Post by: RCmodeler on August 11, 2004, 02:43:51 AM
QuoteAgree or disagree?
I think most "classics" are inherently flawed. Most old games are outdated by now and have been replaced by much superior games by now, their only drawback being lack of nostalgic feelings. Of course an old gamer with nostalgia blinding him won't acknowledge when someone who didn't play the game at a young enough age to create nostalgia tells him his favourite classics suck. Would you rather play Space Invaders or Ikaruga? Metroid or Super Metroid (or Zero Mission, if that makes you happier)?
Mario 64 is inferior to Sunshine?
Mario Party 1 inferior to Mario Party 4?
Banjo-Kazooie is crapola?
Super Metroid is Metroid Prime's whipping boy?
=====
My opinion: Strongly disagree. That's because I ignore the graphics. They don't matter. What matters is "Is it fun to play?" I still enjoy Mario 64 because it's a damn fun game! Ditto Super Metroid and Banjo-Kazooie and, yes, even Space Invaders or Pac-Man (I'm a high-score junkie... constantly challenging myself to get higher numbers & improve my skill). The graphics on these games are primitive, but these are ALL fun games.
More fun than say, Mary-Kate & Ashley Visit the Mall. Or the Matrix Sucked.
And no, I don't think Super Metroid is a "chore" to complete. It's a masterpiece. Story = 10. Puzzles = 10. Music = 10+ (I still listen to the soundtrack). Fun = 10. Yeah the pixelated sprites are primitive, but after an hour of immersion with this masterpiece, it no longer matters.
Ditto with Mario 64, Zelda 64, Mario RPG, Space Invaders, Pac-Man. The games are so perfect, so masterful, that they draw you into their worlds despite their age. You still see the pixels, but you cease to care. You're having too much fun!
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on August 11, 2004, 03:59:54 AM
Well, it's tough to take a side on old games vs new games, because there are plenty of good and bad on both ends and you can't possibly back it up with examples. We'd be going back and forth and it would escalate up until murder. People get lazy or uninspired for new games on occasion, so even certain big, popular, prestegious series can end up sucking later on (and they do).
As for the core question, "do older games suck?", the answer is pretty obvious. Of course not - people still play old games. Hell, people still BUY old games, like those those $20 NES roms, I mean, 'Classic NES Series' for the GBA.
Posting challenge: successfully argue a side without mentioning a game title
I feel compelled to answer these, though:
Quote1. Not really
Mario 64 is inferior to Sunshine?
Mario Party 1 inferior to Mario Party 4?
Banjo-Kazooie is crapola?
Super Metroid is Metroid Prime's whipping boy?
2. Who cares
3. Not really
4. LOL LOL
Post by: Shift Key on August 11, 2004, 04:13:00 AM
Quoteso friggin ban'd
To me Zelda : Ocarina of Time feels like something you slug through because you have a feeling you have to do it, but there's just no fun on the way
I love classic games, even those that pre-date Nintendo. I *almost* bought Midway Arcade Treasures last week (I don't know why I didn't, probably lack of money at the time) and then someone had the nerve to ask "Why this?"
I could have gone on a major rant about the state of games. I could have bitched about how games had reached a peak in 1986. I could have punched the guy in the face.
But I didn't. Want to know why?
Some people don't understand, no matter how much or how often you tell them. They'd gladly call Halo the "Best Game Ever" despite being unaware that Sega actually made consoles at some point, let alone some classic games (Alex the Kid :cool
.
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on August 11, 2004, 04:28:13 AM
(Also, if you get Midway Arcade Treasures, get one that isn't the GC version, it's broken)
Post by: RCmodeler on August 11, 2004, 05:09:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-R
So someone sassed Ocarina of Time and you felt compelled to post a thread?
No, you completely missed the point. I was annoyed that he sassed "old games" like Space Invaders, Metroid, Mario 64. These games ARE old, but they're also masterpieces of fun.
Post by: Draygaia on August 11, 2004, 05:14:43 AM
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on August 11, 2004, 06:49:20 AM
Post by: RCmodeler on August 11, 2004, 06:51:19 AM
Quote
- Does old music suck? Is modern music superior in every way to Mozart? To the Beatles? The Police?
- Do old movies suck? Are modern movies superior in every way to Citizen Kane? One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest? The Godfather?
- The comment that old games suck serves one purpose. To display the ignortance of the person saying it.
Quote
I personally can't stand Ikuraga. I'd take Space Invader and 99% of all shooters over it. If he compared it to something like Battle Garegga it would be completely different story. Although I'm sure from his point of view Battle Garegga is a old game. I don't know if I would prefer the orignial Metroid but I found it much more enjoyable than either Super Metroid or Zero Mission. I blew through the later 2 games in about a day or 2 where as the original Metroid took me many months to complete it for the first time.
Quote
What makes a game survive for so long that people still play it years later? Gameplay. A classic will always be a classic - A game doesn't need to be the best looking - it needs to be fun, and the classics of old (You know the games and I'm sure everyone here has their favorites) were designed with just that in mind. Two things I often find lacking in many of todays games are;
1.) The "Pick up and play factor" - Sometimes you don't want to spend a few hours just learning the ins and outs of a game.
2.) High Scores and scores in general - There's just something added to a game when you can play it over and over again just to try and beat your score or someone elses.
Quote
Zelda: OoT is considered "old"??? Sheesh. I think gamers who post stuff like that don't seem to know that there's more to it than just the "old" game itself, it's the history behind it. They don't give these oldies credit just because "they are outdated" but never put their brain to work to figure out that without these titles their modern games may not exist. Without Space Invaders raking in the bucks years back, Ikaruga wouldn't exist.
From the looks of it the real "beef" this person has is that classic games just don't look as good as today's games. The mention of the Metroid/Zero Mission gives that away. The Wind Waker/OoT comparison made me chuckle as both games are pretty much identical in gameplay.
QuoteAnd to repeat my opinion: Mario 64, Zelda 64, Mario RPG, Super Metroid, Space Invaders, Pac-Man. These games are so perfect, so masterful, that they draw you into their worlds despite their age. You still see the pixels, but you cease to care. You're having too much fun!
Yeah, here's a list of "old games" that I think suck:
Baseball - invented in the late 1800s.
Basketball - invented in 1891
Football (American) - invented in mid 19th-century
Soccer - organized games played as early as 1890
Golf - invented mid-15th century
Chess - played as early as the 6th century (500 a.d.)
So tell Mister "New is Better" to blow it out of his (snip). If a game has staying power, it'll survive forever.
