Old Vs New

Delta_Strife

Rear Admiral
Does playing new games ruin older games because of the better graphics or options or do you still like the older games?

I personaly still love playing the older games they still have certain pionts that I love to play.
 
There are great old games better than new ones, old Lucas Graphic Adventures (Monkey Island I and II, Indiana Jones,MAniac MAnsion, DOTT) are better than most of the new Graphic Adventure,
Tie Fighter and WCI are funnier than SL,FS2, and some other Space-sim that maybe i´don´t remember
 
Personally I like more older games than newer games because of storylines. Games like FS/FS2, XBTF, and Starlancer may have better graphics and game play. But WC games have better storyline. For me I play the combat scenes so I can turn the page to the next cut-scenes
 
That's pretty much the only reason for playing WC. ;) If there weren't cutscenes with a good storyline (eg Academy), I wouldn't try to play it so often.

[Just realised this is a pretty good subject considering it's a 'versus' thread of sorts.]
 
I find older games, classics like WC1, Ultima 7, Ultima Underworld, etc., much better than the games of today, despite the enormous difference in graphics and 3D effects. The old games had greater, more interesting storylines. Games without captivating plots don't hold my interest for long, and I find that many of the newer, flashier games lack such intricate backgrounds to them.
 
Older games are unique and fun. In 1990 three guys could get together and make whatever sort of game they wanted, and they'd be happy to sell X-thousands of units to hobbyists.

Now-adays producing a game requires a major company spending two million dollars to pay a hundred people to rip off whatever the last succesful game was... which is why every game in the last five years has been a ripoff of Quake.
 
The problem with the old computer games is that we only remember the good ones. The really crappy ones we just forget. :)
Looking back the past always seems better then the pressent.
 
I agree cutscences is what makes WC great! I just thought of anouther reason I like the older games because there ideas were new and exciting. Like what LOAF said new games are just rip offs of older games.
 
I think Half Life is the best evidence that gaming today is stupid. It's hailed as the greatest game in the history of the univerese because of its amazing story: the story is that evil aliens from another dimension are attacking you for some reason.
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
I think Half Life is the best evidence that gaming today is stupid. It's hailed as the greatest game in the history of the univerese because of its amazing story: the story is that evil aliens from another dimension are attacking you for some reason.
I don't have the vocabulary to properly 'Bah!' at those hailings. Medication: Planescape Torment.
 
Originally posted by Filler
hmm... I thought people bought half life for counterstrike.

Once upon a time, there was no Counter-Strike, as difficult as that may be to believe.
:p

Seriously, I don't care much for Counter-Strike, myself. I'd much rather go with Rainbow 6 for my 'realistic' fps games. And when I don't want the realism, I prefer more action oriented fps games, such as Shogo (ancient by video game standards, but I still like it) or AvP2.

I enjoy classics, and recognize that some of the older games are better than some of the newer ones, but at the same time, there are generally new games coming out that I enjoy, as well. I found Torment to be better than even the older Ultima games, and its entirely possible (although difficult to believe) that Neverwinter Nights will manage to usurp Torment's place in my memory.
While new games are better from a technology standpoint, what makes a classic a classic has only partly to do with the technology. Its a combination of technology, setting, gameplay, and competition, with technology probably being the least important of the four (it'll only attract the initial adherents - five years from now, no one will care about the graphics, or any of the other technical aspects). Setting is important because it helps make the game more immersive, and gives players something to remember. Gameplay is important because without it, the game simply isn't fun, and competition is important because a lack of it can help make a game even better. As an example, Star Raiders doesn't have a leg to stand on when compared to every space combat sim since then, and the story was almost non-existant (defend a sector of space against the evil Zylon Empire), but I'd still love to sit down and play a game if given the opportunity. Someday, someone's going to make a Star Raiders 3000, and I'll be right there on the first day its available, waiting in the checkout line with game in hand.
 
I find older games to be a lot better too. (Which seems to be the general flow so far.) If only because....hell, it's hard to explain but I just seem to have gotten into older games more. They have a hell of a lot better replay value, and tend to grab your attention with the plot more.

Although things like, if Freelancer WAS to come out, and Neverwinter Nights are amazing innovations, the idea behind them has been around for a long time-just not really able to be produced. Newer games can be really cool, Grand Theft Auto 3's pretty bad ass!, but I still think that older games maintain superiority over newer ones.
 
Wow, It's really interesting that the majority of posts here coincide with my beliefs. Games today are almost too realistic. They concentrate more on graphics than on gameplay and storyline. One of my roomates has all of the quakes and their add-ons and I've played them across the network against other people (which is really the only way to play 1st person shooters now a days) and it's fun but it's still just not the same. (someone with better networking skills than I have could try to get a network through the CIC to play WC armada on !!! ;) ) I used to own the old SNES and NES, but now I have the emulators for both + the Genesis and it seems that I enjoy playing all those old games like Madden 94, tecmo Super Bowl, and Chrono Trigger much more than I like playing the NFL2K2's and Final Fantasy umpteen that have just come out. I hate to say it, but it's a sign of getting old. You cling to what you grew up with :) .

C-ya
 
Originally posted by Bandit LOAF
Older games are unique and fun. In 1990 three guys could get together and make whatever sort of game they wanted, and they'd be happy to sell X-thousands of units to hobbyists.

Now-adays producing a game requires a major company spending two million dollars to pay a hundred people to rip off whatever the last succesful game was... which is why every game in the last five years has been a ripoff of Quake.

This is very true. I think ID software licensed the Quake series engines several times over! But of course, that has been the name of the game since the days of Wolf 3D. There are tons of games that were rips from that game, such as Blake Stone, Corridor 7, ROTT.

Then we get into the DOOM engine. That engine was used in Heretic, Duke 3D, Hexen, and quite a few others. Ol Ken Silverman did good with his engine!

RFB
The Anomalies Network TEM forum moderator
 
In the early 1990s I wasn't even close to being a computer gamer (besides the PC games snuck into computer class), so I'd have to say that gaming was in its heyday during the reign of the greatest console system of all time- the Super Nintendo Entertainment System :cool:
 
UT is excellent! I am somewhat surprised to see the new Jedi Knight II Jedi Outcast game using the Quake 3 engine!!!

RFB
The Anomalies Network TEM forum moderator
 
Back
Top