Games now are better than ever

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Yea, I said that they arent as good as you think. However, the 2nd part of your statement is definitely not true. Most of those games really arent worth playing. I played Sonic The Hedgehog 1 and 2 last year and they were silly and simple and not much fun at all. Same goes with a lot of the Genesis games. They were good back then but really not so much anymore.

---

Here's a point where I majorly disagree with what you say and have said. 2D, 3D, I don't really give a shit. The bottom line is that if it really *IS* a good game, it will always be a good game, regardless of time that's gone by. I think Sonic 1 & 2 have lost some luster over the years and as much as people enjoyed them I would never equate either as being timeless or great. That's personal opinion, much like yours and mine, which is wholly irrelevant other than having this conversation.

Games like Asteroids, Pac Man, Galaga, Dune, Ys, etc... are timeless. The games that one might insert there varies by the user obviously, but they exist for most everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valgar

Because I dissed a 2D game? Diffx is 100%, you guys go fucking nutz because it is 2D. The art style and animation in Alien Hominid doesn't look professional to me and it looks slow/boring, I am already certain I would play Gunstar Heroes instead.

---

It's got a lot more to do with how wrong you are than the game being 2D. And you put 'z's on the end of things where there should be no 'z's. That doesn't help out a whole lot either.

I think Diff stands a lot better on his own than with wrong people with "kewl" spelling habbits.

Edit: On the actual thread topic...

I think it's the same old same old, really. There were a ton of games we all thought were good way back when and those of us who are honest with ourselves understand that time has not been kind to them. On the other hand, the cream of the crop still holds up. It's going to be the same thing in ten years, you know. Somewhere, some douche is still going to be hailing the pitifully average Dead to Rights or some other like game as an awesome relic of a long gone era when everything was daisies and waterslides.

Music, movies, games; it's all the same in that reguard. There are plenty that are enjoyable NOW but will not stand up to time.

"And you can see that when you see a lot of the new GBA games."

No. YOU can. I'll take some of the new GBA games over 95% of the new 3D games.

"People jizz over them simply because theyre 2D, and thats silly."

If your statements are so defendable as you claim, PROVE THEM. So far all I've heard is you repeating yourself over and over. And until you do, I'll claim that you are a worthless twerp. And we both know that's the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

So far all I've heard is you repeating yourself over and over.

---

LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Here's a point where I majorly disagree with what you say and have said. 2D, 3D, I don't really give a shit. The bottom line is that if it really *IS* a good game, it will always be a good game, regardless of time that's gone by. I think Sonic 1 & 2 have lost some luster over the years and as much as people enjoyed them I would never equate either as being timeless or great. That's personal opinion, much like yours and mine, which is wholly irrelevant other than having this conversation.

Games like Asteroids, Pac Man, Galaga, Dune, Ys, etc... are timeless. The games that one might insert there varies by the user obviously, but they exist for most everyone.

---

This is a rediculous notion. The gaming industry is a tech industry. For that fact alone your statement is made to look like some much hope, dashed against the rocks of reality.

As the tech in the industry is improved, so too the products produced by that tech are improved. Developers have access to so much more than they had five years ago, and if used correctly (key word, kiddies), the products produced squash their previous projects every time.

Good games, unfortunately, don't ever stay good simply because to go back and play Sonic the Hedgehog requires me to forget all of the freeform, interactive, grandiose experiences I've had with the likes of Mario 64, Fable, and GTA3. They ask you place your imagination in a box so that you can "just get from point A to point B as fast as you can."

Getting from point A to point B is all well and good, but not if the way in which I must arive is as static as statue.

Your ability to reason is being clouded by nostalgia.

That's fine, so long as you realize it, and then come to terms.

Quote:

---

And you can see that when you see a lot of the new GBA games. Quite frankly, these games just arent very good. People jizz over them simply because theyre 2D, and thats silly.

---

That is bullshit. There are many reasons why games on the GBA are better than their console counterparts. Unless you include pc games you have no leg to stand on.

For example take Zoids Legacy, it is like taking mech warrior and final fantasy 1-3, putting them together adding extra features and a very unique level up system. Which is more than what most console games offer these days which seem like mediocre clones of a few good games.

Driving and Sports games are so much better now though, but that is it. PC gaming "pwns" console gaming so hard in thee other areas that console gaming is nothing more than a bloody mess.

There's definitely a lot of validity behind what haoh said, although I apply that same reasoning to a lot of things. A great song doesn't become a bad song just because new ones are out. A great wrestling match isn't made worse by matches that came after it, and so on and so forth. That's more of a statement of quality though, while the desire to play/watch/listen to something years after the fact is something that differs from person-to-person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

This is a rediculous notion. The gaming industry is a tech industry. For that fact alone your statement is made to look like some much hope, dashed against the rocks of reality.

As the tech in the industry is improved, so too the products produced by that tech are improved. Developers have access to so much more than they had five years ago, and if used correctly (key word, kiddies), the products produced squash their previous projects every time.

Good games, unfortunately, don't ever stay good simply because to go back and play Sonic the Hedgehog requires me to forget all of the freeform, interactive, grandiose experiences I've had with the likes of Mario 64, Fable, and GTA3. They ask you place your imagination in a box so that you can "just get from point A to point B as fast as you can."

Getting from point A to point B is all well and good, but not if the way in which I must arive is as static as statue.

Your ability to reason is being clouded by nostalgia.

That's fine, so long as you realize it, and then come to terms.

---

That is only true if you like freeform games or at the very least think they are better..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

Good games, unfortunately, don't ever stay good simply because to go back and play Sonic the Hedgehog requires me to forget all of the freeform, interactive, grandiose experiences I've had with the likes of Mario 64, Fable, and GTA3. They ask you place your imagination in a box so that you can "just get from point A to point B as fast as you can."

