Dracomut1990: I agree there are plenty of old games that do what they did better than new games that tried to copy them, I just want respect for the new games that do unquestionably manage to trump the classics that came before them.
rjbuffchix: Okay...but I think it is far from "unquestionable" that the newer games are better and yes that includes all the games you listed in this topic. How do you go about proving "unquestionable"? One would think based on objective facts about the game and what it does/doesn't do. But when I tried to work with something objective like this, amount of freedom in the game, you went on to talk about how some people prefer less of it, shifting discussion to subjective.
Dracomut1990: Also what do you mean by "the game plays you" games? You mean like games that mess with the player like Undertale?
rjbuffchix: No, sorry. I mean really linear ones with next to no flexibility. It was just an expression.
Dracomut1990: I'm not too convinced. If they actually wanted to make limited access to their older content, they would try to shut down trading stores.
Many gamers both old and young have found a preference in physical media that digital media, for all its strengths, cannot provide... Now to be fair both Microsoft and Sony did try to do that, but they have since abandoned this.
rjbuffchix: So in other words, they did want to make limited access to their older content already. Maybe you have a more optimistic view of how these companies have seen the light and are now all about the consumer. I do not share such a view :)
Dracomut1990: Mainly because I don't want these posts to become freaking novels. I made this post as a joke, not to be a debate section... Which it has become much to my annoyance. Though rest assured I have taken these stats into account and weighed them.
rjbuffchix: You posted a 100 point list, but proving your claim would result in the post becoming a "novel"? Sorry, I don't buy that. You're the one making the claim, dude. It's not unreasonable to expect substantiation. I don't think the conversation would've dovetailed so much if it weren't for posting your "bad games list" out of nowhere. Just my opinion on that though.
Dracomut1990: One thing I do wish to propose to you though are taking into account "quality of life" improvements. This is where freedom has often be sacrificed, but generally to great success. As an example: Skyrim does not have anywhere near as much flexibility as Oblivion or especially Morrowind, but has ultimately become the most played gamed in the whole franchise thanks to the creators finding the right balance between giving the players freedom and simplifying things. Personally I think Oblivion is the better game thanks to it's larger amount of control, but I would lying if I said I enjoyed it more than the much more streamlined Skyrim. This is similar I'd say between Witcher 2 and 3... Though in that case I do think 3 is just plain better.
rjbuffchix: While that's a fair point, remember that one person's quality of life improvement is another person's detriment to the experience. There are many Elder Scrolls players who will tell you how the creators did not "find the right balance" with Skyrim, or even with Oblivion (compared to the earlier entries), for that matter. Also many quality of life improvements are quite different from the old ways, different enough that usually people will prefer one version strongly over the other.
Also, I'd like to thank you for the discussion. I am not trying to annoy you. I am just trying to show why these various factors would be relevant to consumers/readers.
Hey, I just wanted to briefly revive this discussion to give you something my uncle (a fellow gamer) said I found poignant after I mentioned this conversation with him:
"The best games tend to be the ones that can be enjoyed by someone who has never even played the genre"
