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.
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.