---

This all comes back to preference. Those grandiose esperiences might be more enjoyable to you, but they're not to everyone. As much as I love Morrowind, sometimes I simply don't want that amount of control. Sometimes I want some carefully crafted sequences instead of a great big sandbox.

Heres the thing about compariing Music and Games. Music is still made the same way today as it used to be, unless your talking about Techno or Electronica or something. Guitars, Drums, Bass, there were all in existance when all of the older rock songs were made, and lots bands use the exact same stuff today. Games rely on technology, better graphics engines, processing power, all that kind of stuff. You can't make a Metroid Prime with Super Metroid technology. But you can make tons of current music with the same stuff used 30 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

This is a rediculous notion. The gaming industry is a tech industry. For that fact alone your statement is made to look like some much hope, dashed against the rocks of reality.

---

Not, it's not a "rediculous notion", whatever the hell that is. You view the gaming industry as a "tech industry", I view it as an entertainment/arts industry. The real reality is that older games stand the test of time if they are worth their salt. Because you're used to game "Y" which allows you to do more than game "M", which was released 10 years ago, it doesn't change the fact that "Y" is a good game regardless of current technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

Good games, unfortunately, don't ever stay good simply because to go back and play Sonic the Hedgehog requires me to forget all of the freeform, interactive, grandiose experiences I've had with the likes of Mario 64, Fable, and GTA3. They ask you place your imagination in a box so that you can "just get from point A to point B as fast as you can."

---

Once again, you're generalizing an entire generation of games fitting into your particular definition. Did Star Control 2 require you to go from point A to B as fast as possible? Did Civilization 2? How about Herzog Zwei, or Dungeon Explorer, or Mario 64 (that's about 9 years old, good point).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

Your ability to reason is being clouded by nostalgia.

---

And yours has been clouded by the inability to reason at all.

If this thread's made one thing obvious that wasn't entirely clear to me before, it's that there are definitely two vastly different ideologies with regard to game design quality. I've seen it plenty before, and recognized it, but (and I don't know why) I assumed it was more or less absent on these boards. It's definitely not.

If you think games are made to allow you to do something you otherwise can't in real life, that they're made to immerse you into a world otherwise unreachable, you're only half right. And the half that you're right is definitely the lesser half.

Most importantly, video games are about gameplay. Incredible gameplay can hide in something as simple as Mario, as abstract as Tetris, and as immersive as ICO. Good gameplay can be defined in a number of ways, though balance, challenge, and design are (from what I can think of now) the most important aspects. Game design takes wayyyyyyy more consideration than "throw in more polys," "have more draw distance," "be more realistic," and other ideas that contribute to immersion. And game design (or gameplay, if you want) is way more important than visual/stylistic immersion.

Definitely, immersion, such as the awesome visuals and plot of Metal Gear Solid, can enhance gameplay. But a good game should be able to stand on its own, even if the immersive elements were absent (yes, MGS would still be a great game if you were controlling sticks, albeit less popular among the mainstream).

But immersion cannot make a game. A shit game, no matter how beautiful the graphics, how compelling the story, or how open-ended it is, is still a shit game. Thus, to believe that games will necessarily get better as technology improves--and with it, the ability to immerse players in the experience--is pure and utter nonsense.

You can go enjoy your shitty VR when technology permits.

Your argument assumes that "immersion" is only a factor of graphics and sound. The way a game plays can contribute as much to the "immersion" as anything else. Being "in the zone" if you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuryFox

Your argument assumes that "immersion" is only a factor of graphics and sound. The way a game plays can contribute as much to the "immersion" as anything else. Being "in the zone" if you will.

---

But those aspects have zero to do with technology and rather with game design. I figured it was pretty clear that we were talking about technology versus design. But you're right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuryFox

Your argument assumes that "immersion" is only a factor of graphics and sound. The way a game plays can contribute as much to the "immersion" as anything else. Being "in the zone" if you will.

---

haha. I will if he won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

But immersion cannot make a game. A shit game, no matter how beautiful the graphics, how compelling the story, or how open-ended it is, is still a shit game. Thus, to believe that games will necessarily get better as technology improves--and with it, the ability to immerse players in the experience--is pure and utter nonsense.

You can go enjoy your shitty VR when technology permits.

---

Good games have both immersion and gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

Good games have both immersion and gameplay.

---

That's not at all a blanket statement (assuming the immersion in question is the kind driven by technology). Tetris has nothing to immerse you other than driving music and fast-paced gameplay. There's nothing particularly convincing about Super Mario World, or Tempest. But those games are a million times more worthwhile than Grand Theft Auto, Morrowind, and Splinter Cell.

You know MarkRyan, I generally agree with your point, but you're shooting yourself in the foot by bringing up comparisons to modern games that are widely loved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

You know MarkRyan, I generally agree with your point, but you're shooting yourself in the foot by bringing up comparisons to modern games that are widely loved.

---

I've no problem in defending my opinion that those games aren't very good, in ways that relate directly to my previous argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

That's not at all a blanket statement (assuming the immersion in question is the kind driven by technology). Tetris has nothing to immerse you other than driving music and fast-paced gameplay. There's nothing particularly convincing about Super Mario World, or Tempest. But those games are a million times more worthwhile than Grand Theft Auto, Morrowind, and Splinter Cell.

---

You are drawing a distinction that does not exist.

Today's best games (GTA, Splinter Cell, etc.) succeed because their gameplay is both strong and immersive. They do not sacrifice one for the other.

Tetris and SMW are also immersive, but in different ways: the former for its all-consuming addictiveness, the latter for its colorful world and cunning gameplay language.

