Author Topic: Do Older Games Suck? (Read 28794 times)

Bill Aurion · « **Reply #50 on:** August 15, 2004, 01:11:47 PM »

Ewwww... ;_;

Insist ^_^,

Syl · « **Reply #51 on:** August 15, 2004, 02:51:48 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldShadow1
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...

Incest is always funny.

KDR_11k · « **Reply #52 on:** August 15, 2004, 09:37:25 PM »

MC: 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). If games existed in a complete vacuum and your only choice was to either play this game or don't play any game at all, sure, we'd play a whole lot more games and we'd use different criteria for rating games. Sure your expectations rise, but many people apply different sets of expectations to old and new games. Let's take first person shooters: With the release of Half-Life, expectations suddently rose a lot, run and gun was no longer good enough, many games got decried as bad because they couldn't measure up to Half-Life (I remember a review of Daikatana saying "This would be a top game in the age of Quake 2, but nowadays it's just not enough.") If Quake 2 was released after Half-Life, do you think it would have received the warm reception it got? People judge newer games by different standards than old ones, noone cried because Doom or Quake didn't have elaborate storylines (though both were supposed to have them in early development, hell, Doom 1 was suposed to have most of the story of Half-Life, now people claim iD stole it from Half-Life for Doom 3) and people play through them to relive their nostalgia, not to play a good game (they probably missed out much better games later on because they still couldn't deliver the same as Half-Life). Yes, expectations rise, but old games often don't stack up to them, yet are exempted for some reason (99% being nostalgia).

RCmodeler · « **Reply #53 on:** August 16, 2004, 03:20:59 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker I think it occurs to me that I don't care what other people's opinions are.

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.

Quote
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.

Yeah it sucks to have to use critical thinking. It makes my brain hurt.

/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.)

KDR_11k · « **Reply #54 on:** August 16, 2004, 04:11:25 AM »

Level design. Even two completely identically coded games will play completely different with different level design. Also, OOT delays the lock-on, which means e.g. no quick turning around and hitting the enemy with an arrow. Also there's almost no camera control in OOT, I often disagree with the game on the subject of what I want to see.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #55 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?

KDR_11k · « **Reply #56 on:** August 16, 2004, 06:16:48 AM »

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. And 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. That new games have to match the games released before and at the same time but old games only have to match the games released back then.

Realistically, would you play Pong for an extended period of time?

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #57 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.

Syl · « **Reply #58 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.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #59 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.

RCmodeler · « **Reply #60 on:** August 16, 2004, 03:34:19 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker[/i
Quote
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?

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.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #61 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?

SgtShiversBen · « **Reply #62 on:** August 16, 2004, 03:52:17 PM »

MC, have YOU ever played the game? Just a question, not being hostile.

RCmodeler · « **Reply #63 on:** August 16, 2004, 03:52:58 PM »

Quote
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.

First, 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.

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?

RCmodeler · « **Reply #64 on:** August 16, 2004, 03:58:41 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
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?

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.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #65 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.

DrZoidberg · « **Reply #66 on:** August 16, 2004, 04:25:26 PM »

Mary Kate and Asshley is hot, oh shi wa. Oh Hay doods, continue this way and I can see one of two things happening, the thread gets locked or someone gets banned

.

Also, did you die in OoT or MM? I never did ever, they were pretty easy also

RCmodeler · « **Reply #67 on:** August 17, 2004, 03:22:39 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
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.
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.

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.

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.

Berny · « **Reply #68 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.

Berny · « **Reply #70 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.... ^_^

Syl · « **Reply #71 on:** August 17, 2004, 12:18:01 PM »

...I actually think that Metroid has stood the test of time rather well, Its still atmospheric and damn good, incredibly difficult. Its only fault is the damn Die-restart with 30 life issue. If that wasn't there, i would have been through it quite a bit more.

Of course, if someone asked me why they were playing Shaq-Fu instead of Super Metroid, thats a good question.

mouse_clicker · « **Reply #72 on:** August 17, 2004, 12:23:01 PM »

Hehe, Shaq-Fu. My local used gamed store has labeled their copies of Shaq-Fu "No Return" and will absolutely not, under any circumstances, accept new copies.

RCmodeler · « **Reply #73 on:** August 17, 2004, 12:44:03 PM »

Quote
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.

No that's not it at all. Invalid assumption.

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?

manunited4eva22 · « **Reply #74 on:** August 17, 2004, 12:44:05 PM »

I can answer this entire debate in about 6 words, no and who gives a crap.

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

News:

Author Topic: Do Older Games Suck? (Read 28794 times)