Continuous over-praising of classic games, and why it's a problem. - Games

[QUOTE=stepat201;27945490]But that's how they evolve. Sure, Nintendo games may be a fun distraction today, but they're not the games that are pushing the envelope and leading to advances in graphics and overall immersion.[/QUOTE] My point is that games don't need advanced graphics to be fun and immersive. But. you have a point that a lot of games are trying to push new technology, which is both sad and fascinating. [editline]8th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27945521]You are taking my argument to the extreme. That is not true in any way.[/QUOTE] [quote] don't mean to say that it's wrong to hold fondness for a game, or that your judgement is inherently wrong, but when I hear things like “there will never be a better first person shooter than the original Deus Ex,” or “Super Mario Galaxy does not compare in any way to Mario 64,” it brings me to question the objectivity, and truthfulness of that statement.[/quote]

[QUOTE=doommarine23;27945502]You did say that in your posts. Also, I don't know you, Not to sound rude, but this is a BIG forum, man.[/QUOTE] I didn't make any specific references to technology, or progression of graphics. I remember saying 'game design,' which is completely different.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;27945525]My point is that games don't need advanced graphics to be fun and immersive. But. you have a point that a lot of games are trying to push new technology, which is both sad and fascinating.[/QUOTE] How is it sad, though? The way I see it, a lot of games suffer in quality today because they focus too much on graphics (which aren't even that good anyway), but in the long run games will profit from that because we'll reach a point in technology where games can be fully immersive while still having room for great storytelling opportunities.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;27945525]My point is that games don't need advanced graphics to be fun and immersive. But. you have a point that a lot of games are trying to push new technology, which is both sad and fascinating. [editline]8th February 2011[/editline][/QUOTE] How is it sad? Gaming has historically always pushed towards the top end. Except for the Nintendo Wii, but Nintendo sees Apple as their competition these days not Sony and Microsoft, so I don't really put them in the same category anymore.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;27945525]don't mean to say that it's wrong to hold fondness for a game, or that your judgement is inherently wrong, but when I hear things like “there will never be a better first person shooter than the original Deus Ex,” or “Super Mario Galaxy does not compare in any way to Mario 64,” it brings me to question the objectivity, and truthfulness of that statement.[/QUOTE] I don't get what you are trying to say, by quoting this post. [editline]8th February 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=stepat201;27945569]How is it sad, though? The way I see it, a lot of games suffer in quality today because they focus too much on graphics (which aren't even that good anyway), but in the long run games will profit from that because we'll reach a point in technology where games can be fully immersive while still having room for great storytelling opportunities.[/QUOTE] This is exactly what I think.

Oh, I do have one story about classic games and defense I must tell. I have gone insanely defensive. BUT GODFUCKING DAMMIT I HAD TO I was talking to my friend about classic games, and I brought up the original Fallout. I mentioned how I loved it. HE SAYS. "The Original Fallout? That's like as bad as Diablo 2, man." [img]http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/263/b/3/nuclear_rage_by_zerothehedgehog360-d2z4l7h.png[/img]

[QUOTE=64fanatic;27945575]How is it sad? Gaming has historically always pushed towards the top end. Except for the Nintendo Wii, but Nintendo sees Apple as their competition these days not Sony and Microsoft, so I don't really put them in the same category anymore.[/QUOTE] Not really sad, but it's kinda sad to see engines and game consoles never reach their peak, you know?

I enjoy old and new games, it's your personal opinion, seems like a ponitless arguement to me? :3

[QUOTE=stepat201;27945569]How is it sad, though? The way I see it, a lot of games suffer in quality today because they focus too much on graphics (which aren't even that good anyway), but in the long run games will profit from that because we'll reach a point in technology where games can be fully immersive while still having room for great storytelling opportunities.[/QUOTE] Same here

page 2 are you okay

[QUOTE=stepat201;27945490]But that's how they evolve. Sure, Nintendo games may be a fun distraction today, but they're not the games that are pushing the envelope and leading to advances in graphics and overall immersion.[/QUOTE] Games don't need graphics to be fun. Neither do they need better technology for them to advance as an art form. If you'd like, I could name some games with fairly bad graphics that I consider "better" by my standards, then some games that have the most mind-numbingly good graphics. --- Completely missed your new post, my mistake. However, although you're technically right, games can have technological advancements without us having to wade through 10 years of shit covered in sparkling HD. What's more, those games will sell well, and peoples standards for games will get lower, and lower, and lower, and soon it will become the norm.

[QUOTE=CommanderMayhem;27945593]Oh, I do have one story about classic games and defense I must tell. I have gone insanely defensive. BUT GODFUCKING DAMMIT I HAD TO I was talking to my friend about classic games, and I brought up the original Fallout. I mentioned how I loved it. HE SAYS. "The Original Fallout? That's like as bad as Diablo 2, man." [img_thumb]http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/263/b/3/nuclear_rage_by_zerothehedgehog360-d2z4l7h.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE] I wanted to repost this cause it hit the bottom of the page :v:

I think OP is just thinking about it to hard. People love and respect the classics they grew up with, nothing much to it.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;27945606]Not really sad, but it's kinda sad to see engines and game consoles never reach their peak, you know?[/QUOTE] Often they do. Look at launch titles and compare them to the big budget games of the late years. The differences between a launch title on n64 and a late game like Conker's Bad Furday or DK64 is quite large. Same with the PS2. For Nintendo, between the Wii and late Gamecube there is next to no difference in looks.