What you fail to recognize is that technology opens up new avenues of gameplay. The addictive qualities and complexities of GTA and SC: PT multiplayer owe themselves to the freedom of 3D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

Today's best games (GTA, Splinter Cell, etc.) succeed because their gameplay is both strong and immersive. They do not sacrifice one for the other.

---

I wouldn't argue that it's necessary to sacrifice one for the other (look at ICO, Metal Gear Solid, Zone of the Enders, Halo, and others). But I would argue that GTA and Pandora Tomorrow have absolute crap game design, in spite of any immersiveness derived from technological feats.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

I wouldn't argue that it's necessary to sacrifice one for the other (look at ICO, Metal Gear Solid, Zone of the Enders, Halo, and others). But I would argue that GTA and Pandora Tomorrow have absolute crap game design, in spite of any immersiveness derived from technological feats.

---

You've never really played PT multiplayer, have you?

(read my edit above for the rest of my response)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeveboy

Tetris and SMW are also immersive, but in different ways: the former for its all-consuming addictiveness, the latter for its colorful world and cunning gameplay language.

---

Of course. Again, these qualities are not there because of advanced technology. They exit because of design.

Quote:

---

What you fail to recognize is that technology opens up new avenues of gameplay. The addictive qualities and complexities of GTA and SC: PT multiplayer owe themselves to the freedom of 3D.

---

My point isn't that old games are better than new. My point is that a game's quality is not determined by the technology behind it, but rather by the design behind it. Which is why classic games can still be worth just as much as they were when they first came out to a hardcore gamer.

Quote:

---

You've never really played PT multiplayer, have you?

---

I did, and I didn't like it. But aside from the bugs that exist in the multiplayer, I don't really have any hardcore complaints about it since I didn't play it enough to pick apart. When I criticize Pandora Tomorrow, it's for its awful single player campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

This is a rediculous notion. The gaming industry is a tech industry. For that fact alone your statement is made to look like some much hope, dashed against the rocks of reality.

As the tech in the industry is improved, so too the products produced by that tech are improved. Developers have access to so much more than they had five years ago, and if used correctly (key word, kiddies), the products produced squash their previous projects every time.

---

Making games is an art; the technology is merely the tool with which to make it. A painter uses brushes, paints, and a canvas, just as a game developer uses programming languages, sound and graphic assets, and a computer.

Simply having the world's truest colored paints and smoothest brushes does not guarantee a great painting.

Having the most powerful computers and beautiful graphic and sound assets does not guarantee a great game.

In both art forms there is sort of a magic synergy that is characteristic of the truly great works; when all of the elements blend together and the work becomes more than just a sum of it parts.

Just as the Mona Lisa will forever be a truly great painting, Robotron: 2084 will forever be a truly great game.

Today the Mona Lisa could be repainted, with new techniques and software on the most powerful computers, but the results would pale in comparison.

Robotron: 2084 was remade, with new techniques and software on the most powerful computers, and the results paled in comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Captain Vegetable

Your ability to reason is being clouded by nostalgia.

---

The ability to reason on this topic requires an inherent appreciation of the art form. It seems you and others in this thread have none; the same people that look at the Mona Lisa for ten seconds and declare it worthless.

The paint medium hasn't really changed all that much in the intervening centuries, however (even software like Painter seeks to mimic the real thing as closely as possible), while videogames have undergone radical changes in far less time. Your comparison doesn't really hold, even if I agreed to videogames=art, which I don't. And I've seen the Mona Lisa in person. It's a great painting, but really overrated.

I like where MarkRyan is going with the concept of design. I think well made games that are actually fun remain fun no matter how old they get. The original Sonic's core design was rushing to the end of a straight line essentially. All the bells and whistles of modern game making can't really improve on that since the design concept has already been perfected there. I think that's why the 3D Sonics have essentially sucked because they're trying to alter a core gameplay element that has already reached its apex.

On topic, I think every console generation has a ton of crap games and a considerable number that are worth playing. I think there are more worth playing now than before just because the game output seems to be larger than before. I can't keep up with the games that interest me now, while I didn't have this problem last console generation.

Part of the reason I disagree on the Sonic view is that I don't race, unless it's specifically a racing game. The clock may be ticking and Sonic may be able to run at Ludicrous Speed, but there's nooks to explore and crannies with things in them. A big part of the reason I liked Sonic 1 better than Sonic 2 is that Sonic 1 felt designed to explore more than Sonic 2's environments. I can still enjoy Sonic 1 a little for nostalgia's sake, although I do recognize that it's dated. Sonic CD remains a lot of fun, though.

I don't like a lot of reality in my games. The more "real" they try to make a game the less fun it is, generally. Not just because the real world imposes limits far more limiting than 2D ever did, but because the art palette used on most "real world" games never imitates anything I see in real life. All those greys, grey-greens, and millions of shades of mud. Not to mention that Gunstar Heroes is as military as I ever want my games to be. I'll defend GTA3 (not Vice City, though) but not Splinter Cell, no matter how popular it gets. I'll never like the Halo games either, for that matter.

3D is a different way of representing a game than 2D. It's not a better way nor is it worse, assuming an equal level of skill is used when comparing the two. Ico, Rez, or Gitaroo Man just wouldn't be the same without 3D, just as Castlevania wasn't the same without 2D.

I think we need to define some terms here. What's "immersion" mean? I'm asking because-

Quote:

---

Tetris has nothing to immerse you other than driving music and fast-paced gameplay.

---

100% true, but it's insanely immersive. When you play it you dive into it's way of thinking and don't come out until you put it down. Immersion, as I'm thinking of it when reading it in this conversation, applies to how deeply the game pulls you into it while you play. Technology's obviously got nothing to do with it, and a "shit game" can't be immersive by definition. Immersion is defined by the gameplay, although being easy on the eyes/ears definitely makes it easier to be immersed.