Quote
It isn't the tech that makes the art, but the artists behind it.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on August 11, 2004, 07:17:31 AM
Quote
And to repeat my opinion: Mario 64, Zelda 64, Mario RPG, Super Metroid, Space Invaders, Pac-Man. These games are so perfect, so masterful, that they draw you into their worlds despite their age. You still see the pixels, but you cease to care. You're having too much fun!
All of the top are great games but you cant compare space invaders to Ikaruga since Ikaruga is a fast paced SHMUP that can be played horizontal or verticle and your enemies arent nessesarily infront of you all the time, Space invaders is just a top down SHMUP but it did pave a way to SHMUPS in the 16 bit era, also the only people who say those games suck is people who picked up videogaming in this era and are judgemental what is a good and bad game on graphics alone and ignore gameplay and story all together.
Post by: RCmodeler on August 11, 2004, 07:27:17 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 11, 2004, 07:44:54 AM
Post by: SgtShiversBen on August 11, 2004, 11:09:19 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 11, 2004, 11:29:13 AM
Ok... >=(
Post by: SgtShiversBen on August 11, 2004, 11:37:05 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 11, 2004, 12:06:19 PM
Oh, and it's "platonically"...
Post by: Deguello on August 11, 2004, 12:16:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-RQuote
Super Metroid is Metroid Prime's whipping boy?
4. LOL LOL
LOL LOL I know, it's so obvious Prime is better. WANNA FITE?!
But seriously, when talking about new games versus old games, I think old games definitely have the advantage because:
A) People have fond memories of playing these old games, which clouds their judgement sometimes.
B) New games in a series are most definitely put under very close scrutiny by the fans. Which, by the way, is baffling people haven't burned Nintendo in effigy, considering the amount of crap thrown around when they make one little change.
C) Acting "old-school" is hip, yo. Things ain't the way they used to be, whippersnapper.
But really, sometimes I wish people woulod take off the rose-colored glasses when they wanna get nostalgic. The "old days" of video games only look so good because we don't remember the crap. Like the Home Improvement game for the SNES. Like Urban Champion. Like Home Alone. And why should we? But it isn't fair to say that games nowadays are festering piles when they were more so back then.
And now I'm gonna step on toes. The Original Metroid is crap. I'm glad Nintendo made Zero Mission, so that I can pretend that the original never existed. I'm actually kinda miffed they included it in Zero Mission. They could have used that space for something better. Like Nothing.
The original Final Fantasy is one big snoozefest. You walk around to fight stuff to level up fight more sutff until you fight this one thing and the credits roll. This goes double for the original Dragon Warrior.
These games usually get lauded over current endeavors in the rose-colored Wayback machine, but in reality, these games blow. Hard. People just let their fond memories of playing this stuff after school cloud their judgement of how bad it actually was. Whcih is ok, but when these games get put up on a pedastal, I have to wonder what they are thinking.
Post by: Syl on August 11, 2004, 01:57:02 PM
I'll respond when i calm down and won't flame and rant so much.
Post by: Draygaia on August 11, 2004, 05:40:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Lord_die_seis
Well diablo maybe just a clicky on enemy game but what PC game isnt that inreality? And to answer the topic question, I answer yes cause I still have a NES SNES and N64 hooked up next to my cube and PS2 since well i sometimes need the nostalgia like Yo Noid! on the NES and Super Mario All stars and countless otheres on the SNES.
Maybe I should have went more into depth. You see Diablo is well you choose the warrior and all you do is equip him, then click on enemies, and get stronger. Uh well in todays PC rpgs its much more than that. Not only do you click on enemies to fight them but while you run at the enemy you can get some missile shots in, cast magic, drink potions, etc Or when you fight them you can pull up a shield in the middle of battle, make him think you given up, etc I go back to diablo and its just well click and die, click and die, and the same thing happens throughout the game.
Post by: Shift Key on August 11, 2004, 05:57:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: S-U-P-E-R
(Also, if you get Midway Arcade Treasures, get one that isn't the GC version, it's broken)
Ok. It was the PS2 version I saw. I don't think the GC version was ever released down here, as is the style these days.
Post by: evil intentions on August 11, 2004, 07:03:19 PM
Mario 64 is inferior to Sunshine?
Mario Party 1 inferior to Mario Party 4?
Banjo-Kazooie is crapola?
Super Metroid is Metroid Prime's whipping boy?"
1. disagree
2. agree
3.
4. Agree
Post by: Ness_the_Mess on August 11, 2004, 11:19:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: DraygaiaQuote
Originally posted by: Lord_die_seis
Well diablo maybe just a clicky on enemy game but what PC game isnt that inreality? And to answer the topic question, I answer yes cause I still have a NES SNES and N64 hooked up next to my cube and PS2 since well i sometimes need the nostalgia like Yo Noid! on the NES and Super Mario All stars and countless otheres on the SNES.
Maybe I should have went more into depth. You see Diablo is well you choose the warrior and all you do is equip him, then click on enemies, and get stronger. Uh well in todays PC rpgs its much more than that. Not only do you click on enemies to fight them but while you run at the enemy you can get some missile shots in, cast magic, drink potions, etc Or when you fight them you can pull up a shield in the middle of battle, make him think you given up, etc I go back to diablo and its just well click and die, click and die, and the same thing happens throughout the game.
Funny story: ... well, wait, not so funny. Have you ever heard of something called D&D (or to be even more true to all of the classic fans, AD&D)? Dungeons and Dragons was one of the most influential games of all time. It created the RPG style of video game. It was amazing. A breakthrough. You know what else was a breakthrough? Diablo. It took the heart of D&D and made it into a video game. In the mid 90's, no less. In fact, this game created so many spinoffs. It was one of the main influences into the creation of MMORPGs because, not only was it such a vast RPG, it was massively multiplayer, and online. And just to kind of finish my point off ... in Diablo, too, can you run at the enemy (the expansion Hellfire, anyone?), get missile shots in, cast magic, drink potions, etc. You can also pull up a shield in the middle of battle. I go back to diablo, and bask in the glory.
Off the topic of diablo, you know what other vintage game is awesome? Earthbound. Mmm, yummy. You know what other game surpasses it's succesors? Super Mario RPG. Ten thousand times better than Paper Mario, you say? Why, you're quite right! What's that? Link to the Past was better than Ocarina of Time? Well, I suppose you're right there too! My, you're a genious!
Back to the topic of diablo: fine, I'll admit diablo 2 is infinitely easier to play, and mroe fun, and larger than the original. But the point is that the original still has huge merits. It broadened gaming ALOT. And better yet, it made Blizzard lots of money so that they could stay alive another 10 years so taht they could finally come out with a TRUE sequal to Starcraft, being Starcraft 2: the RTS. Yay.
Sleep.