[QUOTE=64fanatic;27945659]Often they do. Look at launch titles and compare them to the big budget games of the late years. The differences between a launch title on n64 and a late game like Conker's Bad Furday or DK64 is quite large. Same with the PS2. For Nintendo, between the Wii and late Gamecube there is next to no difference in looks.[/QUOTE] Yeah, true, they typically do :unsmith:

this is analogous to Weezer's Blue Album

[QUOTE=Achilles123;27945637] Completely missed your new post, my mistake. However, although you're technically right, games can have technological advancements without us having to wade through 10 years of shit covered in sparkling HD. What's more, those games will sell well, and peoples standards for games will get lower, and lower, and lower, and soon it will become the norm.[/QUOTE] That's a good point, but people will always exploit technology to make an easy buck. Bad 'HD' games today are kind of the equivalent of 'Transformers' for movies, or autotune in the music industry. Dumb people will always buy crap like that, but games that achieve both stunning technology and immersive storytelling (Red Dead, for example), will always be recognized for that, and those are the games that are leading the pack. Call of Duty's sales definitely influence a lot of developers to make terrible clones, but stuff like that always happens. It'll pass, and the next thing will come along, but you have to trust the good developers to keep pushing the envelope, which they will.

[QUOTE=stepat201;27945749]That's a good point, but people will always exploit technology to make an easy buck. Bad 'HD' games today are kind of the equivalent of 'Transformers' for movies, or autotune in the music industry. Dumb people will always buy crap like that, but games that achieve both stunning technology and immersive storytelling (Red Dead, for example), will always be recognized for that, and those are the games that are leading the pack. Call of Duty's sales definitely influence a lot of developers to make terrible clones, but stuff like that always happens. It'll pass, and the next thing will come along, but you have to trust the good developers to keep pushing the envelope, which they will.[/QUOTE] True, but to be perfectly honest, and this is entirely opinion, I'd rather have a good story, good gameplay, and etc, than to have a completely immersed experience due to increasing graphics. Of course, none of us will know what happens when we [I]do [/I]reach that peak, and chances are we never will. Literature/Music/Painting have all evolved due to different generations, and games will never be any different. I just hope you're right, and people will start concentrating more on story/gameplay when they can no longer concentrate on graphics.

i'll tell you what's worse pretentious people calling themselves gamers

[QUOTE=thisispain;27946837]i'll tell you what's worse pretentious people calling themselves gamers[/QUOTE] video games suck

Despite the horrid draw distance, awkward controls, and borderline retarded enemies, I still love Gex 3D.

Music back then is better than music now. Same with movies.... but not videogames. (except for some of the real legendary ones)

[QUOTE=BenJammin';27947106]Music back then is better than music now. Same with movies....[/QUOTE] People (mostly adults) said the same thing in that time period. "I remember when movies used to be romantic, and now there's this digusting action movies and horror movie crap." or "I remember the time when we used to have music that everyone can dance to, now you punks like rock and roll."

I think one reason classics are so defended is that they were original.There isn't much originality going on anymore because game developers have expanded in every direction they think possible, so any game that comes out now is going to have used ideas and themes. Half-Life was original in that it required a little thinking for the puzzles included along with the mindless shooting of headcrabs and combines. The Wii, Kinect, and Move all seem to prove that the only way to more innovative games(In the eyes of developers), is to introduce new technology other than improved graphics and processing power.

I refuse to believe anything on the Nintendo 64 was bad. That machine just farted out solid gold.

[QUOTE=CommanderMayhem;27945140]Half Life 2. I don't see why it's that amazing.[/QUOTE] Way to miss the point here, sir you can't say "Uhh i don't know why Half Life is so amazing, the graphix sucks and physics are all nonexistent" the game is from the fucking 90's, fucking shit... is that so hard to understand ? it might be outdated and shitty by today's standards but it was huge back then, and it still holds some sentimental value to people. Same way with Half Life 2, difference is that it's not SO outdated, at least for me i can still download it again and play it. Also, about the OP, i agree that the "NOTHING WILL EVER BE THAT GOOD AGAIN" mindset is retarded, it's okay to like the game but worship it ? No.

[QUOTE=Funky Pickle;27947836]I refuse to believe anything on the Nintendo 64 was bad. That machine just farted out solid gold.[/QUOTE] Superman 64. [editline]9th February 2011[/editline] But yeah, most of the older games are good because there haven't really been released a game that surpasses it in the gameplay it has. Take Battlefield 2 as an example, it has shit netcode, aswell as some other bad things, but untill Battlefield 3 is released later this year, it's still the best game of it's kind. (large scale squad based war)

Played Morrowind a few months ago (for about 12 hours, because people kept urging me on), absolute shit. Engine feels extremely outdated, combat is horrible. I regret not having played it when it was released. I'm angry, as I even had the game CD when I was younger, but it didn't want to install back then. Fallout 1 got boring quickly as well (5 hours in, I guess?). Revisiting classic RPGs that I missed in their golden ages has proven a disappointing venture, because I seem to have gotten [i]used[/i] to today's technology and gameplay. Anything else just seems [i]weird[/i]. Even Deus Ex (though not nearly as much). [sp]Arcanum is the exception, fuck, what an awesome game. Shame that guns are as effective as throwing dog shit at your enemies.[/sp]

sorry but deus ex [I]is[/I] as good as people say

I had a pleasant surprise today, because up until now I thought my school is filled with Black Ops fanboys. But anyways, I got a bit defensive about Donkey Kong Country music, because it's incredibly awesome, while I was talking to my friend. I was playing him some from my phone and he was all "This song is such shit turn it off". Then, out of nowhere, this one guy comes up and says "Hey Donkey Kong Country! Awesome." Then he said how Donkey Kong Country is really awesome and I just went "Hell yeah" and all it was missing was an incredible mid-air high five with rainbows and unicorns.