James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ammadeau

Your comparison doesn't really hold, even if I agreed to videogames=art, which I don't.

---

If video games aren't art then what is? Film? Music? Sculpture? What makes these mediums art yet disqualifies video games?

Of course not all things are art. Or are they? You might say the art itself must have some kind of significance, be it social, religious, or otherwise, but what is the level of significance that qualifies the object in question for the lofty status of art?

That's why there is a difference between great art, the masterpieces and evreything else. Some things are more artful than others, but all things are art in some respect, to some person, somewhere. Right?
:chunobi:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ammadeau

The paint medium hasn't really changed all that much in the intervening centuries, however (even software like Painter seeks to mimic the real thing as closely as possible), while videogames have undergone radical changes in far less time. Your comparison doesn't really hold, even if I agreed to videogames=art, which I don't. And I've seen the Mona Lisa in person. It's a great painting, but really overrated.

---

Saying that painting hasn't really changed because paintings "still use paint" is almost like saying games haven't really changed because they're still just a bunch of programmed 1's and 0's. Painting HAS changed, and I think that change may even be significant to the world of video games. The Renaissance period was a result of technology. Not only were new technologies invented to create better paints and tools but science was finally applied to art. Anatomy and perspective. I don't know... maybe the Mona Lisa doesn't seem so sophisticated to you because it was painted 500 years ago? :rolleyes:

Painting has gone through many different periods as the result of technology. Stylistic arts like impressionism and cubism became popular when the photograph brought less value to photorealistic paintings.

How do I relate this to gaming? :lol: Well, with greater technology and a changing world, different styles emerge. Even though styles like impressionism emerged, people still paint photorealistic paintings. There's room for everything. Gaming's all about 3d now because it's new and exciting, but eventually people will get tired of it and want something else that's new and exciting (e.g. 2d once again). We're sort of allready to the point where anything that's 2D is automatically the best thing ever just because of the fact that its 2D (Viewtiful Joe).

I don't think games are necessarily better or worse as a whole, just different. Depending on your experiences you'll like it or hate it. Try selling someone brought up on PSX that NES games are sooo much better. Hell, try to sell me the idea ANY pre-NES console is even worth playing. :D

Oi! Vectrex!

James

It's every movie ever made art? Heck is every painting? Squeezing out a few tubes of various colors on a canvas doesn't make me the next Rapheal. Some games feel they were made with just as much consideration. Even those that have a lot of thought and effort to them don't strike me as art. Is Madden 2k4 art? Some games approach art, and whether they become it is really up to the individual, but videogame=art? I can't agree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ammadeau

It's every movie ever made art? Heck is every painting? Squeezing out a few tubes of various colors on a canvas doesn't make me the next Rapheal. Some games feel they were made with just as much consideration. Even those that have a lot of thought and effort to them don't strike me as art. Is Madden 2k4 art? Some games approach art, and whether they become it is really up to the individual, but videogame=art? I can't agree with that.

---

Yes they are all art. Does that mean they are good? No, it does not. Still, it doesn't change the fact that when paint is applied to a canvas by either a master painter or a five year old, it's still a painting and it's still art, the only difference is in the quality.

If visual work is art, and music is art, then how can something that combines crafted visuals and music not be art?

Fuck you guys if you think I'm reading anywhere near 8 pages of this.

I'll just say X-Com is still a fantastic and fun game and leave it at that.

Opaque, all movies are art? What about the obvious cash runs with no real heart behind them? Also, James, it's good to see another person enjoy Sonic 1 for its exploration, which pretty much every succeeding Sonic game lacks, although Sonic Adventure sort of stumbles ass-backwards into it due to the hub area. Also, one of the great things about gaming, or any medium, for that matter, is that you can look at the same piece, whether it be a game, a piece of cover art, a piece of music, etc. and get endless interpretations as to what makes that piece great/good/okay/bad/shit/uninspired/etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flux=rad

Well, that's like your opinion, man.

---

YOU WIN, YOUR ROYAL DUDENESS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

But those aspects have zero to do with technology and rather with game design. I figured it was pretty clear that we were talking about technology versus design. But you're right.

---

Game design gets less limited as technology progresses. I'd say that game design is quite dependant on technology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MVS

Fuck you guys if you think I'm reading anywhere near 8 pages of this.

---

What a funny bastard you are! ROTFL.

Quote:

---

What you fail to recognize is that technology opens up new avenues of gameplay. The addictive qualities and complexities of GTA and SC: PT multiplayer owe themselves to the freedom of 3D.

---

But at the same time, a lot of 2D games don't translate well to 3D. 3D is nice, having a Z axis is nice, but it's not the only way to do things. Not every game should be thrown headlong into 3D for the sake of being 3D. We've seen a lot of series do that, and 9 times out of 10 the results are not good. I understand the want to update and innovate, but I just feel like there would be a lot less crushing disappointments if game developers would simply realize that 3D is not inherently superior to 2D, just as complexity is not inherently superior to simplicity. They shouldn't feel such a consuming need to reinvent the wheel when the wheel you have works perfectly fine, and to top it off they have no way to go about making the functionality of the wheel they envision match the funtionality of the one they have other than "make it more complex and nicer-looking".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Opaque, all movies are art? What about the obvious cash runs with no real heart behind them?

---

well, as Opaque said, bad art is still art.. I agree with that..

you can't just call only the masterpieces "art".. then who decides what is or isn't a masterpiece?

How do you measure how much heart someone puts into something?
You never know.. a person could have all the heart in the world, but no talent, and end up with a POS game.

