven't played Baldur's Gate, I can not seriously confirm from my perspective if Baldur's Gate is REALLY better than Dragon Age. (I have played Dragon Age, however.) But I have noticed a pattern in these sort of discussions that compare older games with their newer counterparts.

Here is the pattern: Usually, regardless of the genre of the two games being compared to each other, the older game usually wins more praise than the newer one. This has been the same with every old game/new game comparison that I have examined.

Now, here is a question for you all:

Are older titles usually more "superior" from a gameplay standpoint than newer ones in your eyes? Or, is it out of our conservative bias for older titles that we declare them to be better, on the spot?

Any thoughts?

The_Capitalist
You' and everyone else here are too young to understand. Baldurgate especially Baldurs gate 2 was specifically a PC exclusive game, made in the golden age of PC Gaming, it's nothing like that today. The precise reason why Dragon age origins is so popular is that it capture alot of BG2 essense to the point where they pretty much directly took characters from BG2 and supplied them with different names and histories (ie: Imoen -> Leliana).