Post by: RCmodeler on August 12, 2004, 12:40:35 AM
Quote(You are soooo wrong. It's not "obvious". Else we would not be debating.) Metroid in 3D looks beautiful, but is rather slooooow to play. I prefer the faster pace of 2D. I also prefer the 2D moves like hanging from ledges, and somesaulting through the air while demolishing your enemies. And I prefer the way 2D gives you a third-person, god-like view of the world. As someone said at digitpress.com:
Originally posted by: DeguelloLOL LOL I know, it's so obvious Prime is better. WANNA FITE?!
Quote
3D games are much too easy. 2D games required a lot of practice to perfect the skills, but these days game manufacturers try to make the games accessible to everyone by making them so easy that anyone can make it through............. 2-D games are less of a headache to find your next objective. Everything you need to see will be on the screen. In 3-D games you have to move the camera up, down and around to look for things. Not fun. Slow & Boring. Now, I play new games as much as I play classic games, but the one PS2 game I enjoy the most is not Grand Theft, but Activision Anthology. There is a magic to simplicity that some people will never get, but classic gamers like ourselves understand.
To bring this back to Metroid: 3D Metroid Prime is "too easy" to beat because it's been "dumbed down" to the lowest common denominator so even idiots can beat it. And Metroid Prime has "slow & boring" pacing. 2D Super Metroid is harder, faster, with better moves, better views, better layout, and more fun. I sold Prime, but still play Super Metroid every few months.
Super Metroid is best in my opinion.
Post by: Syl on August 12, 2004, 02:15:23 AM
I'm a gigantic metroid fan, probably moreso than anyone else on this site (and i will challenge that if wanted) and I personally like Prime better than Super Metroid. I'll explain why when I have the time, my ride is going to be here in about 3 minutes.
Quote
Off the topic of diablo, you know what other vintage game is awesome? Earthbound. Mmm, yummy. You know what other game surpasses it's succesors? Super Mario RPG. Ten thousand times better than Paper Mario, you say? Why, you're quite right! What's that? Link to the Past was better than Ocarina of Time? Well, I suppose you're right there too! My, you're a genious!
I also disagree with you, on all accounts.
Post by: Uglydot on August 12, 2004, 03:44:11 AM
Post by: Smashman on August 12, 2004, 10:12:03 AM
Post by: kennyb27 on August 12, 2004, 10:39:42 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smashman
This whole topic was sparked by the ignorant, moronic KDR_11k's posts. He, evidently, has no taste in classic video games, and sasses them, shamelessly. He feels old games are inferior, just by age? He hates OoT? I believe him to be on some mind-altering drug.
Nice job attacking him, instead of his posts.
Post by: Smashman on August 12, 2004, 01:05:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodeler
In another thread, KDR_11k posted:Quote
I think most "classics" are inherently flawed. Most old games are outdated by now and have been replaced by much superior games by now, their only drawback being lack of nostalgic feelings. Of course an old gamer with nostalgia blinding him won't acknowledge when someone who didn't play the game at a young enough age to create nostalgia tells him his favourite classics suck. Would you rather play Space Invaders or Ikaruga? Metroid or Super Metroid (or Zero Mission, if that makes you happier)?
Lemme break it down one at a time. He says he thinks most classics are flawed... How? Old games... outdated? I think not. They still have that same classic gameplay. This post is completely off-the-mark. Nostalgia blinding? The old games are considered masterpieces because that is exactly what they are... masterpieces... no nostalgia involved. You, sir, have no right to sass off like that, and you need to grasp true quality games, no matter if they made now or a thousand years ago. PS... I'm sure anyone who has actually played OoT knows it is one of the best games of all-time. It DID NOT feel like a chore. Let me tell you, the Triforce shard collecting in tWW was the biggest chore in ANY of the Zelda games. NOTHING in OoT felt like a chore. The main quest was the greatest experience in any video game, of all-time, IMO. WW's was good as well, but it felt very empty and had flaws. You also said you don't like because of the camera and controls... What's next? Saying you don't like LTTP because you can't figure out how to choose an item?!?!? Please... OoT's controls were natural to get used to.
There, I flamed his posts, instead of him. I'm sorry, KDR_11k, but please stop playing video games and come back when you can learn to appreciate the classics.
Post by: Syl on August 12, 2004, 04:20:45 PM
Quote
A game that was good, will always be good. Whether or not a game improves on it does not make the older game suck, the newer game as just progressed. You have to play a game in the context of it's time, just like when you read a book. A book may be dated, but that does not mean it sucks. The language may have been changed to suit the tastes of the newest generation, but a good book is a good book. A video game is the same way. If it was good, it will always be good.
I disagree with that, my view of "fun" or "good" should not require me to dumb down my expectations. Some games stand the test of time, others do not. Same with books, same with movies, same with everything.
This is why i dislike link to the past, it does not compare to any zelda game released afterward, I know those games couldn't have been without it leading the way, but it feels old and boring in comparison to the Gameboy zelda titles, I enjoyed the oracle series, I loved links awakening, I loved OOT and espicially majoras mask.. But i did not like link to the past, because it just felt old and used.
Super Metroid, however, is the opposite, It stood the test of time well, even though it is inferior to the latest games in certain ways. (Clumsier controls, no gripping on ledges, worse graphics, boss fights (compared to fusion) though it definately trumps then in gameplay, atmosphere and music. Super Metroid is still #3 on my favorite games of all time, right behind another SNES classic: Yoshi's Island (which is just so fun!) and my favorite game of all time, Metroid Prime.
I watch a decent amount of movies, and i'm currently taking a Movie History class, We started with chaplin stuff... Which i found somewhat boring and uninspired, then we worked on that StoneFace guy and a movie involving a train, which i'm finding to be incredibly enjoyable despite the fact that its silent, was created in the 1920s, and the quality is horrible. Some other "classic" movies are appalling to me, and so are quite a few of recent movies, despite the source material or technology.
I also read a rather large amount of books (mainly science fiction/fantasy), yet my favorite books happened to have been written back in the 1950's, and they easily compare to the stuff written recently. Frank Herbert, Isaac Asimov, Douglas Adams, they are my 3 favorite authors at this point, despite how "old" the literature is. I have yet to read a single book predating 1900's that i really enjoyed, "classics" such as Tom Huck and Great Expectations were just horribly written and not good books in my mind. Even the newer books i've read, terry jones, Timothy Zahn, J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, Michael Chrichton. While all great authors, still don't compare to my favorite books.
I personally dislike a very large majority of NES games, the technology at the time was just too primitive for me. I could care less for the graphics, but they are generally FILLED with collision detection errors and many other issues (such as balance). The only thing stopping me from beating Legend of Zelda isn't the game, its the problems with it. That, and i know that it just wouldn't compare the sequels, which were made to improve upon it.
Tetris, with its simplicity, has never gotten old to me, because the technology at the time did everything it needed to do, and trying to complicate the game has made it worse. This is another game that has stood the test of time, along with stuff like Mario Bros and some other old titles, they stood the test of time because i can still enjoy them without having to expect a less enjoyable game than current ones.
Post by: Smashman on August 12, 2004, 08:28:00 PM
I think GCN is the greatest system of all-time, right alongside SNES
Post by: SgtShiversBen on August 13, 2004, 07:15:00 AM
Post by: RCmodeler on August 13, 2004, 08:30:53 AM
I can understand how someone might not like Zelda 1. It is kinda slow-paced. That was okay for the "silent era" of the 80s with virtually no dialogue and no story, just pure game, but we've come to expect more. We want game to play, but also a story to motivate us to push forward. But Mario 1/2/3? How can you not like that? It has the same running & jumping & bash the boss goodness as Mario 64 or Sunshine. Ditto Super Metroid... it has all the same stuff (explore, collect, solve) as Prime has. Just presented in third-person.
And how can you say Wind Waker plays great, but Ocarina does not??? The controls are virtually identical. The goal is the same (solve puzzles in dungeons). The only real difference is (a) difficulty and (b) story, and Ocarina is better in both aspects. So the only conceivable reason I can think for saying Ocarina sucks, is just because it's low-resolution. Which in my opinion is a very lame way to judge the game. Ignore the graphics, and focus on the game,and you'll find Ocarina is virtually the same as Wind Waker.
BTW, my favorite F inal Fantasy? No, not the one that is borderline soft porn (FF10-2...although it was fun to play). It's the "primitive and sucky" FF6-Japan/FF3-U.S. Best battles. Best characters. Best story (and no it's not a happy ending...the world gets trashed). Unfortunately many of you will never experience this great game, just because you refuse to look beyond the shallow surface of pixelated graphics to find the treasure hiding within.
Post by: CHEN on August 13, 2004, 09:00:35 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodeler
BTW, my favorite F inal Fantasy? No, not the one that is borderline soft porn (FF10-2...although it was fun to play). It's the "primitive and sucky" FF6-Japan/FF3-U.S. Best battles. Best characters. Best story (and no it's not a happy ending...the world gets trashed). Unfortunately many of you will never experience this great game, just because you refuse to look beyond the shallow surface of pixelated graphics to find the treasure hiding within.
This man speaks the truth. Well, except for that 'holier than thou' last line. This won't end well...
Post by: RCmodeler on August 13, 2004, 12:25:38 PM
"
with
"KDR_11k will never experience......"
Post by: Syl on August 13, 2004, 12:35:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodeler
You don't like Charlie Chaplin? Hmmm. Well I don't like his shorts, but his movies like Gold Rush are hilarious. The first time I saw Gold Rush, I fell off my chair from laughing so hard.
To be honest, i only have seen his shorts.
Quote
I can understand how someone might not like Zelda 1. It is kinda slow-paced. That was okay for the "silent era" of the 80s with virtually no dialogue and no story, just pure game, but we've come to expect more. We want game to play, but also a story to motivate us to push forward. But Mario 1/2/3? How can you not like that? It has the same running & jumping & bash the boss goodness as Mario 64 or Sunshine. Ditto Super Metroid... it has all the same stuff (explore, collect, solve) as Prime has. Just presented in third-person.
I also specifically stated that the original mario titles DID stand the test of time, along with tetris. I love the games.
Quote
BTW, my favorite F inal Fantasy? No, not the one that is borderline soft porn (FF10-2...although it was fun to play). It's the "primitive and sucky" FF6-Japan/FF3-U.S. Best battles. Best characters. Best story (and no it's not a happy ending...the world gets trashed). Unfortunately many of you will never experience this great game, just because you refuse to look beyond the shallow surface of pixelated graphics to find the treasure hiding within.
Though this wasn't directed at me, I'm just not a big fan of the FF games, only ones i own are the SNES titles (2 and 3 AKA 4j and 6j) and though i've played FF 4-10, not a single one is anywhere near the top of my fave RPG list.
of course, my top 3 RPG's happen to be Skies of Arcadia, Chrono Trigger, and the recently added Tales of Symphonia.
Post by: GoldShadow1 on August 13, 2004, 05:18:59 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on August 14, 2004, 04:17:05 AM
Without Space Invaders there would be no Ikaruga (which, BTW, I don't hold as a top shmup, but used as an example because people were familiar with it), yes, without monochrome TV there would be no HDTV. I don't think I need to explain that comparison any further.
The point I was trying to make back then was that classic games often aren't as good as we remember them. We remember them in a different context (e.g. first videogame ever seen). If we were to see them for the first time nowadays (with better graphics, if you need that to accept the comparison), with most games, even the "great" ones, we'd say they are bad since we are used to better things nowadays. 3D games didn't necessarily get easier, you got better at playing them. Try returning to some of your ancient classics and see how difficult they seem next to a "hardcore" game (you know, the ones that aren't meant to be played by first timers) these days. Some games hold up nowadays (e.g. Tetris, which was "perfect" from the get-go), some don't (e.g. Metroid, play Metroid and Super Metroid and compare).
Post by: Smashman on August 14, 2004, 05:08:14 AM
You see, it doesn't matter when a game in a series comes out, it doesn't determine the quality. OoT > WW and SM64 > SMS are examples. I still feel WW to be the WORST game in the Zelda series, and OoT the best, followed closely by LTTP. LoZ and AoL are STILL classics in my mind, as is the original Metroid, Mario Bros. Mario Bros. 3. Super Mario Bros. 3 is still the greatest Mario game of all-time. It had so much variety in the items, suits, etc. You -CANNOT- compare Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario 64, or even Super Mario World to it. Super Mario World was MUCH shorter than SMB3, and was MUCH easier. In fact, SMB3 was near-impossible in some parts.
My 2 cents.
KDR- The 3D transition of Zelda killed the difficulty. Everyone agrees on that. OoT, MM, and tWW are not really all that difficult, but OoT and MM are still classics, IMHO. LoZ and AoL are STILL difficult, even today. Don't say that just because we get better at video games that that kills the difficulty. That isn't the case. All 3D games, of just about every franchise, just aren't as difficult as the 2D games, regardless of gaming experience.
First, Bill (Aurion) was my nemesis, and now I KDR_11k. Man, I bet everyone will hate me by next year. lol.
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 14, 2004, 06:06:54 AM
NO, NO, NO! Majora's Mask is NOT a classic! >=(
Post by: CHEN on August 14, 2004, 06:33:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
The point I was trying to make back then was that classic games often aren't as good as we remember them. We remember them in a different context (e.g. first videogame ever seen). If we were to see them for the first time nowadays (with better graphics, if you need that to accept the comparison), with most games, even the "great" ones, we'd say they are bad since we are used to better things nowadays. 3D games didn't necessarily get easier, you got better at playing them. Try returning to some of your ancient classics and see how difficult they seem next to a "hardcore" game (you know, the ones that aren't meant to be played by first timers) these days. Some games hold up nowadays (e.g. Tetris, which was "perfect" from the get-go), some don't (e.g. Metroid, play Metroid and Super Metroid and compare).
That's not entirely true. There were the days when I tried to beat Metroid, Legend of Zelda, Adventure of Link, Mega Man 2. It wasn't easy, but I tried anyway and eventually succeeded. When I play them now, I'd just get too frustrated by it and stop playing. The games didn't get more difficult, it's that I've become too spoiled by those '3D' games. And I think it holds up to many people. Of course the difficulty of these games seem 'forced' by the limited hardware (you couldn't shoot diagonal in Metroid), but that's what makes them classics. Super Metroid is better than its predecessor in every possible way and became one of the best games in history, but you shouldn't really compare the two of them.
Post by: ib2kool4u912 on August 14, 2004, 07:03:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smashman
KDR- The 3D transition of Zelda killed the difficulty. Everyone agrees on that. OoT, MM, and tWW are not really all that difficult, but OoT and MM are still classics, IMHO. LoZ and AoL are STILL difficult, even today. Don't say that just because we get better at video games that that kills the difficulty. That isn't the case. All 3D games, of just about every franchise, just aren't as difficult as the 2D games, regardless of gaming experience.
I don't know about anyone else but to me it felt like ALTTP was easier than Ocarina, or at the most the were around the same in difficulty. It seems to me that 3D didnt kill the difficulty, they just made the series easier after AOL.
Post by: Syl on August 14, 2004, 02:46:44 PM
Quote
You -CANNOT- compare Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario 64, or even Super Mario World to it.
Of course i can't compare super mario 64 or SMS to the 2 dimensional mario games, the gameplay is far too different. Just like would never compare Yoshi's Island with any other "mario" title, despite how its personally my favorite.
Quote
super Mario World was MUCH shorter than SMB3, and was MUCH easier. In fact, SMB3 was near-impossible in some parts.
Really? thats odd. I figured Super Mario Worlds at least equal amount of levels, along with *MUCH* longer levels (A level in super mario world is at least 3 or 4x as long as one in SMB3 on average.) I also found SMW to be far more difficult than anything in SMB3, espicially the Bonus levels (DAMN YOU TUBULAR!) and some of the later levels in bowsers cave.
Quote
The 3D transition of Zelda killed the difficulty. Everyone agrees on that. OoT, MM, and tWW are not really all that difficult, but OoT and MM are still classics, IMHO. LoZ and AoL are STILL difficult, even today. Don't say that just because we get better at video games that that kills the difficulty. That isn't the case. All 3D games, of just about every franchise, just aren't as difficult as the 2D games, regardless of gaming experience.
Go great overgeneralizations! I also disagree with the "all 3d games are easy" , but its not worth the time explaining why.
AOL and LOZ are more difficult to me simply because of hardware limitations the NES had. (I explained this earlier in this thread). I also find LTTP to be easiest, and that is quite a bit of the cause of my boredom of the title. Majoras Mask also has some difficulty to it, another one of the many reasons i hold it above the other zelda games. (The Oracle zelda game also have some major difficulty to them, mainly on the puzzle solving side)
Quote
First, Bill (Aurion) was my nemesis, and now I KDR_11k. Man, I bet everyone will hate me by next year. lol.
Why you regard this with humor is beyond me.
Quote
NO, NO, NO! Majora's Mask is NOT a classic! >=(
While you may say this, it doesn't make it any less true. Give the game a chance man, your reason for disliking doesn't mean everyone else will. (OH NO IT HAS A TIME LIMIT IT MUST BE EVIL!)
Post by: evil intentions on August 14, 2004, 08:00:59 PM
Quote
While you may say this, it doesn't make it any less true. Give the game a chance man, your reason for disliking doesn't mean everyone else will. (OH NO IT HAS A TIME LIMIT IT MUST BE EVIL!)
The time limit is the reason why I dislike the game as much as I do. I got up to the 4th boss mask and got sick of the game. I did not like MM as much as the others.
Post by: KDR_11k on August 14, 2004, 08:41:38 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 14, 2004, 08:57:23 PM
That pretty much sums it up!
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 14, 2004, 09:21:12 PM
Post by: Deguello on August 14, 2004, 11:57:13 PM
If only major review sites dealed in that kind of wisdom.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on August 15, 2004, 01:17:50 AM
Post by: Syl on August 15, 2004, 10:49:44 AM
Quote
"When I rate a game I look at it and only it. I don't think about how it stacks up to other entries in the genre, all that matters is if that one game is good. "
The more you watch/play/read the more you realize that certain things you previously thought were great, are simply mediocre.
Ignorance can be useful for enjoying something once, but eventually you have to come to terms with how it stacks up to everything else as a whole, If the only game you've ever played is GTA3, then you might consider it the most amazing thing ever. Same can be said for things like Halo and other titles that got far more attention than their worth (*cough* Evangelion*cough*). Of course, those people will full-heartedly incest that their opinion is correct, though its based purely on ignorance and hype.
Quote
Mario Kart isn't anything like Halo! Nintendo really have dropped the ball on this one, it obviously deserves nothing.
Surprisingly, I generally find myself agreeing with IGN's scores of things, even if i don't agree with the way they got them. I don't think i've ever seen IGN say something that blatantly stupid though. They did compare double dash to mario kart 64 a decent amount in the review, and thats all to be expected.
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 15, 2004, 11:43:24 AM
Quote
The more you watch/play/read the more you realize that certain things you previously thought were great, are simply mediocre.
Only because of a possible change in my tastes. I told you, I rate things by themselves, not in relation to others. I look at a game alone and determine whether I like it, not compare it to other games and determine how much I liked it in relation to them. That's just plain stupid. If I did that I'd be ignoring what's good about one game simply because another game did it better. It's nice that another game does it better but that doesn't mean the original one did it badly. When you obsess yourself with finding only the best you miss the ones that aren't quite the best but still good none the less, and if you only play the best you're skipping dozens of other very good games.
Quote
Ignorance can be useful for enjoying something once, but eventually you have to come to terms with how it stacks up to everything else as a whole, If the only game you've ever played is GTA3, then you might consider it the most amazing thing ever. Same can be said for things like Halo and other titles that got far more attention than their worth (*cough* Evangelion*cough*). Of course, those people will full-heartedly incest that their opinion is correct, though its based purely on ignorance and hype.
I think it occurs to me that I don't care what other people's opinions are. Who cares if their opinion is based on "ignorance" as you put it? No, you never eventually have to come to terms with how it stacks up to everything else, because I fail to see how much I like one game affects how much I like another game- that doesn't make much sense to me. F*ck how much a game "stacks up to everything else", all that matters is whether or not I like that game specifically, and I don't want other entries in the genre affecting my opinion.
Post by: GoldShadow1 on August 15, 2004, 01:07:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Syl
Of course, those people will full-heartedly incest that their opinion is correct, though its based purely on ignorance and hype.
I'd rather not get into any arguments in THAT family...
Post by: Bill Aurion on August 15, 2004, 01:11:47 PM
Insist ^_^,
Post by: Syl on August 15, 2004, 02:51:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldShadow1Quote
Originally posted by: Syl
Of course, those people will full-heartedly incest that their opinion is correct, though its based purely on ignorance and hype.
I'd rather not get into any arguments in THAT family...
Incest is always funny.
Post by: KDR_11k on August 15, 2004, 09:37:25 PM
Post by: RCmodeler on August 16, 2004, 03:20:59 AM
QuoteI don't believe that. If that were true, you'd lock yourself in your room, never speak to anyone, and not participate in this forum. If that were true, you wouldn't be here talking to us. It would just be you, your GameCube, and a Lot of Loneliness.
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker I think it occurs to me that I don't care what other people's opinions are.
QuoteYeah it sucks to have to use critical thinking. It makes my brain hurt.
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker Ugh, I HATE comparing games. Comparing games to one another is the stupidest thing you can do. Comparing games forces you to rationalize the games' differences in order to sync up their similarities, and then to rate their similarities in relation to one another.
/end sarcasm
Comparing games or movies or whatever is how you determine what is "good" and what is "bad". Otherwise, without comparision to previous games, one might conclude that Mary-Kate/Ashley Go Shopping is good. And many newbies do exactly that; experienced gamers accurately conclude there are better ways to spend one's gaming time. It is based upon past experience/other games that we say one game is better or worse than the other. It is through analysis/critical thinking that we justify that opinion.
.
As for comparing 2D to 3D, I think it's entirely possible. Metroid Prime is basically Super Metroid in 3D. Same goals. Same character. The only REAL difference is a change in perspective (from 3rd person to 1st person). Ditto Zelda 64 and Zelda SNES... it's essentially the same game (solve puzzles), but now it's changed the view (overhead to on-the-ground view). So given these games are essentially the same at the core, merely changing the perspective, I can compare/contrast how they play compared to one another.
And it's *entirely* possible to call KDR11k an idiot for thinking Ocarina of Time is "the suck" and Wind Waker "the love". These two games are so identical to one another in gameplay, they might as well be twins. How KDK_1k can say Ocarina plays inferior to WW, when they play essentially identically with the same view, same moves, same control, is totally impossible for a sane person to understand.
Myself, I don't think Wind Waker sucks. I just think that there are about 1000 games which are more worthy of my time and will provide better entertainment. One of those being Ocarina of Time-same gameplay as WW, but with better story, more dungeons, harder difficulty/challenge. (See? I just made a mental comparion/contrast between WW & other games. My time is finite, and naturally I want to use it wisely with the BEST games, not just okay ones.)
Post by: KDR_11k on August 16, 2004, 04:11:25 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 16, 2004, 05:44:53 AM
Quote
Well, but that's just you. Games compete for a person's ressources (free time, money) and if they need to choose between two games and one does everything better than the other, no matter how good the other one is, the person will take the better one (if we remove factors like marketing).
Since when were we talking about sales? Obviously a developers wants to make their game the best, but I was under the pretense that we were discussing just the games that were already released and whether or not the old games should be considered bad now that newer games have built heavily upon them. Is this not the case?
Quote
I don't believe that. If that were true, you'd lock yourself in your room, never speak to anyone, and not participate in this forum. If that were true, you wouldn't be here talking to us. It would just be you, your GameCube, and a Lot of Loneliness.
I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions and sharing my own, but I don't give a rat's ass what yours is, it doesn't make a lick of difference to me.
Quote
Comparing games or movies or whatever is how you determine what is "good" and what is "bad". Otherwise, without comparision to previous games, one might conclude that Mary-Kate/Ashley Go Shopping is good.
And why do you care if they think Mary-Kate/Ashley Go Shopping is good? Since when did you become the Robin Hood of the videogame world, crusading to make sure people's opinions match yours and only yours?
Quote
And many newbies do exactly that; experienced gamers accurately conclude there are better ways to spend one's gaming time
Right, there are better ways- how does that automatically make the other ways bad? Since when has "worse" been a synonym for "bad"? Just because something's not as good as something else doesn't mean it sucks, and it doesn't mean it doesn't deserve your time. Why should you ignore games just because there's something better? Why can't you have both?
Post by: KDR_11k on August 16, 2004, 06:16:48 AM
Realistically, would you play Pong for an extended period of time?
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 16, 2004, 06:24:48 AM
Quote
mouse: We're not talking about sales but the time you spent playing, say, Tales or Wind Waker could have been spent playing Metroid, Super Mario Bros. or Ice Climbers.
My point is I'd play ALL of them, there's no reason not to.
Quote
That many games were acceptable by the standards back then but don't hold up to the standards these days.
I don't have standards for games, at least not in the sense that they have to be as good or better than the best entry in their respective genre. That's what I'm trying to say, if you constantly rank these games up to preset standards you're not going to enjoy them as much versus judging the game by itself. I have actually played very few games I honestly and truly thought were bad, and I attribute that to the fact that I rank my experience of a game completely independantly of other titles. Sure you can play only the best- I guess if your time is limited that's the only thing you can do. But my whole point is just because they're the BEST doesn't make everything else BAD.
Quote
Realistically, would you play Pong for an extended period of time?
No, but that's because I never really liked Pong in the first place. However, hooked up to my TV at this very moment is my PS2, my Gamecube, my Dreamcast, my N64, my SNES, and my NES, and I play them all roughly about the same (I play my Cube more since I still have games to beat on it). I don't ignore older games simply because newer ones are better- I'll obviously play the better games and most likely enjoy them more, but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy the older games. They're still great games, they're just not the best. But they certainly don't suck.
Here, I'll give you an example. Just the other day Grey Ninja told me he just got a Dreamcast and was wondering if he should bother getting Soul Calibur since he already had Soul Calibur 2 for his Gamecube. I told him SC2 had just about everything from SC plus a lot more. I said he shouldn't jump on getting it immediately but that if he ever had some extra money and nothing better to buy, Soul Calibur is definitely a great purchase.
Post by: Syl on August 16, 2004, 12:33:37 PM
Quote
And it's *entirely* possible to call KDR11k an idiot for thinking Ocarina of Time is "the suck" and Wind Waker "the love". These two games are so identical to one another in gameplay, they might as well be twins. How KDK_1k can say Ocarina plays inferior to WW, when they play essentially identically with the same view, same moves, same control, is totally impossible for a sane person to understand.
I can easily compare windwaker to OOT, Windwaker had a far superior combat and item management system, the puzzles were much more 3 dimensional in output, and the camera in OOT/MM was a pain. How one CAN'T notice that WindWaker has a much faster/deeper/complex/funner combat system is playing ignorance.
Quote
Here, I'll give you an example. Just the other day Grey Ninja told me he just got a Dreamcast and was wondering if he should bother getting Soul Calibur since he already had Soul Calibur 2 for his Gamecube. I told him SC2 had just about everything from SC plus a lot more. I said he shouldn't jump on getting it immediately but that if he ever had some extra money and nothing better to buy, Soul Calibur is definitely a great purchase.
Your uhh.. comparing soul calibur to SC2 in that post.
Quote
. I don't ignore older games simply because newer ones are better- I'll obviously play the better games and most likely enjoy them more, but that doesn't mean I won't enjoy the older games. They're still great games, they're just not the best. But they certainly don't suck.
Whoever said that all older games suck? Also, who said that all new games are great?
Quote
My point is I'd play ALL of them, there's no reason not to.
you are obviously completely oblivious to the whole "lack of time" thing that everyone else on the planet has, I would love to go back and play through skies of arcadia right now, but i simply don't have the time because of school and other things, It would take me a good few weeks to get through it. I also didn't finish majoras mask last time because of time, I shall get back to it shortly enough.
You need to understand that not everyone has all the time in the world, most people only have an hour or two a day to play games, if that long.
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 16, 2004, 01:42:13 PM
Quote
you are obviously completely oblivious to the whole "lack of time" thing that everyone else on the planet has
Reread my post above yours:
Quote
Posted by mouse_clicker Mon August 16, 2004 at 10:24 AM
Sure you can play only the best- I guess if your time is limited that's the only thing you can do. But my whole point is just because they're the BEST doesn't make everything else BAD.
Quote
Whoever said that all older games suck? Also, who said that all new games are great?
I never said all new games are great, but in response to your first question, I believe a quick glance at the title should answer it.
Quote
Your uhh.. comparing soul calibur to SC2 in that post.
I was justifying the purchase of an older game despite the fact it's sequel is undeniably better made because that older game is still very fun.
Post by: RCmodeler on August 16, 2004, 03:34:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker[/iQuoteQuoteAnd why do you care if they think Mary-Kate/Ashley Go Shopping is good?
Comparing games or movies or whatever is how you determine what is "good" and what is "bad". Otherwise, without comparision to previous games, one might conclude that Mary-Kate/Ashley Go Shopping is good.
I did not say I did. When I used the "one" I was talking about myself. To repeat with better clarity: "Comparing games or movies or whatever is how I determine what is "good" and what is "bad". Otherwise, without comparision to previous games, I might conclude that Mary-Kate/Ashley Go Shopping is good." And to repeat the part you conveniently ignored: "My time is finite, and naturally I want to use it wisely with the BEST games, not just okay ones." I use comparision/contrast to decide.
Of course mouse_clicker, if you prefer to note compare games, and therefore waste time playing crap like Mary-Kate/Ashley Go Shopping, then that's your choice. But I don't believe you do that. I think you're just trying to win the debate, even though your point is god damn stupid.
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 16, 2004, 03:43:45 PM
Quote
Of course mouse_clicker, if you prefer to note compare games, and therefore waste time playing crap like Mary-Kate/Ashley Go Shopping, then that's your choice.
What if I liked Mary-Kate/Ashley Go Shopping? Everyone has different tastes and opinions, why should it matter to you if someone is "wasting their time" with a game YOU have labeled as crap?
Post by: SgtShiversBen on August 16, 2004, 03:52:17 PM
Post by: RCmodeler on August 16, 2004, 03:52:58 PM
QuoteFirst, it's not nostalgia. Many of these games I just played for the first time in 2003, because I never owned a Nintendo system. I liked the games on their own merits.
Originally posted by: KDR_11kAnd what I'm suggesting is that many of the old games really aren't a good way to pass your time if you compare them with today's games and don't feel any nostalgia for the old game. That many games were acceptable by the standards back then but don't hold up to the standards these days.
Second, define "standards". According to MY standards, old games "hold up" just fine:
- (a) is it challenging?
- (b) is it fun?
- (c) if it is a story-based game, is the story good/characters interesting?
Super Metroid meets all those standards. Ditto Space Invaders or Mario Bros 1 or Zelda 64. In contrast, Wind Waker does *not* meet the standards. (a) I didn't die even once. (b) It was not any fun doing that ^&%@! stupid triforce search. It was outright b-o-r-i-n-g. (c) Interesting characters yes/but lame story.
So by MY standards, the older games are better. To repeat: What are YOUR standards?
Post by: RCmodeler on August 16, 2004, 03:58:41 PM
QuoteI would conclude that you're a newbie to games and feel pity for your ignorance. And then I'd recommend you try a couple superior games, so that you can stop wasting your time on Mary-Kate Crap.
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuoteWhat if I liked Mary-Kate/Ashley Go Shopping?
Of course mouse_clicker, if you prefer to note compare games, and therefore waste time playing crap like Mary-Kate/Ashley Go Shopping, then that's your choice.
Why?
Because unlike you, I DO care about other people.
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 16, 2004, 04:13:19 PM
Quote
I would conclude that you're a newbie to games and feel pity for your ignorance. And then I'd recommend you try a couple superior games, so that you can stop wasting your time on Mary-Kate Crap.
Why?
Because unlike you, I DO care about other people.
No, you're just elitist and feel the need to press onto other people YOUR preset view of what's good and what's bad. I find it very pretentious of you to act as if you're the definitive source of videogame quality and see it as your duty to spread your "knowledge" to all those who lack it. It's not that I don't care about people I just don't see why I should go around forcing my opinions on them- who am I to judge someone for liking a game I happen to think is horrible? Why is my opinion better or more official than theirs? All that matters is if they like the game and are happy with it. You're not the end all be all lord of good games, you're not some Zorro figure who's duty it is to make sure everyone is playing what you think they should be. It's not your job to judge people based on what games they play.
Post by: DrZoidberg on August 16, 2004, 04:25:26 PM
.Also, did you die in OoT or MM? I never did ever, they were pretty easy also
Post by: RCmodeler on August 17, 2004, 03:22:39 AM
QuoteYou mean... the same thing you do with online games and saying Nintendo is stupid for not supporting them. You're describing yourself, not me.
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerQuoteNo, you're just elitist and feel the need to press onto other people YOUR preset view of what's good and what's bad.
I would conclude that you're a newbie to games and feel pity for your ignorance. And then I'd recommend you try a couple superior games, so that you can stop wasting your time on Mary-Kate Crap.
Also, you strayed off-topic. The *point* was that you can't decide if a game is good or bad without comparing it to other things. Just as "good" means nothing without "evil" to compare it to. "Light" means nothing without "dark" for comparison. You NEED to compare to judge what is good or bad.
.
DYING: I never died in Wind Waker, because the damage was half as much and the bosses were easy. But I died a LOT in Ocarina, especially in the second-to-last battle against Ganandorf on the pedestal. That was a rough fight.
Post by: Berny on August 17, 2004, 09:21:49 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodeler
Also, you strayed off-topic. The *point* was that you can't decide if a game is good or bad without comparing it to other things. Just as "good" means nothing without "evil" to compare it to. "Light" means nothing without "dark" for comparison. You NEED to compare to judge what is good or bad.
All right, you want analogies, let's take a look at basic english. When comparing two things a comparative adjective is used. When you say a game is good, you are commenting on the quality of that game alone. When I decide whether or not I like a game, I do it based solely on that game. Also the standards for "better" or "worse" are completely relative so it's not at all fair to compare games. Take for instance A Link to the Past and The Wind Waker. The Wind Waker clearly has more advanced graphics and gameplay, but A Link to the Past has the classic 2D old school feel to it that has yet to be recreated in a Zelda game since that time. It's all a matter of preference. ANYWAYS, I jdo NOT need to compare to judge what is good or bad. If you think differently, that's your deal.
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 17, 2004, 11:36:28 AM
Quote
You mean... the same thing you do with online games and saying Nintendo is stupid for not supporting them. You're describing yourself, not me.
Eh? I said Nintendo is stupid for not supporting online games? I don't think I'm understanding you here.
Quote
Also, you strayed off-topic. The *point* was that you can't decide if a game is good or bad without comparing it to other things. Just as "good" means nothing without "evil" to compare it to. "Light" means nothing without "dark" for comparison. You NEED to compare to judge what is good or bad.
I never said there were no bad games- there are plenty, more than enough. My point is that having the elitist attitude that only the best games are worth your time is only cutting you off from countless good games whose only fault is not being as good as something else. People ask why should you play Metroid when Super Metroid is undeniably better made, and almost universally accepted as the better game? And I'M saying just because Super Metroid is better doesn't mean Metroid is bad and hence should not be ignored.
Post by: Berny on August 17, 2004, 11:47:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerPeople ask why should you play Metroid when Super Metroid is undeniably better made, and almost universally accepted as the better game? And I'M saying just because Super Metroid is better doesn't mean Metroid is bad and hence should not be ignored.
A-freaking-men! I think you did a better job of getting that point across much better than I.
Not much else to be said now, so um.....I do not elitists. Grrrr.... ^_^
Post by: Syl on August 17, 2004, 12:18:01 PM
Of course, if someone asked me why they were playing Shaq-Fu instead of Super Metroid, thats a good question.
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 17, 2004, 12:23:01 PM
Post by: RCmodeler on August 17, 2004, 12:44:03 PM
QuoteNo that's not it at all. Invalid assumption.
Originally posted by: mouse_clickerMy point is that having the elitist attitude that only the best games are worth your time is only cutting you off from countless good games whose only fault is not being as good as something else.
I recognize that I will eventually die. I estimate I have only 50 years left... 30 of which I will be healthy enough to still play games. I don't want to waste that limited & irreplaceable time playing Metroid when Super Metroid is superior. Or Mary-Kate/Ashley when Grand Theft is better. That is all. Simple really, when you think about it: Time is finite, therefore I must be careful how I spend it. (Many people are the same with money.)
ASIDE: Why hasn't someone hacked Metroid and eliminated that 30 unit regeneration? It is admittedly lame to have 500 full units and then suddenly drop to only 30, because of a mis-step. People have hacked Atari roms to make them easier or harder. Do people not do the same with NES roms?
Post by: manunited4eva22 on August 17, 2004, 12:44:05 PM
There are just as many good side scrollers as there will be 3d games; I actually prefer 2d games to 3d.
Either way, have fun with your games, bitch about them last
Post by: ib2kool4u912 on August 17, 2004, 12:52:07 PM
Post by: mouse_clicker on August 17, 2004, 12:58:54 PM
I realize some people have limited time and would like to only play the best a particular genre has to offer- I've said this before. I just don't think that means you should dismiss other games as being bad simply because they're not as good.
What I'd also like to stress is that when you ARE playing a game, regardless of the circumstances that lead to you getting ahold of it and giving it a try, I think you'll find that if, while you're playing it, you don't constantly compare it to similar games you will enjoy it MUCH more. If you judge it by itself, alone it's own little world, you're going to like it more. This has nothing to do with limited time because you're already playing the game. Just keep that in mind.
Quote
Either way, have fun with your games, bitch about them last.
Exactly- you should never look for reasons to dislike a game, that's self defeatist.
Post by: KDR_11k on August 17, 2004, 09:52:30 PM
IIRC what I said was that I question the quality of most old "classics" (that means titles like Pong, Space Invaders, Metroid, etc) and said that by now most games saw a superior game released. However, even if a superior game is released, people sometimes still say the old game is as good or better because of nostalgia or because by the time the superior game came out even better games came out in other cathegories and made the people at the time think that the newer game sucks (which, maybe, it did) yet they don't say the older, inferior game sucks.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on August 17, 2004, 11:00:35 PM
And Balloon Fight (best 1-on-1 game of its time!).
~~~~~
Iwata-San: "ROR!"
Post by: DrZoidberg on August 18, 2004, 12:51:59 AM
Quote
I recognize that I will eventually die. I estimate I have only 50 years left... 30 of which I will be healthy enough to still play games. I don't want to waste that limited & irreplaceable time playing Metroid when Super Metroid is superior. Or Mary-Kate/Ashley when Grand Theft is better. That is all. Simple really, when you think about it: Time is finite, therefore I must be careful how I spend it. (Many people are the same with money.)
duuuuuuuur, duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrr?? duuuuuuuuuuuurr..