Wagner once called opera (paraphrased, mind you) the greatest of all arts because it combined the elements of music, drama, poetry and visual art together. In many ways video games are the very same thing by combining music, story, graphics and control into a final product that, when one part is removed, is reduced to nothing or at least nothing worthwhile.

So, videogames=art. :D

And good games are good games while bad games are bad games, be them twenty days or twenty years old.

This thread really developed into something good. I am shocked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Which is why classic games can still be worth just as much as they were when they first came out to a hardcore gamer.

---

Please stop. This is as stupid as saying Led Zeplin is only good if you're a hardcore music listner. Andy Worhal (I don't know how to spell his name) is only apealing art if you really dig art man, yea! I liked the rest of your ideas, but I hate it when people think that certain things are only enjoyed by a hardened gamer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Son of Bryce

Saying that painting hasn't really changed because paintings "still use paint" is almost like saying games haven't really changed because they're still just a bunch of programmed 1's and 0's.

---

I would actually agree with them being the same. I was happy I was not the only person to think this. Was Picasso's "blue" peroid paintings any less because he had a limited pallet? Was Monet's dot painitng (sorry if I am wrong on this) any less because he did not use full brush strokes? Is Mario no longer Mario because only 8 bits were used?

James brings up a hell-o-lot of good points in his posts that relate to gaming and how viewing it and art are similar and how many aspects there are to all things. The Meach needs to find this topic, I would love to see some input from him...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Six

Wagner once called opera (paraphrased, mind you) the greatest of all arts because it combined the elements of music, drama, poetry and visual art together. In many ways video games are the very same thing by combining music, story, graphics and control into a final product that, when one part is removed, is reduced to nothing or at least nothing worthwhile.

So, videogames=art. :D

And good games are good games while bad games are bad games, be them twenty days or twenty years old.

---

Of course, most videogames combine all these elements with all the dramatic flair, skill, and professionalism of a 7th grader. It's gotten better over the past 3 or 4 years but its still not very good.

Second of all, good games are good games but time is better to some than others. This is obvious. Sometimes, great movies or great books just look dated and old after a period of time. Im thinking of something like Taxi Driver, which yea was amazing back in the day but its not that gruesome anymore and in fact is kinda slow and boring.

Videogames have advanced so much, and gotten so much better, in the past 5 or 6 years that they really have made the vast majority of old-school titles look silly and obsolete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Tsubaki, why do you equate cut scenes with immersiveness? The two are mutually exclusive, for the most part.

---

Alright, you got me here.

What I meant to say is that immersiveness, or the experience aspect, is often counter to the gameplay aspect. It isn't always. You gave the example of Half-Life, which doesn't sacrifice anything for its immersiveness.

But the problem I have with modern gaming is that many games DO use the immersiveness and experience as a substitute for gameplay. And whether I like it or not, many people gobble these games up. But I'm just saying that this is not how games always were. And one shouldn't be surprised if some people, like me, oppose it.

Quote:

---

And also, why did you spend so much time playing a junk game like Sonic Adventure 2?

---

And why do you continue to ask? I just told you that you would hate SA2, and why you would, just as I've told you that I like SA2, and why I do. If you can't look beyond the game itself and think about what it is about the game that causes people to like or hate it, then why are we having this discussion?

Our likes and dislikes aren't manipulated by game developers. We like and dislike games based on how well they fulfill what we've always desired. Simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shapermc

Please stop. This is as stupid as saying Led Zeplin is only good if you're a hardcore music listner. Andy Worhal (I don't know how to spell his name) is only apealing art if you really dig art man, yea! I liked the rest of your ideas, but I hate it when people think that certain things are only enjoyed by a hardened gamer.

---

I was referring to any gamer that doesn't see graphics/technology as the purpose of video games. Which could be someone like your or me, or my eight-year-old cousin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Videogames have advanced so much, and gotten so much better, in the past 5 or 6 years that they really have made the vast majority of old-school titles look silly and obsolete.

---

But the classics that do stand the test of time are just as fun as ever, and games that were mediocre way back when are shit now. Obviously, this is going to happen to the current generation as well... in ten years, Second Sight is going to be just as worthless as the Bubsy games.

In that sense, I wouldn't say gaming is getting better. The ratio of mediocrity to classics is about the same, but modern mediocre games are more appealing than old mediocre games because they're a closer match to the general gaming atmosphere today. However, I'd argue that they have just as much shelf life as any of the crappy SNES games had, and once there's another shift in the general public's gaming preferences, today's classics will stick around and the crap will sink, just like it always has.

It's the same with movies. For every classic, you have countless movies that might have entertained at the time but are hopelessly dated now. This doesn't mean that movies have gotten better, it just means that time has seperated the good from the bad, and what was once considered a decent way to spend an afternoon (a movie that, in 1960, might have been considered three stars our of five) is now hopelessly bad and not worth the time. But the true classics are always good.

Yep, I was super immersed when I got shot in HL and a red trapezoid showed up signifying where I got hit.

I was super immersed in SC when I had a bunch of lights on my head and yet no one could see them. Oh and when I had to use a menu to decide what I wanted to do with an object I was looking at

I was super immersed in GTA when I had to hit a button to aim at a guy so his body would be encapsulated in a red targeting reticle.

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft

I play games because they're FUN. And they haven't gotten more fun than yesteryear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Also, James, it's good to see another person enjoy Sonic 1 for its exploration, which pretty much every succeeding Sonic game lacks

---

Veering off-topic for a sec, but yes, that's exactly why I think Sonic the Hedgehog is the best in the series.

