all the great games were on the older generation systems with the weaker graphics suikoden 1,2 (psx) dragon warrior 1-4 nes final fantasy 2-3 (snes) lunar (psx) lufia (snes) chrono trigger (snes) final fantasy 7-9 (psx) kings field 1-2 (psx) kings field 3 (ps2) tony hawk 1-3 (dreamcast/ps2/psx) mario 64 mario kart 64 goldeneye perfect dark i mean now a days everything is all graphics and horrid game play dont get me wrong alot of games on xbox 360 and ps3 are amazing but back when i grew up these were the games which made me say damn that was the best 60$ i ever spent and i still play those games as of today!
remember scorched earth 3d? one of the best pc games every made! eye of the beholder series commander keen doom and wolfenstien mortal kombat 1-2 killer instinct
Random tidbit: PSX was actually a console in Japan. IIRC games for the original Playstation were no more than $30-$40 new. Which is another thing I don't like about new games, we pay $60 and then more for DLC. I think they should only have games that have no plans for DLC be $60, the rest should be $50 or so, because people will be spending an extra $10 on DLC anyway. But you know how big companies are, money is money. Also another thing that a lot of games lack now is replay value. Because games were much more simple, you could continue to play them over and over. Games these days try so hard to be certain things that they miss key elements that made games so successful in the past.
My childhood games were mainly Pokemon, Zelda OoT & Windwaker, and Paper Mario Oh, who am I kidding? I still play them all now! :mrgreen:
Ah good times indeed. SNES mario kart. Nailing Rainbow Road on 150cc as Bowser without hitting the brakes, power sliding the whole course for 5 laps. I still play Pokemon now, I bought Black & White for me & my son. You're never too old for Pokemon. SNES Zelda, FF2,3,4 & Super Metroid are old favourites aswell. Kraids Boss music was great.
Sony lost money on the PS3 at first but I think they are past that by now due to the slim version. If companies can sell games with DLC for the standard price they will continue to do so. If nobody would buy them it might change (won't happen) BioWare for example is an ******* of a company in that regard, which is sad because they make quality stuff. They won't get any money from me though.
Yeah, I hate how companies do that. Activision is the hugest set of money grubbing whores I have ever seen. There's a new Call of Duty each year, having at least 2 map packs for 1200 each, and it's only 3-4 maps! Gears of War 2 had 16 maps AND an extended single player part for 800. Given, they were somewhat old, but you don't see Activision step up like that at all.
There is truth in this. Hell, some game characters have more polygons in their models than entire games did even a few years ago. I'm also pretty sure that Bullseye has more polygons than the entire Wii library of games combined. No hate, just truth.
Bear in mind that nostalgia is going to play a large part in ANY classic game. I look back with joy at my old N64 titles- WWF No Mercy, Goldeneye, Lylat Wars (That's Star Fox 64 to the rest of you.) But I can understand that many modern games are excellent. I'd find you hard pressed to find a TPS/RPG on the level of the Mass Effect series, and modern sim racers, like Forza 3 will run rings around classic sim racers, because tghe hardware just wasn't up to it. If I were to compare, say Mario Kart 64 with Mario Kart Wii, I would choose the latter time and time again. Better hardware can improve the gameplay massively. Another factor is the AI in modern games is incredible. If I were to compare the dumb-*** AI in Perfect Dark with that of Perfect Dark Zero, there'd be no contest. The other AI issue is that in old games, it cheats like a bitch, because it can't win naturally. Compare Mortal Kombat Trilogy (especially Jade) with Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe.
Really, it all comes down to nostalgia syndrome. Memories are naturally altered by time, and usually done in a way to make them more comfortable to your mind. It can also capture your feeling more than the actual objective product. For example, take the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon show. My generation was actually so caught up in that thing that they had a musical tour, 9 video games (according to a Wikipedia search, 9 unique games about this specific series), 3 movies (4 if you count the making of the music tour, which actually treated it like canon to the TMNT world instead of reality), and countless toys beyond the usual media hype. We thought it was spectacular. I actually took the time to watch that old stuff, and it's remarkably terrible. We were brought in by cool music, attractive imagery, and lots of action. Script and plot be damned, we didn't care. It's more difficult to understand this with video games though, because the technology of our time was extremely limited compared to what it is now. We didn't need fancy stuff because we had limited standards. Our standards are higher now with the increased capability, and I'm sure they'll increase even more in a couple decades considering the pace of motion-capture technology. Visuals can be forgiven from SNES upward, because that's the point when animation could be drawn at least to a similar level of cartoons (again, the TMNT looked very much like their television counterparts). Simply put, old gamers like us simply are incapable of truly re-evaluating our old stuff. If you really want an objective analysis on the quality of old games, introduce them to kids that are the same age now as when you most enjoyed it (make sure they're capable of accepting the lower technology level). If that's not possible, find someone with minimal exposure to that level of technology. I personally feel I can objectively review games on the SNES, Game Boy/Color/Advance, Genesis, and N64 because I had limited exposure to these things. I only had an NES, Atari 2600, and Commodore 64 until I bought my own GameCube (though I did receive a GBC with Pokemon Red). For example, I do not enjoy Super Mario World, even though everyone who had it during its prime time still loves it. I just can't get behind its physics, artistic design, and music. I can not say with complete objectivity that Doom is a good game because I played its shareware version plenty in my early teens. Leisure Suit Larry 6 is unaffected because I was incapable of grasping the true humor at 12. (Yes, my mother allowed me to play the voice-acted LSL6 at 12 and even gave me help when I was stuck.) tl;dr: They worked for you in your time, don't expect them to work for kids today. Get appropriate-age kids to try them and listen to that. Personally, I had a lot of fun with that old stuff, but I find there's plenty out now that still puts them to shame in overall quality. For a cinematic experience, we had games like Ninja Gaiden and Star Tropics. In my best attempt to be objective, comparing how I felt then to how I feel now, I probably get the same feeling to the more cinematic games of today. Point-and-click adventure games have an interesting thing with me. I was exposed to the NES Maniac Mansion as a kid, then only within the last year was I exposed to the original Monkey Island and the newer Sam & Max. It all seems equivalent quality to me, though I personally found the NES animations cuter.
The young gamers may not say this a whole lot...yet. More and more I find myself making the comment...ah, the good ol' days. As you get older things in the past always seem better than they are today. I'm not saying I don't love titles that come out these days, MNC for example, but hindsight is 20/20.
Don't really see that. Sure in order to play back then you didn't need an internet connection (you were lucky if you had one) for all the patches but it's not like everything back then was gold. We only remember the good games, nobody cares about the bad ones. Same with music. Try naming a bad song from the 70s. Got one? I don't. Now try the same with a good one.
