|
| Thread: New-gen haters?! |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Cepheus
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
|
posted December 14, 2008 11:43 PM |
|
|
81 through 92 and then 2001, but point taken.
Technically, same for Final Fantasy.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 14, 2008 11:51 PM |
|
|
@Asheera: that's called being stubborn or spoiled brat, see my previous point with stereo thing. Not sure what's unclear. It's called expectation. Learn to avoid the expectations and desires and it'll be like it was. Not my fault you don't want, that's like playing WoW and refusing to play anything else (and when playing something else, you keep telling yourself that it sucks, so regardless if it's good or not, it'll still suck to YOU) 
Quote:
It still changes, wtf. You think they would honestly keep the same gameplay if the original game was released 20 years ago? I seriously doubt that.
WTF are you talking about? 
You have a coin of gold. You put it somewhere in your storage room, and wait 20 years. DO YOU THINK IT FREAKING CHANGED?
same with gameplay lol. The game is the SAME.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 12:45 AM |
|
|
Quote:
WTF are you talking about?
You have a coin of gold. You put it somewhere in your storage room, and wait 20 years. DO YOU THINK IT FREAKING CHANGED?
same with gameplay lol. The game is the SAME.
Again, you use examples that just don't even apply to this. Gameplay changes over time. Now could we get back to the topic?
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Mamgaeater
Legendary Hero
Shroud, Flying, Trample, Haste
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 01:04 AM |
|
|
I think we need some more communication...
William are you talking about a remake 20 years later or playing the game 20 years later?
Same question to you deathy...
____________
Protection From Everything.
dota
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 01:07 AM |
|
|
I'm talking about a remake of the game. Of course the gameplay is still the same if it's the same game just played in the future sometime. Nothing changes from that. A remake does change the gameplay, though. 
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Geny
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 10:07 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Of course the gameplay is still the same if it's the same game just played in the future sometime.
And that's exactly what TheDeath was talking about. Word for word. Games that were good once are still good now. That's all. No need to over complicate things.
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 11:11 AM |
|
|
I;'m talking about if the game was remade then it would be different. I'm not over complicating anything. There seems to be some miscommunication on what we are actually talking about. Me and TheDeath seem to be talking about tow different things here.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 02:30 PM |
|
|
I think you two speak on a different language or something
Death was talking about the same game being played 20 years later, while you were talking about a remake of the old game 20 years later.
____________
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 02:31 PM |
|
|
Ummm, Asheera, I have already said that. lol
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 03:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm talking about a remake of the game.
Well I didn't, so you went off
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 03:26 PM |
|
|
Ok, back on topic. (And "you" is in general in this post, I'm not addressing anyone in particular )
First of all I have to say that it is true that some sequels are worse than the original. And this is because some aren't in the same 'spirit' as the original game. An example for me is Spellforce. I loved SF 1, but hated SF 2, because it's more Warcraft-like (fast paced, etc)
As you can see, it doesn't have anything to do with how old the game is, just that the sequel didn't appeal to me (others probably liked it). Since Spellforce 1 is newer than Warcraft 3, but older than Spellforce 2, you can't say I love it because it's old/new, it simply doesn't make sense (since I don't like neither Warcraft 3 nor SF 2 much) since it's in between the other two.
Secondly, if we compare the very old games with the new ones, you'll see that the oldies are actually not better at all (in general, of course there are exceptions like SF 2, but these are also preferences, since some people probably liked SF 2 more than 1).
Sure, you had great time playing those old games back then, but that's probably because it was one of the first games you played. It doesn't matter if it had a certain charming impact on you (probably because you were also a kid) it doesn't make it better than the new ones because of this. You can't say, for example, that Pacman/Tetris is the best game because it probably was the most played. Today, the new games are played a lot more than Pacman/Tetris (I'm talking on the PC and not on the Mobile Phone, obviously). Sure, they still don't beat how much was Pacman played in the old days, but that's because back then there were no better games to be played.
What have the oldies better? Graphics? Nope. Sound & Music? Nope. Gameplay? Why is it better? To shoot a number of enemies and go to the next level (Contra) is better than the complexity of a RPG/RTS? Nope, it's just that you enjoyed it a lot back then because it had a certain charm, because there were no better games available, and because it was one of the first games you ever played.
The irony is that while those new-gen whiners bash the new games, they don't play much the oldies themselves. In fact, few people play the oldies a lot of time (by oldies I mean NES games, etc). The new games are played a lot more than the oldies are, so why bash them? Because you liked the oldies more at their time? That's my whole point: they may have been better at their time because you didn't have any better games to play and because they were first (see my first post in this thread with what I mean here), but the fact that the oldies are not played that much anymore means that the new games are actually better. Don't you see? You can't compare the satisfaction the new games give you now with the satisfaction the old games gave you back then. You can compare only in the same timeline, that means what satisfaction give you the old games now compared to the new games. Of course the oldies were better at their time, the new games didn't even exist!. But now, when both exist, we can see who is better.
And btw (addressing the first post), never pay much attention to those bashers: most of them didn't even play the game, I'm telling you. They just don't like one of the features in the game (that was made publicily) and immediately say: "IT SUCKS!!!" without even playing the game themselves. This applies only to sequels though, and not new games based on a different universe, etc.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 03:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As you can see, it doesn't have anything to do with how old the game is, just that the sequel didn't appeal to me (others probably liked it). Since Spellforce 1 is newer than Warcraft 3, but older than Spellforce 2, you can't say I love it because it's old/new, it simply doesn't make sense (since I don't like neither Warcraft 3 nor SF 2 much) since it's in between the other two.
Uh, SF2 was simpler in general, in mechanics and such... so yeah
Quote:
Sure, you had great time playing those old games back then, but that's probably because it was one of the first games you played.
nope.
Quote:
You can't say, for example, that Pacman/Tetris is the best game because it probably was the most played. Today, the new games are played a lot more than Pacman/Tetris (I'm talking on the PC and not on the Mobile Phone, obviously).
Nope. How much you play a game, and how addictive it is, are two different things. Some people occasionally still play pacman, but overlook most "individual" new games, unless of course you mean many-vs-1 (i.e all new games vs pacman, which is just 1 game).
Quote:
Gameplay? Why is it better? To shoot a number of enemies and go to the next level (Contra) is better than the complexity of a RPG/RTS? Nope, it's just that you enjoyed it a lot back then because it had a certain charm, because there were no better games available, and because it was one of the first games you ever played.
You're off the point. What you're talking about is genre. Contra is action/shooter. Of course, gameplay is better in Serious Sam than Contra, for example, since it's in 3D... and it is a good game (Serious Sam). But it isn't because of graphics.
Gothic? Very good game. It is 3D, so gameplay is in a different adventuring dimension.
Quote:
The irony is that while those new-gen whiners bash the new games, they don't play much the oldies themselves.
Ash, I suggest you stop taking examples from you and get to know more people. Because I think you're talking out of your ***
I am not very fond of oldies myself although i do like them. However I hate new gen even more. Games I play are around 1998-2004 period. Very wonderful and don't "rust". What's so hard to get?
Gameplay is affected by 3D, I don't disagree. What it isn't affected by, however, is detailed textures, higher poly counts, and all other ****.
And that's what new gen has compared to previous games. Games had 3D for a long time now. New Gen aren't that appealing and in fact sometimes WORSE since they have the same development time, but with more graphics, which usually means worse gameplay -- I said USUALLY.
Yeah, big impact difference is between a 2D and 3D shooter. No difference between a low-res-texture shooter and a high-res-texture shooter, in terms of gameplay. And as much as I know, the 3D transition happened a lot of time ago.
But even if so, that only applies to shooters. Starcraft is still a very good strategy game, for example, and it's 2D. 2D is simply cool when the game is artistically made in a manner to catch you into gameplay.
The thing is, if people focus on aspect X rather than Y, then it's bound to be different and have less Y. If Y is gameplay, and X is graphics, that's why new games suck, because they are focused on graphics and are much more expensive to create than a Pacman game, even back then!
That's the thing with oldies: you can't compare a simple oldie to a new game, because even BACK THEN it required much less time/expense/etc. Or games that focus on gameplay more than graphics but take the same time to develop. Pacman is still played when you're bored. Just because you play a game doesn't mean it's addictive or very funny or cool or whatever. People also play to finish games.
Tetris is still a good game though, especially for people who don't have time for something else. And trust me, just because you play a game a lot doesn't mean it's fun all the time, some even annoy you in certain situations.
But if you think texture details and all the new gen crap increases gameplay, then I have nothing to discuss with you anymore.
Quote:
most of them didn't even play the game, I'm telling you. They just don't like one of the features in the game (that was made publicily) and immediately say: "IT SUCKS!!!" without even playing the game themselves. This applies only to sequels though, and not new games based on a different universe, etc.
And? Don't tell me you played all games in existence, both old and new (as you speak about them) because if you didn't, by your logic, we shouldn't pay much attention to your post either.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 03:46 PM |
|
Edited by william at 15:47, 15 Dec 2008.
|
Quote:
What have the oldies better? Graphics? Nope. Sound & Music? Nope. Gameplay? Why is it better? To shoot a number of enemies and go to the next level (Contra) is better than the complexity of a RPG/RTS? Nope, it's just that you enjoyed it a lot back then because it had a certain charm, because there were no better games available, and because it was one of the first games you ever played.
How many old games have you played? None? It sure seems like it. And you think that is all you did back in those days right? Homm2 is an old game, do you think that is bad? The gameplay is better than some of the later HOMM games. One of my favourite games, Crusader: No Remorse has awesome music and it's graphics are awesome. Don't base your opinions on the very little amount you may have seen or actually played. Because you ALWAYS seem to do that. You're used to playing the new games, whereas others like me have played both new and old. I like both new and old for different reasons. It's just like you and the whole Linux discussion. Therefore, your opinions on this subject of old games matters very little to me. I think i know for a fact that TheDeath may have played some old games and at least his views are at least a little bit better IMO since he actually has played a lot to base a normal opinion.
Thank you.
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 03:46 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 15:47, 15 Dec 2008.
|
Who said anything about how long a game takes? It's irrelevant in this topic, it's only about how good a game is. If it takes 10 years and it's twice as good as one who takes 1 year, then it's better, at least for what this thread is about.
And yeah, I don't have anything to discuss with you anymore, if you think that better graphics don't make a game better in the slightest, even if the gameplay stays the same.
The point I'm making is that, let's consider two games A and B, identical in gameplay, but B has better graphics.
If you don't consider B better than A then I don't have anything to discuss with you anymore. Quote:
And? Don't tell me you played all games in existence, both old and new (as you speak about them) because if you didn't, by your logic, we shouldn't pay much attention to your post either.
No, I'm not bashing anything. How about those that did not play a game don't criticize it? That was my point, your quote makes no sense whatsoever.
@William: I have played over 150 NES games in my life, thanks for judging me blindly.
____________
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 03:49 PM |
|
|
NES games didn't have much variety back then, as was the same as many other systems. Little difference in most of the games, however, there were a few ones that did stand out, but hardly any. I'm more talking about Computer games which you seem to bash too much (the olden ones that is).
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 03:50 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What have the oldies better? Graphics? Nope. Sound & Music? Nope. Gameplay? Why is it better? To shoot a number of enemies and go to the next level (Contra) is better than the complexity of a RPG/RTS? Nope, it's just that you enjoyed it a lot back then because it had a certain charm, because there were no better games available, and because it was one of the first games you ever played.
Graphics? Depends, some 2D graphics are beyond awesome. 3D, not so much.
Sound&Music? Better by miles. Why? Because sounds were the thing they used their effort in that time instead of graphics. And modern games tend to discard music as something comepltely unimportant which is a shame because music is one of the most important parts of creating the atmosphere.
Gameplay? Usually yes, there are exceptions at both sides. UT2004 gameplay is brilliant, for example.
You're comparing action and RPG/RTS? Is there even a point to that? Of course action has better gameplay, D'uh! The whole game is based on gameplay...
But let's compare RPG, NWN and Final Fantasy. Which one wins? FF hands down. That was a little unfair since NWN has the worst gameplay in all RPGs perhaps. So let's take another, how about um...I'm having hard time here finding a modern party based RPG, help me out a little will ya people?
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
william
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
LummoxLewis
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 03:51 PM |
|
|
Great post JoonasTo. 
____________
~Ticking away the moments that
make up a dull day, Fritter and
waste the hours in an off-hand
way~
|
|
JoonasTo
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
What if Elvin was female?
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 03:53 PM |
|
|
So you post to say great post but don't tell me one modern party based RPG?
Great going will!
____________
DON'T BE A NOOB, JOIN A.D.V.E.N.T.U.R.E.
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 03:55 PM |
|
Edited by Asheera at 15:57, 15 Dec 2008.
|
@William: I'm bashing? I respect the old games, I know they were great for their time. I thought the whole point of this thread is for those like you who bash new games, and not the opposite.
@Joonas: NWN has the worst gameplay in all RPGs? The campaign may have been lousy but that has no relevance with the gameplay whatsoever, since the game can be excellent when played on a quality module.
How many games (non MMOs) have a patch released after six years, and the fans are still extremely enthusiastic about it? Apart from NWN I don't know of such a game.
But I guess tastes differ, and if you think NWN has the worst gameplay then there's really no point in arguing about this anymore.
EDIT: And actually not just a patch, more like an expansion  since the 1.69 patch is HUGE in the number of features comparable to that of an expansion, if not more, except the lack of campaigns.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 15, 2008 03:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The point I'm making is that, let's consider two games A and B, identical in gameplay, but B has better graphics.
If you don't consider B better than A then I don't have anything to discuss with you anymore.
Nope, it will be the same. Maybe awesome at first... but wasn't that your point, that oldies were only good "at first" back then? Well graphics are only good "at first" too. So yeah they are the same.
and frankly speaking, I don't even find high-polys these days or detailed textures at all improving even the coolness factor. So why do you judge the guys who "hate new gen" when they say that? Do you envy their opinions that in fact, are 100% truth, unlike the guys who can "discern stereo but have no idea it's actually mono, as long as they EXPECT it to be stereo (like it says somewhere on the box, etc..)".
Yep, I don't really hold much faith for those type of guys who can also "discern detail" and "makes it a lot better", they are either forcing themselves that way (like xerox does with WoW even if he plays something that is more enjoyable) or lying to themselves.
Quote:
@William: I have played over 150 NES games in my life, thanks for judging me blindly.
And xerox has played many games (or so he claims, let's believe it's true) but still says WoW roxxor. What's your point?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