As much flack Sonic gets for being all about speed, not all Sonic games are about "racing". Sonic the Hedgehog isn't. Sonic Advance isn't. And as much as the general public regards Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and Sonic Advance 2 as much better games, I really can't agree. I don't have a positive opinion of either game, but Sonic the Hedgehog and Sonic Advance are two of the best platformers I've ever played.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Yep, I was super immersed when I got shot in HL and a red trapezoid showed up signifying where I got hit.

I was super immersed in SC when I had a bunch of lights on my head and yet no one could see them. Oh and when I had to use a menu to decide what I wanted to do with an object I was looking at

I was super immersed in GTA when I had to hit a button to aim at a guy so his body would be encapsulated in a red targeting reticle.

Pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffft

I play games because they're FUN. And they haven't gotten more fun than yesteryear.

---

I was really immersed when I was playing Atari 2600, and I had to move that blip from one side of the screen to another. That was so rad.

:tu:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsubaki

Alright, you got me here.

What I meant to say is that immersiveness, or the experience aspect, is often counter to the gameplay aspect. It isn't always. You gave the example of Half-Life, which doesn't sacrifice anything for its immersiveness.

But the problem I have with modern gaming is that many games DO use the immersiveness and experience as a substitute for gameplay. And whether I like it or not, many people gobble these games up. But I'm just saying that this is not how games always were. And one shouldn't be surprised if some people, like me, oppose it.

---

I would argue that such "false immersiveness" really detracts from the experience of a game. I despise cutscenes in games; it usually means that control is taken away from me for an indeterminate time, and that the character I am controlling (instead of me) does something that usually looks cool -- so what can I not do it instead?

That is what I think was so cool about games like System Shock and Deus Ex -- they almost never broke away from the game to give you tidbit X about the backstory. You either heard it from an NPC (usually while something else is going on), or you read it from some of the journals laying around -- much as one would in real life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Yep, I was super immersed when I got shot in HL and a red trapezoid showed up signifying where I got hit.

I was super immersed in SC when I had a bunch of lights on my head and yet no one could see them. Oh and when I had to use a menu to decide what I wanted to do with an object I was looking at

I was super immersed in GTA when I had to hit a button to aim at a guy so his body would be encapsulated in a red targeting reticle.

---

At the same time, did it break you out of the game? I doubt it. Games are not immersive because they are realistic, games are immersive because they are engrossing.

Those silly looking UI contraptions are abstractions. They are required because games lack the input/output necessary to notify the player via other means. Sure you do not get a trapazoid flashing in your sights when you get shot in the side, but you get this searing, painful sensation in your side instead. Would you rather have no indication that you are getting shot until you die? I doubt it.

-Dippy

Yeah but people back then used their imaginations more when playing those games so they could get more imerssed. Same way people had to visualise what was going on with D&D or something, or reading a book. Sure adventure was as simplistic as it gets, but it was intended that you were visualising a much grander adventure.

the best hand-held game (pokemon) is almost 16-bit. Your one of those gamers that play not becuse their good but becuase the graphics have gotten better. thats the only thing that has changed greatly over the years.

you suck ass old school games rule! they are the fondation of todays games. Withouth them we'd be no where

Talking about the best handheld games is like talking about the poop that smells the least.

Quote:

---

you suck ass

---

Hey mods, looks like a flame to me. Better crack down. =O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by remnant

you suck ass old school games rule! they are the fondation of todays games. Withouth them we'd be no where

---

yeahi totilyy agree1

Good point, johnk. I guess it's something where you just give the benefit of the doubt to it, and hope that there are good inentions behind it. I agree, to some degree, with MarkRyan's statement, except for the hardcore gamer part. Classics can be enjoyed by any kind of gamer, as evidenced by my uncle, who is a casual gamer, but actually sticks to what he wants to play, and enjoys many old games, including, ironically enough, Sonic 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

The way you worded it made it sound like anyone enjoying a past game over a modern one is nostalgia-blinded.

---

I don't think so. I think if someone would have posted "I still enjoy games like Zelda on the NES." or "Super Mario 64" or something along those lines, I'm sure diffx would have understood where they were coming from. A good game is a good game, regardless of other peoples opinions. We can all agree that The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time was a great game. It was masterfully produced. He is just saying games being produced THESE days are a lot more enjoyable to him, since they give him much more freedom than the games of yesteryear.

Anyone ever find it funny when EGM does a celebrity interview with some random celebrity, and their favorite game is always "Pac Man" or "Pong"? Give me a break.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan reffering to LoI

But it had some amazing music. And great...cover art.

---

I was SO about to say that. GOTY!

"I was really immersed when I was playing Atari 2600, and I had to move that blip from one side of the screen to another. That was so rad."

Oh...I didn't realize I went back to 1st grade.

"New games ren't immersive"
"Yeah, well, old ones aren't either neener neener neer"

No kidding?

"but you get this searing, painful sensation in your side instead"

I'd prefer that to weed some of you people out of the gene pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Hey mods, looks like a flame to me. Better crack down. =O

---

Yeah, he just insulted "suck ass old school games". Who's nick is that anyway. :P

I fucking hate the word 'immersive'. Its corporate-babble. Every MMORPG press release has that word 7 times in it.

Anyways ... if a game is 1) Fun 2) Genre busting/creating 3)has memorable characters ... its a classic game. Classic games can become tired and dated, but their existence influenced others to make the great games of today. So the Classics always win because of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Videogames have advanced so much, and gotten so much better, in the past 5 or 6 years that they really have made the vast majority of old-school titles look silly and obsolete.

---

I still don't agree here. Yeah, they've advanced in terms of hardware and such but better? I'm not so sure. If you have a blast playing NES games and then have as much fun playing Halo or GTA, where do you see a distinction in terms of which is better? Both entertained you and while the methodology may be different, the end result is identical.

