It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Retrophelia(89 posts)(89 posts)
(89 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted November 17, 2008
Ah the good ol' days... or not.
This has been argued before but it hasn't had its own topic yet so I'll bring it up here. That's right I'm calling shenanigans on all you deviant retrophiles.
As much as I love the idea of GOG I can't help but take with a grain of salt all the 5 star reviews I see on practically 90% of the games in the catalogue. I'm sure we all have our own nostalgia for classic games, but that perhaps is what may be clouding our objective criticism. Which isn't a big deal in itself since we're just gamers and not professional critics, but when people start bashing on the state of the gaming industry today it just irks me a little.
I think the quality of modern games are as great as ever if not better. When we think back about retro games, we only tend to remember the great games and not all that other crap that everyone likes to pretend never happened because back then every single game was perfect. Right?
On the other hand there are many EXCELLENT titles that were released in recent times. But for one reason or another these games haven't been discovered or fully appreciated yet. Or probably never will be and just fade away into obscurity as a cult classic. Then a few years down the road, we'll all say "Ah what about the good old days during the early 2000s... that was when all the best games were made."
There are some retro games that will forever be classic and timeless. But then there were also those that were just good games that if you go back and play with honest perspective, you have to agree that there were limitations and flaws which warranted remedy.
Modern games have been building upon earlier ideas to streamline and improve tried and true game formulas. Sometimes for the better, sometimes they completely fuck it up. But either way you'll have some people who won't be happy.
For the most part though, I'm still enjoying videogames more than ever. My tastes are always changing but I believe if you want to have the most fun, you just have to chill and have an open mind. Evolution is inevitable. Have an open mind to all the changes that are being implemented. Good ideas will live on and bad ones will never be spoken of again.
So every time someone says "Oh games today only care about gr@FHIcsssXZZ not enough about gaymePLAYsssZZZ" I'll have to murder them. Seriously, because you're old and need to die. It's really the merciful thing to do.
Posted November 17, 2008
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NostalgiaFilter
Mostly I do agree with you. Although with two caveats that the stuff you see on this site will be skewed since it is a PC gaming site and people lust for the days when the platform wasn't in the crapper,and secondly modern "big name" games do have newer, tastier problems which were less prevalent in ye olde days, usually side effects of having development teams the size of an army.
But yes, for every few trugid, generic shooters that get turned out,somebody makes something with a genuine spark of genius, such as Portal,World of Goo, LBP. It doesn't help to demonize "games these days" as graphic-driven crap. After all,people said the same thing when Quake came out.
Posted November 17, 2008
avatar
DavyRam: LBP.

you mean, garrys mod?
Posted November 17, 2008
avatar
fuNGoo: On the other hand there are many EXCELLENT titles that were released in recent times. But for one reason or another these games haven't been discovered or fully appreciated yet. Or probably never will be and just fade away into obscurity as a cult classic. Then a few years down the road, we'll all say "Ah what about the good old days during the early 2000s... that was when all the best games were made."
So every time someone says "Oh games today only care about gr@FHIcsssXZZ not enough about gaymePLAYsssZZZ" I'll have to murder them. Seriously, because you're old and need to die. It's really the merciful thing to do.

Really, like Leisure suit Larry or Spore which was horrifically bad? Oh yes we have soundly thrashed the good old games haven't we with todays efforts. MTV Celebrity Deathmatch or American McGee:Bad day LA haven't done much either.
You obviously planted this thread so a comeback with a pre-prepared staement to prove anyone willing to go against your thoughts are soundly thrashed but I give you this thought; if we have progresed so much why is there bad games at all these days?
There always have been brilliant games and today has it's own share of them but also a share of the most horrific and ridiculous games ever and with the amount of shit poured out of the pot for the Playstation I can only assume you don't get out much to see what's on offer there.
If you look at it on a fair and balanced scale such as comparing computer games on a percentage, ten years ago there were many, many more gems out there compared to today.
One in ten maybe were good, good games now today with the Playstation and the Wii's, DS's and the X-boxes the amount of crap churned out is phenomenal. I beg to differ with your assumption and suggest you look at it a little more objectively.
We have more to choose from, maybe, but the classics are harder to come by and also you need to bear in mind that we have progressed in terms of abilities with our computers but have leaped in terms of cost and would argue that the older games give us a slightly better chance of a old game working with our old kit as we cannot aford to pay for newer kit to play the newest games.
Post edited November 17, 2008 by Clagg
Posted November 17, 2008
Heh, I wish it was nostalgia. Doesn't work like that, not when "back in the day" would mean "2-3 years ago".
An unusually high average rating for GOG would make sense, obviously they'd want to get the games that are considered classics on the site, because they are actually good.
As for the "evolution is inevitable" thing - I would hope so, but that's not what I'm seeing, unfortunately. Progress has slowed down, or possibly even reversed, unless you look at solely the technical/graphical side of things.
And that's about as far I can go while remaining as generic as the opening post was, I think.
Posted November 17, 2008
low rated
avatar
Clagg: You obviously planted this thread so a comeback with a pre-prepared staement to prove anyone willing to go against your thoughts are soundly thrashed but I give you this thought; if we have progresed so much why is there bad games at all these days?

C'mon Clagg... I have no interest in thrashing people. Well, maybe you... but just physically. I have no interest in deconstructing your irrational delusions. There are bad games because there are bad people and good games because of good people. Like you and me. Just kidding... enough personal attacks.
Seriously though, I'm just here to discuss why people are so resistant to new ideas and change. And so far, you're serving as a pretty ideal poster boy of the people who spew your nonsensical mentality.
avatar
Clagg: There always have been brilliant games and today has it's own share of them but also a share of the most horrific and ridiculous games ever and with the amount of shit poured out of the pot for the Playstation I can only assume you don't get out much to see what's on offer there.

What are you trying to say here? Focus, man. In that single "sentence" you managed to:
1) Concede to my previous statement that yes there have been and will continue to be great games.
2) Confirm what I said earlier that not all games today nor in the past have been infallible.
And (drum roll please) .......
3) With a cherry on top, managed to top it off with an insult implying that I never leave my dank dark little room to see what the outside world looks like.
Well at least you got the last one right. It's been awhile since I've had fresh air and real deep meaningful human interaction. But you forget I spend all my time alone playing enough videogames to justify my statements.
avatar
Clagg: If you look at it on a fair and balanced scale such as comparing computer games on a percentage, ten years ago there were many, many more gems out there compared to today.
One in ten maybe were good, good games now today with the Playstation and the Wii's, DS's and the X-boxes the amount of crap churned out is phenomenal. I beg to differ with your assumption and suggest you look at it a little more objectively.

Probably true. But what exactly do we mean by "gems"? Innovative titles with revolutionary ideas? If so, then realistically there are only so many original ideas out there. Well, ideas that are worth the effort to make into a game anyway. You do understand, it takes a lot of dedication to finishing a project right? These days, in big budget titles that costs millions and a large group of people to produce, you don't want to gamble on an idea that won't bank.
Back in the day everything was on a much smaller scale. Less people, less workload, smaller budgets, lower production values, etc. If you want to play games like that, the indie developers scene is thriving with a community that serves that niche. If you don't like commercial games, don't bash them, there are many people who enjoy them. I can appreciate slick big budget titles along with quirkier indie projects.
Or perhaps by "gem" you mean a very well made polished game? Well, that's going to take years of refinement and experimentation before an iteration gets produced that is deemed revolutionary and genius. And when it does, that's how commercial games are born. You just can't avoid it.
Take "Portal" for example. It started out as a school project "Narbacular Drop" and when Valve saw the creativity behind the team, funded them to do a commercial version of it. I can honestly say that "Portal" is definitely superior.
avatar
Clagg: We have more to choose from, maybe, but the classics are harder to come by and also you need to bear in mind that we have progressed in terms of abilities with our computers but have leaped in terms of cost and would argue that the older games give us a slightly better chance of a old game working with our old kit as we cannot aford to pay for newer kit to play the newest games.

And this last point of yours is simply an insecurity with the size of your e-penis. Which I won't judge people for. Like I've said before gaming is an expensive hobby. If you want to stay state-of-the-art, you'll have to pony up cash for the appropriate hardware. Personally I've had enough of sinking thousands into a new rig that won't offer me any more significantly enjoyable experience. But you gotta admit, Crysis sure is purty.
If you're smart, you can learn to avoid the hype and just stagger your purchases of games by a year or two. Ensuring you a smoother technical experience for a much more affordable price. But sometimes I just like to get into the hype, that's half the fun.
It seems that people who hate on the current generation of videogames are just suffering from a case of the fox and the sour grapes. At least be honest about it. I know I'm self righteous but bring it on, bitches!!!
EDIT: For readability.
Post edited November 17, 2008 by fuNGoo
Posted November 17, 2008
While I do agree that a lot of people are viewing quite a few of the games on GOG through the lenses of nostalgia, a lot of the games' core gameplay is strong enough that they hold up to this day.
While newer games probably are better overall (they, of course, have the advantage of taking the best elements of all the games that have come before them) a lot of the old classics still have terrific gameplay that will last for many years to come.
Post edited November 17, 2008 by Froghourt
Posted November 17, 2008
Sorry if I double post but I'm just in such a responsive mood.
avatar
pkt-zer0: Heh, I wish it was nostalgia. Doesn't work like that, not when "back in the day" would mean "2-3 years ago".

My point exactly. Since only 2 or 3 years ago games are still what you consider great, not due to nostalgia, the industry is still progressing creatively. Right? Three years is way too short of a period to say that progress has stagnated.
avatar
pkt-zer0: An unusually high average rating for GOG would make sense, obviously they'd want to get the games that are considered classics on the site, because they are actually good.

I'm talking about reviews of games already on sale, not the wishlist. Not all games for sale on GOG were necessarily that good even back when they launched. I'm just being realistic here.
avatar
pkt-zer0: As for the "evolution is inevitable" thing - I would hope so, but that's not what I'm seeing, unfortunately. Progress has slowed down, or possibly even reversed, unless you look at solely the technical/graphical side of things.

See? That's what I don't get. First person shooters for example, have evolved so much beyond the days of Wolfenstein 3-D. There's so much variety in genres, game modes, mechanics, and features. All mixed up in so many different varieties, I can't imagine how people could say there's no progress. Developers borrow or "steal" ideas from each other all the time. They make small modifications here and there. The ones that work live on.
Take for example Halo. Like it or not, it must've done something right and continues to pass on it's successful features. For example, regenerating health is the hip new fad these days. But like other games many of its ideas were "inspired" by other games as well. I won't name names, but it rhymes with "run wheel ornament".
So it's like saying human evolution has stopped because my children don't have extra limbs or extra sensory perception abilities. You won't necessarily see it happening unless you go back and look for the changes. I think you miss the whole point of evolution all together.
Posted November 17, 2008
avatar
fuNGoo: Sorry if I double post but I'm just in such a responsive mood.
avatar
pkt-zer0: Heh, I wish it was nostalgia. Doesn't work like that, not when "back in the day" would mean "2-3 years ago".

My point exactly. Since only 2 or 3 years ago games are still what you consider great, not due to nostalgia, the industry is still progressing creatively. Right? Three years is way too short of a period to say that progress has stagnated.
avatar
pkt-zer0: An unusually high average rating for GOG would make sense, obviously they'd want to get the games that are considered classics on the site, because they are actually good.

I'm talking about reviews of games already on sale, not the wishlist. Not all games for sale on GOG were necessarily that good even back when they launched. I'm just being realistic here.
avatar
pkt-zer0: As for the "evolution is inevitable" thing - I would hope so, but that's not what I'm seeing, unfortunately. Progress has slowed down, or possibly even reversed, unless you look at solely the technical/graphical side of things.

See? That's what I don't get. First person shooters for example, have evolved so much beyond the days of Wolfenstein 3-D. There's so much variety in genres, game modes, mechanics, and features. All mixed up in so many different varieties, I can't imagine how people could say there's no progress. Developers borrow or "steal" ideas from each other all the time. They make small modifications here and there. The ones that work live on.
Take for example Halo. Like it or not, it must've done something right and continues to pass on it's successful features. For example, regenerating health is the hip new fad these days. But like other games many of its ideas were "inspired" by other games as well. I won't name names, but it rhymes with "run wheel ornament".
So it's like saying human evolution has stopped because my children don't have extra limbs or extra sensory perception abilities. You won't necessarily see it happening unless you go back and look for the changes. I think you miss the whole point of evolution all together.

You're definitely right about the FPS stuff, it's what I do for work. Right now I'm working on something that isn't an evolution but a revolution in gameplay. Hope it all comes together right in the end.
Posted November 17, 2008
avatar
fuNGoo: My point exactly. Since only 2 or 3 years ago games are still what you consider great, not due to nostalgia, the industry is still progressing creatively. Right?

I did not actually mean games made 2 or 3 years ago, but older games I've only played relatively recently, and yet have seen people claim the only reason I was enjoying them is having a pair of nostalgia goggles on.
avatar
fuNGoo: I'm talking about reviews of games already on sale, not the wishlist. Not all games for sale on GOG were necessarily that good even back when they launched. I'm just being realistic here.

It'd be nice if you were a bit more specific. There's not much of substance to argue otherwise. The best I could say now is "Yes, some games are overrated. No, some others are not.", which is, well, not much.
avatar
fuNGoo: Take for example Halo.

Then Halo shall be the example. Would you say the amount of progress made between Doom 2 and Halo is the same as Halo and Crysis? I wouldn't. (Though this might be a fairly weak comparison, considering that the games are wildly different, but I think there's a valid point somewhere down at the core of it all.)
It's not only the lack of progress I'm bothered by, it's the lack of diversity as well. More precisely, the turn towards homogenization, and less people pursuing more interesting ideas. If you want an example from FPS games: System Shock 2 has yet to receive a spiritual sequel that's not a watered-down version of itself.
Posted November 17, 2008
More games are made. Therefore, more crappy games are made. They will be forgotten soon. Good games are comming out too - sadly, not so much original ones. It was much easier to come up with something original 15 years ago...
After 10 years, many people will say "10 years ago, games were great - not like these titles", it's just a human nature...
Conclusion? I agree with fuNGoo, more or less! :D
Posted November 18, 2008
avatar
pkt-zer0: It'd be nice if you were a bit more specific. There's not much of substance to argue otherwise. The best I could say now is "Yes, some games are overrated. No, some others are not.", which is, well, not much.

Games not so great on GOG? Well I can only comment on the games I've purchased. "Shogo" for example, had mostly positive raving reviews except for my own and one other person if I recall correctly. I thought it was a very below average if not downright terrible game. You can read my opinion of the game on its review page if you care to read about what I thought.
But I'm not even saying all the games are bad, some are just merely bland or mediocre. Redneck Rampage which I purchased on a whim while under the influence of certain substances. But when I regained my reasoning abilities, I came to a decent lackluster shooter that offers gameplay no better than any FPS on the market today. But I'll still give advantage to a current gen equivalent like "Painkiller" because of improved mechanics and other technical superiorities.
avatar
pkt-zer0: Then Halo shall be the example. Would you say the amount of progress made between Doom 2 and Halo is the same as Halo and Crysis? I wouldn't. (Though this might be a fairly weak comparison, considering that the games are wildly different, but I think there's a valid point somewhere down at the core of it all.)

So you're saying that progress has slowed down. Less new innovation is being done in the same amount of time. And yes you are right in saying that those games are completely different. The people who made them had very differing philosophies into what kind of they game they wanted to make. But I'll still bite on what you're trying to say. However I would still have to disagree with your reasoning.
It's like weight lifting. When you first start out you seem to gain muscles at a very fast rate. But the longer you weight lift, the more you have work in order to see results. There comes a point where you reach your physical limit unless you happen actually find a way to change your DNA that allows you to be something transhuman. Which videogames most definitely have the ability to transcend their genre. A first person shooter can become more than just a shooter. Like Fallout 3 which essentially turned the FPS genre into shooter with stat tracking and RPG elements. But back to your example of the progression of videogames between Halo and Crysis. There's only so much you can do to refine the shooter genre before you run out of new things to add and still have it be in the same genre.
avatar
pkt-zer0: It's not only the lack of progress I'm bothered by, it's the lack of diversity as well. More precisely, the turn towards homogenization, and less people pursuing more interesting ideas. If you want an example from FPS games: System Shock 2 has yet to receive a spiritual sequel that's not a watered-down version of itself.

The lack of diversity is not completely true. You could say that the 8-bit/16-bit era lacked diversity because of the prevalence of sidescrollers and top down shooters. For quite a while after Doom came out, any FPS that came out was simply known as a Doom clone. So you see the lack of diversity is not a problem exclusive to modern day. Games like System Shock were simply the rare few that tried something new.
During the good old days, the rate of innovation was just as slow as today. Think of the last game that you truly thought was innovative. Now go back and think of the next one before that. Problem is, you won't be able to go back very far before you reach the genesis of videogames. Gaming just hasn't been around long enough for you to assess the "proper" rate at which innovation should play out.
A lot of people are getting the idea that I just don't appreciate retro games. Which is not true at all. There are some classics that I think were perfect as they were. To name a few: Super Mario Bros. 3, Duke Nukem 3D, Half-life 1, Space Invaders, Street Fighter II, and so many more that I won't list here for the sake of brevity. My whole point is that I don't understand why people can't have fun playing new games anymore. On the other hand, I LOVE retro games for what they were, but still think games are only getting better.
Instead just broad general baseless claims that games aren't focused on gameplay anymore I want to hear people cite specific examples. Most likely the case is just that you have specific problems with certain elements in a few select games. And with so many games out there, it's pretty much impossible not to find something that you'll enjoy unless you just flat out refuse to do so.
Personally there are many games that disappointed me with how they turned out. Bioshock I felt was quite overrated. It was graphically interesting. But the shooting mechanics were very run-of-the-mill and the way that much of the story never unfolded before you was unsatisfying.
Then something like Valve's Orange Box comes along and shows me how much creativity and ingenuity is still out there in the gaming industry. Half-life episode 2 just kept upping the ante on its own story telling method. Team Fortress 2 is simply the best balanced and polished multiplayer class based shooter in existence thus far. Portal was a very unique and innovative little experiment in showing how you can have an immersive first person experience without firing a single bullet.
I can go on and on with all the greatness that exists today. I just don't know what to say. It still baffles me why people say that gaming is not interesting anymore.
Posted November 18, 2008
I did not like shogo, but then it's not really my game, not that it's a bad game, just not for me, you see.
Posted November 18, 2008
See, told you that you had pre-prepared responses for making a case for newer games being better but I can't help but feel that you love the sound of your own voice.
I can't be arsed to read the war and peace that you've rehearsed or cut and pasted from other websites, all I can say in response is that the newer games, as if 5 years is a step backwards, are different or infants of present games, some would even call them mothers of todays games such as Half Life, but the amount churned out these days is embarrasing and akin to throwing several hundred dice and hoping for a double six instead of the usual two.
Posted November 18, 2008
Some newer games ARE better!
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Retrophelia(89 posts)(89 posts)
(89 posts)