I like that this has spurred so much discussion but it's still in the same vein as "console A is better than console B" as preference drives both sides of the argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

I like that this has spurred so much discussion but it's still in the same vein as "console A is better than console B" as preference drives both sides of the argument.

---

Obviously, the difference is that player "A" likes "X" game from 10 years ago and player "B" likes "Y" that was released last week. It really can't be effectively argued that either party is wrong.

Which is pretty much what you said. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Melf

I still don't agree here. Yeah, they've advanced in terms of hardware and such but better? I'm not so sure. If you have a blast playing NES games and then have as much fun playing Halo or GTA, where do you see a distinction in terms of which is better? Both entertained you and while the methodology may be different, the end result is identical.
.

---

Of course you wouldnt agree. You run a website based on one of the most dated and obsolete pieces of hardware out there.

This white noise is thankfully being drowned out by the Streets of Rage 2 music.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Of course you wouldnt agree. You run a website based on one of the most dated and obsolete pieces of hardware out there.

---

Dude, have some respect for the classics. You're sounding like some grunge/rap music kid saying old blues/rock 'n roll songs are obsolete. You don't have to like the games of the past but at least acknowledge that something can be good whether you like it or not. Personally, I have never enjoyed a Sid Meier game but I can see the quality even though it's not to my taste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

Dude, have some respect for the classics. You're sounding like some grunge/rap music kid saying old blues/rock 'n roll songs are obsolete. You don't have to like the games of the past but at least acknowledge that something can be good whether you like it or not. Personally, I have never enjoyed a Sid Meier game but I can see the quality even though it's not to my taste.

---

Give me a break. I do have respect for the classics. I mentioned a couple before (like Robotron, and Street Fighter 2, and some of the Marios). However, Im not so blind to see that the vast majority of games that I used to enjoy, or that everyone enjoys, or even that so many people talk fondly of nowadays - simply stink now, in 2004. If I made a top-20 favorite-games-ever list in 1996, Im positive that at least 18 of them are not worth bothering with anymore.

Every year around Madden time I have to hear people coming into EB and talking about how great Tecmo Bowl is. Come on. That game was fun 15 years ago, now its trash (and if you dont want to play a realistic football game, just play Blitz. Its way better than the old Tecmo Bowl games). Likewise with a lot of Genesis games. Theyre just not worth playing anymore. Other than out of sheer curiousity or nostalgia I cant think of anything I would want to pick up and play on the system. This is simple reality. Just because Jeremy gives every game he plays a 10/10 doesnt make it a classic or worth playing now.

And just because you say they aren't worth playing doesn't mean they aren't.

Simple reality.

And there are no realistic football games out there. And if you think they are...well, that comes as no surprise, seeing as how you probably couldn't play football.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

And just because you say they aren't worth playing doesn't mean they aren't.

Simple reality.

And there are no realistic football games out there. And if you think they are...well, that comes as no surprise, seeing as how you probably couldn't play football.

---

01. No. If I say they arent worth playing, they arent worth playing. Fin.

02. Your continued, pathetic attempts to insult me personally are hilarious and unbelievable.

03. This is what, your 8th post in this thread? I thought you were telling everyone to stop responding to my posts.

I wonder if Joust is sick and tired of getting owned by diff yet. It's like a daily occurance.

Yes, and your dozen in here keep saying "I'm right, and you're wrong".

That's 1st grade crap, but then again--no surprise coming from you...

Yep, I'm really getting owned. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

http://www.toysnjoys.com/usps2/lamentofinnocence.jpg
Very far from crappy (it's my favorite cover art this generation). And here's a sample of the awesome music: click here. At 1:35 this song tears me apart.

---

did you bother to notice that the open(ie left)hand is far bigger and out of proportion than it should be?

Diff, what does me giving out tons of 10s have to do with a goddamn thing? Or is it just your usual attempt to shoehorn in my reviewing into pretty much any topic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Yes, and your dozen in here keep saying "I'm right, and you're wrong".

That's 1st grade crap, but then again--no surprise coming from you...

Yep, I'm really getting owned. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

---

First of all, its my thread. If I have 50 posts in this thread all saying the same thing, so be it. I rule over this thread and jokers like you continue to post. I say something about videogames, you call me a "worthless twerp" or a "moron" or a "total idiot" (all actual insults that he directed at me, in this thread), I say something else, you quiver and continue to love me while you try to insult my physical abilities or whatever. There's a million threads like that, arent there?

Thats our little tango, our little dance, right?

Second of all, #9.

Well, a person who makes a claim (the onus is on you--you started the thread) and can't back it up does qualify as worthless. And when they make threads about wanting to get big, they qualify as a twerp.

Calling a spade a spade and all that...

The moral is that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and by you calling Dyne a retard, you threw the first stone, bud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Yep, I'm really getting owned. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

---

He doesn't have to win arguments to win the war. The fact that practically all of your posts in recent history are replying to diff means he owns you.

Diff's not really a troll, he's just really arrogant and recalcitrant. If arseholes like you and Jeremy didn't constantly get in "yes" and "no" arguements, TNL would be a better place. It's not about no feeding the trolls, it's about understanding that arguing with diff on certain things is like nailing jelly to a brick wall with your head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Well, a person who makes a claim (the onus is on you--you started the thread) and can't back it up does qualify as worthless. And when they make threads about wanting to get big, they qualify as a twerp.

Calling a spade a spade and all that...

---

So lets say I make a thread about wanting to become the Atari 2600 champion. I say, "I want to become the Atari 2600 champion. I am not the Atari 2600 champion as of right now. What advice can I get, from Atari 2600 champions and/or coaches, so that I may work towards this? We all have to start from somewhere, after all.". What does that make me? A twerp or someone who wants information on a certain task, that task being Atari 2600?

#10.

Someone that sucks at Atari 2600.

No, but you see, I dont want to suck at Atari 2600. Thats why Im making the post about wanting to become the 2600 Champion. Help me help me Joust.

#11.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

It's not about no feeding the trolls, it's about understanding that arguing with diff on certain things is like nailing jelly to a brick wall with your head.

---

fucking hell,there you do it again!!!

Ask Master. He's the champion, not me. Did you even read the article he wrote? None of us could care any less about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

fucking hell,there you do it again!!!

---

I'M SO AWESOME!!!

Will everyone involved with the last five posts please die? (You can take me with you.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joust Williams

Ask Master. He's the champion, not me. Did you even read the article he wrote? None of us could care any less about it.

---

You mean, ask the guy who has experience doing it? So what if that task was, say, working out?

Were you born with barbells in your hands, or did you ask people more experienced than you for advice? Because I wasnt born with a 2600 joystick in my hands. Your continued use of that thread, which I made a year ago and asked questions like, "what can I expect wrt muscle growth reasonably" and "what do you guys do when you work out", to attack me is unbelievably pitiful and really quite sad.

#12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Will everyone involved with the last five posts please die? (You can take me with you.)

---

IBTN.

Astro, it's so good to know that WE'RE the problem behind diff's actions, and that he isn't responsible for anything he says. Very reassuring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Astro, it's so good to know that WE'RE the problem behind diff's actions, and that he isn't responsible for anything he says. Very reassuring.

---

Yes, but you're level headed enough to stop it, diff is so broken and jaded he can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AstroBlue

Yes, but you're level headed enough to stop it, diff is so broken and jaded he can't.

---

So it's almost like Tourette's syndrome? "fuck shit I'm right and you're wrong cockfag shit cunt"

That might be construed as a flame, which diff will never stand for, so it's a good thing it was an obvious parody. Astro, I dig what you're saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sethsez

So it's almost like Tourette's syndrome? "fuck shit I'm right and you're wrong cockfag shit cunt"

---

You forgot the part about Nintendo and old games sucking, and Warcraft 3 being awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

01. No. If I say they arent worth playing, they arent worth playing. Fin.

---

Talk about pompous horseshit, who are you to be the final word in what anyone deems worth playing? Your ignorance about the entire field is reason enough that you should shut up, much less spout end-all be-alls as if your opinion meant anything to anyone. Yawn, already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by haohmaru

Talk about pompous horseshit, who are you to be the final word in what anyone deems worth playing?

---

TEH MASTER OF TNL!!!!11oneeleven11!!!

Seriously, will someone please come in and ban every one of us?

I've tried that, hasn't worked yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Seriously, will someone please come in and ban every one of us?

---

I'd be lonely.

"Were you born with barbells in your hands, or did you ask people more experienced than you for advice? Because I wasnt born with a 2600 joystick in my hands. Your continued use of that thread, which I made a year ago and asked questions like, "what can I expect wrt muscle growth reasonably" and "what do you guys do when you work out", to attack me is unbelievably pitiful and really quite sad. "

Maybe if you acted like a decent human being instead of a little pile of crap who talks as if your opinion is the only one a reasonable person could possibly share, you wouldn't deserve it. Until then, you sound like one of those middle school wannabes that acts tough, but when push comes to shove, can't do a damn thing about anything.

You think I think that everyone that asks the questions you did are twerps? No. Only people with your crap attitude as if they're right and other people are wrong, when you're more wrong than anyone else here on average. All I picture is someone that got repeatedly beat up by people because they thought you were a piece of crap and now you want to get back at them. I'd bet the ranch that I'm not far off on that assertion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater

Dude, have some respect for the classics. You're sounding like some grunge/rap music kid saying old blues/rock 'n roll songs are obsolete. You don't have to like the games of the past but at least acknowledge that something can be good whether you like it or not. Personally, I have never enjoyed a Sid Meier game but I can see the quality even though it's not to my taste.

---

you tell 'em Neo..

Those damn whippershnappers just can't appreciate a good classic these days..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Seriously, will someone please come in and ban every one of us?

---

Or at least move the thing to whatever forum they have now that's hidden that I don't have to look at.

Glad to see the mods are really doing their job :rolleyes:

I can reason fine, haoh. You're the one having problems.

And pardon my horrible typos. I haven't been typing on a right proper keyboard for some time.

Diff, Haoh, Joust, and Jeremy: shut the fuck up. Diff, you're a smart guy, but stop flamebaiting. The rest of you, stop stalking him.

:eep:

How many times is this going to happen? He baits with the same line every time and the same people go after him everytime. It's like a a bad knock knock joke now. Break the cycle! Don't get into the strangers car and go straight home or to the nearest area where a lot of adults are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rumpy

Don't get into the strangers car and go straight home or to the nearest area where a lot of adults are.

---

that sounded a bit..... off.. for some reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkRyan

Seriously, will someone please come in and ban every one of us?

---

Don't tempt me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by diffusionx

Likewise with a lot of Genesis games. Theyre just not worth playing anymore. Other than out of sheer curiousity or nostalgia I cant think of anything I would want to pick up and play on the system. This is simple reality. Just because Jeremy gives every game he plays a 10/10 doesnt make it a classic or worth playing now.

---

I still play Herzog Zwie at least once a year. The game was well designed and has countless replay value. 16-bit is the high point of platform gaming. Most platform style games in 3-D, have'nt improved on the play mechanics and still have issues with the camera.

In a feeble attempt to salvage the decent conversation that this thread once had, I'd like to post this interesting pair of quotes.

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction." - Albert Einstein or E.F. Schumacker

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein