The history of video games can pretty much be broken up into 5 generations. Of the five shown in the poll, which was/is gaming's golden age?
Printable View
The history of video games can pretty much be broken up into 5 generations. Of the five shown in the poll, which was/is gaming's golden age?
Online gaming and more mature content makes me choose the latter.
Genesis, Sega CD, SNES, TG-16, TGCD, GG, Neo Geo
No ?
Wha... Where does the DC fall?
Choice #6 - Dreamcast - System of 2000
Yes. Chalk another one up for that generation.Quote:
No ?
Genesis, Sega CD, SNES, TG-16, TGCD, GG, Neo Geo
Couldn't find a spot for the DC? =\ it should fit in nicely with the modern generation. similar to the Saturn bowing out early in its section I suppose.
I chose the 16-bit era as well.
It's a matter of personal taste, but I say it was the "16-bit" era. It's the time period where most of my favorite games and gaming memories come from (like when I used to have fun when I went to an arcade).
If the DC is the current generation, then along with the GC they've got 2nd place.
*Hangs head in shame* I can't believe I left the DC off...Quote:
Originally posted by Click_Stick
Wha... Where does the DC fall?
Choice #6 - Dreamcast - System of 2000
For me there are 2 Golden Ages.
The first one is option 3. I absolutely lived for Genesis. I had so many games and I rented so many more. There are so many classics that came out. Sega CD and Game Gear were great too.. and even the other systems which were out them but I didn't have were cool too. Especially the TG16 and Neo*Geo. It was wonderful times...
The second Golden Age for me is even simpler. 1999-2001. It was a short time, but it was the best of times. First came NGPC, the most underrated little system ever.... and then came Dreamcast. The best system ever! The amount of mind-bogglingly good games that came out for Dreamcast - the perrrfectly designed system - in such a short time is incredible (especially when you consider than XB, PS2, and GCN combined don't have the amount of quality software that Dreamcast does - at least in my opinion!). It's a shame it had to end, but it was great while it lasted.
I hope that a third Golden Age comes, but I don't think it will be for a generation or two. Right now things are OK. Not too bad, but far from ideal...
While the current generation looks promising. It's too early to tell if it will dethrone the king. And while there were some true gems in the last generation, it was an exploratory age and did not reach the true levels of excellence. The first gen was alot of fun at the time... but little from that gen is playable anymore. The 8-bit generation was incredible... but it was just surpassed by my choice. I would say that the 16-bit gen has been the greatest generation of gaming so far.
Each has had about an equal impact on me save for pre-NES group, and assuming DC gets lumped with the latest. So it's all been golden for me, save for the few years about '95 where I stopped gaming for the most part. When it goes downhill, I'll be sure to let everyone know.
i couldn't agree moreQuote:
Originally posted by sggg
For me there are 2 Golden Ages.
The first one is option 3. I absolutely lived for Genesis. I had so many games and I rented so many more. There are so many classics that came out. Sega CD and Game Gear were great too.. and even the other systems which were out them but I didn't have were cool too. Especially the TG16 and Neo*Geo. It was wonderful times...
The second Golden Age for me is even simpler. 1999-2001. It was a short time, but it was the best of times. First came NGPC, the most underrated little system ever.... and then came Dreamcast. The best system ever! The amount of mind-bogglingly good games that came out for Dreamcast - the perrrfectly designed system - in such a short time is incredible (especially when you consider than XB, PS2, and GCN combined don't have the amount of quality software that Dreamcast does - at least in my opinion!). It's a shame it had to end, but it was great while it lasted.
I hope that a third Golden Age comes, but I don't think it will be for a generation or two. Right now things are OK. Not too bad, but far from ideal...
After the 16-bit era, we've been in an evolving metamorphosis of 3D games with developers struggling to jump into a new era of gaming. Some great gems have come from it, but not as great as the 16 bit days. I enjoyed games on both the SNES and Genesis (and even NES) more than the 32-bit generation.
IMO the Neo Geo was just as much a part of the "PS1, Saturn, N64, 3DO, Jaguar, GBC, NGPC, WS, WSC" era as the systems included. If for nothing else than the fact that Neo Geo ports made up a decent chunk of the Saturn's library. The Neo Geo was still kicking out titles pretty regularly, and they were just as fresh and interesting to play as anything on the 32+ bit systems.
So even though I voted for the 16 bit generation, most of my enjoyment of it was the Neo Geo during the 32 bit generation.
This might be hard for you to handle, but I believe the Golden Age has nothing to do with systems and is all about the age of the player and when they first really get into video games.
I have been playing since the early days and my first system was a Atari 2600 but I would have to say the Golden Age for games was the NES to SNES era for me, not that those systems where any better or worse then ones today or before it but just because home gaming was just still very new to me and the step gaming took from the Atari to the NES was incredible. But the Golden Age for alot of newer players may be the Playstation and that doesn't make them any worse then what we consider Golden Age, after all those systems where high tech when we played them and people did the very same things to people whose first system was a NES or Genesis or SNES that played the earlier systems :p
To me the Golden Age is a person's age and not the hardware, back when you really started enjoying games no matter what system it was on because everything was still so new where now it is like seeing that movie for the second time where we aren't as easily enjoyed and now are reduced to nit picking everything when in our golden age all we cared about was having fun and not how many frames per second a game ran... just having fun was good enough.
I'll never be able to get this. I still have no clue how to identify frames per second.Quote:
how many frames per second a game ran...
I think the Game Boy and Lynx should be lumped with the 16-bit machines considering when they came out.
Since we're talking strictly console gaming here and not including arcade or computer games, I will go with the 16-bit era. Although, there's a good chance the current era will be my favorite by the end of it.
You couldnt have said it better my friend...Quote:
Originally posted by SearchManX
After the 16-bit era, we've been in an evolving metamorphosis of 3D games with developers struggling to jump into a new era of gaming. Some great gems have come from it, but not as great as the 16 bit days. I enjoyed games on both the SNES and Genesis (and even NES) more than the 32-bit generation.
I would like to take a moment to stick up for the SS-PS1-N64 era even though I didn't vote for it.
Many people bash this era and label it an unimpressive stumbling block but I think it was an amazing era with just as many good games as the ones before it. There were so many awesome games like Zelda OT, Super Mario 64, NiGHTS, Resident Evil, Xenogears, Virtua Fighter, Panzer Dragoon, Sin and Punishment, etc.
I also think the Dreamcast is a part of this current generation, I'm still buying as many new games for it as any other system, afterall. :D Playstation and Saturn were fun but never really hooked me. Genesis and SNES were fun back in the day, but outside of Street Fighter 2 and a few of the Nintendo titles, alot of it is a blur. And I remember 0 about NES or the Atari's outside of maybe 10 games or so. I'm having a ton of fun with games right now. :)
Then mine was the NES generation.Quote:
Originally posted by Werewolf
To me the Golden Age is a person's age and not the hardware, back when you really started enjoying games no matter what system it was on...
Regardless, the 16 bit era (where I still played my NES as much as my Genesis or SNES) was the one where pre-3D gaming was perfected. These days I play my Genesis, SNES and TG-16/CD/Duo more than my NES and almost as much as my DC and GC. That says alot about the games of that era, at least it does to me.
16-bit era. All the series we enjoyed during the 8-bit era were perfected, and 2d gaming had been mastered, allowing developers like capcom and konami to fire out those classics at a record setting pace.
"PS1, Saturn, N64, 3DO, Jaguar, GBC, NGPC, WS, WSC"
I voted for this choice and I would include the Dreamcast in that selection due to the span of time it was available and because it has far more in common with them gamewise: lots of quality arcade games. The paltry selection on PS2 and Xbox is saddening. The less said about the Gamecube the better.
The 32/64-bit generation had some great games, but they still had some rough edges. Similar to how the NES had great games compared to the SNES/Genesis, the 16-bit smoothed out the rough edges, and I think this generation of 128-bit (or whatever) hardware will show us games that are a more refined 3D than we've seen in the last generation. The question now is, will this generation beat the refined 2D generation?Quote:
Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
I would like to take a moment to stick up for the SS-PS1-N64 era even though I didn't vote for it.
Many people bash this era and label it an unimpressive stumbling block but I think it was an amazing era with just as many good games as the ones before it. There were so many awesome games like Zelda OT, Super Mario 64, NiGHTS, Resident Evil, Xenogears, Virtua Fighter, Panzer Dragoon, Sin and Punishment, etc.
MD/SF/PCE era.
2600, 5200, Colecovision, Intellivision
It was not so much the consoles at the time, although they were definitely part of it, but also arcade games. My first console was a dedicated PONG machine that my father bought for myself and my sisters. It had two controllers, and a dial that let you change it to different varieties of PONG, although they were not all that different. Second console was a 2600, and we played that thing like crazy. Still have both of those machines.
Arcade games were different in style and execution. Few, if any games had continues, violence was generally restricted to blasting Space Invaders to bits or eating ghosts after you powered up as Pac-Man. It was that era that got me into gaming, and keeps me coming back. :)
The 16-Bit era would be my second favourite. :)
The 16bit era for sure. With the exception of the Dreamcast, I never had more fun gaming then during that time span. Part of it may have been my age. But, games were just that games. You didn't have to dedicate 80 hours of your life to get 100% out of the game.
Also, the arcades were doing well. With a steady stream of new games there was always something new to try. Go to an arcade now and maybe they've gotten one of two new games in the last year. And, they probably have a "3" or "4" after the title.
I think people will just be voting on what got them hooked, and chances are thats when they were like between the ages of 5-9 me thinks. But when I look back I have to think that the NES/SMS era of games made games what they are today. And of course thats when I first got into games. But thats where everything to light off of a big spark. Pong and the early arcades were the frontiers and all, but the first 8-Bit home consoles took it so much farther. The 16-Bit era is like the gaming era we are in now. 16-Bit games were much better looking 8-Bit games. Just like today 128-Bit games are better looking 32-Bit games. You have your 2D world, and 3D world. But I think over all the Golden age was the mid eighties.
Computer games and such have a very different history, so I don't think they fall into the same areas as Console game. Computers were for work, tools and such first. Games on computers was a extra, plus computer games were always above and beyond consoles games in terms of graphics and such, up until now.
Obviously 16-bit improved upon 8-bit 2D and 128-bit (shut up) has improved/will improve upon 32-bit 3D, but 32-bit games were just as polished, if not more so, than 16-bit games. Even though I love plenty of 16-bit games, I get SICK of seeing those segmented bosses, comprised of identical chunks. Or lines that look like a flight of stairs. Or those lame "chibi" sprites in RPGs. Maybe to you that has a nostalgic value, but you can't claim that it is very advanced.Quote:
Originally posted by SearchManX
The 32/64-bit generation had some great games, but they still had some rough edges. Similar to how the NES had great games compared to the SNES/Genesis, the 16-bit smoothed out the rough edges, and I think this generation of 128-bit (or whatever) hardware will show us games that are a more refined 3D than we've seen in the last generation. The question now is, will this generation beat the refined 2D generation?
Like most people I would tend to say the 16-bit years, but in if I look at some of my favorite games ever, a lot of them have come after that: Shemmue, Sakura Taisen, NiGHTS, Jet Set Radio, etc.
Gaming's golden Age? Dreamcast. :D
Genesis, Sega CD, SNES, TG-16, TGCD, GG, Neo Geo.
The 32 bit era had alot of great games (mainly for the saturn and psx) , but all of the above systems were great.
Quote:
Originally posted by Clash_Master
Computer games and such have a very different history, so I don't think they fall into the same areas as Console game. Computers were for work, tools and such first. Games on computers was a extra, plus computer games were always above and beyond consoles games in terms of graphics and such, up until now.
Then you never owned a Commodore-64. It was anything but a conventional computer. I believe the home computer craze, was part of the reason that the console market crashed. The C-64 has one of the best versions of Donkey Kong, even the NES version is'nt as well polished as that version. I'm sure there are a lot of Apple and Atari computer owners that could say the same thing. Name a great arcade game from the 80's, and you could find a decent to excellent version of it on a 8-bit computer. For me, this was the golden age of gaming, but for consoles, I would call it a tie between the 8-bit NES era, and the 32-bit era of gaming, as both were the peak of console gaming popularity. Sony did'nt sell 100 million PSX's because of lesser interest in gaming.
gamevet speaks wise words. Computers like the C64 were primarily game machines for many people. In the mid-'80's, computers were the "consoles" for myself and most kids I knew.
I think most fondly of the 16-bit era. Games like Toe Jam and Earl, Donkey Kong Country, Streets of Rage 2, all the Street Fighters, Sonic and countless more provided me with more entertainment than any of the other consoles in the poll. The PS and N64 era comes in a close 2nd though, as that era had some great games as well.
I would have to say the 16-bit (SNES-Genesis) era. So many classic games were released when these two systems were still churning out the games.
I have to agree with Werwolf though, I think your choice will most likely be dictated by your age, I was in my teen years when those two systems were around, the gaming experiences seemed new to me at the time and managed to blow me away on occasion. They also bring back memories of my youth.
That being said, there is NOTHING these classic systems could do that could not be done, improved upon, with today's systems (XBox, PS2, GC), there just seems to be a large anti-2D sentiment, it's really a shame.
I've been playing through Castlevania: Symphony of the Night in recent days, I'm still in awe at how well done this game is. EVERYTHING scream quality, I would have loved to have seen a sequel to this classic on one of the big 3 consoles. I don't have high hopes for the GBA game, it's called 'Harmony of Dissonance' but the music sucks.
Go figure.
DC is definately one of the best systems ever. I'm voting for it just because its so incredibly gay that it was left off.Quote:
Originally posted by Click_Stick
Wha... Where does the DC fall?
Choice #6 - Dreamcast - System of 2000
16 bit by far. Yoshi's Island alone wins that era. When you throw the Neo Geo in there, it just gets all the more hopeless for the rest of the eras. :)
If you ask me, the DC was a hardware generation all by itself. It is clearly above the PS/N64, and it is clearly before the time of the current crop of systems.
Quote:
Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
gamevet speaks wise words. Computers like the C64 were primarily game machines for many people. In the mid-'80's, computers were the "consoles" for myself and most kids I knew.
It is for that reason alone, that I did'nt vote for any of those listed. Most of the major arcade games found on the NES and SMS could be played on a C-64. There were a few games(Super Mario, Punchout!!, Zelda, and Final Fantasy) that the NES offered, that I could'nt play on my C-64. The Bard's Tale, Maniac Mansion, Boulder Dash, 1942, Ikari Warriors, Rambo, Popeye, Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr., Time Pilot, California Games, Skate or Die, Moon Patrol, 10-yard fight, John Elway's Football, Mario Bros., Frogger and a ton more of the games found on the NES and Master System, were already being enjoyed by owners of the C-64, Atari, and Apple computers. The Amiga computer even had a superior versions of Super-C, Bad Dudes, Marble Madness, Bionic Commando, Gauntlet 2 and many other arcade hits that were put onto the NES.
The NES and SMS were just icing on an already big cake being served to those lucky enough to experience the golden age of home computer gaming.
You forgot about samurai warrior in your c64 list.
Quote:
Originally posted by xS
You forgot about samurai warrior in your c64 list.
I was listing games that were on the C-64 long before NES players even had a chance to enjoy them on the NES and Master System. Was Samurai Warrior on the NES?
Other C-64 greats included:
Seven Cities of Gold
Ultima Series
Summer Olypics ( A great little Party title)
Winter Olympics
Racing Destruction Set
The Bard's Tale 2 and 3
SkyFox
F-15 Strike Eagle
Sports News Baseball
Larry Bird VS. Dr J
Mr. Do!
Mr. Do's Castle
Montezuma's Revenge
Conan
Karateka( The Cinema's were pretty cool for the time )
PSI 5 Trading Post
Phantasy
Zork
Return to Zork
Spy VS. Spy
Star Flight
Pitfall 2
Pitfall ( The best version IMO )
Mail Order Monsters
Lode Runner
Jump Man
Miner 2049'er
This little computer was a console in itself.
BAH! This polle sucks, it goes by console era. I think the golden age of gaming was in the arcade.
If the 16bit age was the "Golden Age," then I guess that makes the 32bit era the "Renaissance."
Dammit, why does nostalgia cloud everyone's memories? Gaming is better now than it's ever been. We've got three awesome consoles, online gaming, newschool stuff, oldschool stuff, pretty much any type of game you wanna play, it's out there. I've loved every era of gaming, but right now is the best time, and it will just keep getting better.
That's not what is meant be "Golden Age." Think of it as the epoch of great gaming, where great leaps are made form the previous age. Things change and get better with every age but the improvements seen in the 16-bit era effect games to this day.
The results of this poll are ridiculous.
Not only was the 2600, 5200, Colecovision, Intellivision, etc. era the birth of home gaming, it was the time when the arcades were in their prime.
If that's not the definition of a Golden Age, I don't know what is.
By your argument a Neanderthal scrawling on the wall of a cave would be the Golden Age of art.
The games sucked ass back then. Nothing golden about that.Quote:
Originally posted by PBMaX
If that's not the definition of a Golden Age, I don't know what is.
Thak you 88.
Just when you thought it couldn't get any more ridiculous...Quote:
Originally posted by 88mph
The games sucked ass back then. Nothing golden about that.
huh?Quote:
Originally posted by PBMaX
Just when you thought it couldn't get any more ridiculous...
All of the pre-NES games, home and arcade, simply "sucked ass"?Quote:
Originally posted by ShineAqua
huh?
:rolleyes:
They lack the interaction that games today have. you're romanticizing an era and that's always bad.
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by ShineAqua
They lack the interaction that games today have. you're romanticizing an era and that's always bad.
They "lack the interaction that games today have"?
Actually, that would be called gameplay.
Ever heard of it? :wtf:
Back in those days you played games, not watched them.
Yes, it's true, games actually used to be challenging.
Gameplay? Challenge? What an amazing concept!
I'll let you go back to watching 15 minute cut-scenes and complaining that Maximo and Devil May Cry were too hard. :lol:
Challenge?! So game like Pong are what you find challenging?Quote:
Originally posted by PBMaX
:lol: :lol: :lol:
They "lack the interaction that games today have"?
Actually, that would be called gameplay.
Ever heard of it? :wtf:
Back in those days you played games, not watched them.
Yes, it's true, games actually used to be challenging.
Gameplay? Challenge? What an amazing concept!
I'll let you go back to watching 15 minute cut scenes and complaining that Maximo and Devil May Cry were too hard. :lol:
As for gameplay yeah cus E.T. was all about the gameplay.
You're still romanticizing.
Simply put todays games are much better than anything the 2600 or Coleco was ever capable of. When I say interaction what I mean is that you do more than just walk and shoot, move arround in a maze eating pelets, or move a paddle up and down. And that whole bit about watching games is called substance.
CentipedeQuote:
Originally posted by ShineAqua
Challenge?! So game like Pong are what you find challenging?
As for gameplay yeah cus E.T. was all about the gameplay.
You're still romanticizing.
Tempest
Asteroids
Comsic Ark
Wizard of Wor
Black Widow
Yars Revenge
Time Pilot
Burger Time
River Raid
Keystone Kapers
Missile Command
Robotron 2084
Defender
Megamania
Galaga
Gorf
Gravitar
Sinistar
Joust
Crystal Castles
Marble Madness
etc.........
I suppose there is no gameplay or challenge to be found in any of those titles huh? :rolleyes:
If graphics are your measurement of a great game, then I guess you're right.Quote:
Simply put todays games are much better than anything the 2600 or Coleco was ever capable of.
I feel sorry for you though, because you've missed the whole point.
No.Quote:
And that whole bit about watching games is called substance.
Actually that's called a movie.
We had online gaming in 1994 with Xband. That alone makes 16-bit the golden age.Quote:
Originally posted by Ste-Von
Dammit, why does nostalgia cloud everyone's memories? Gaming is better now than it's ever been. We've got three awesome consoles, online gaming...
Each era of gaming is great in its' own way. The pre-NES days HAD to focus on gameplay since tehy damn sure weren't going to win folks over on graphics. The NES enabled developers to start tinkering with more advanced graphics, and allowed them to use the advances in graphics to further the gameplay.
The 16-bit era allowed for far more graphical advancement, with innovation in gameplay coming rarely, and the refinement of gameplay ideas introduced in the NES/8-Bit era taking a bit of a backseat.
I'm not only talking graphics but interaction, gameplay, and sustance. Those games you listed are fun, but they have nothing even remotely close to the story’s told in todays games if any at all, and in which of those games there are any harder than Contra: Shatered Soldier, Shinobi, or fucking Mario Sunshine for that matter? I'm finished with you for the night, I gotta go back to work, besides your stupidity is giving me a headache.
Game Design 101: A story is a complement to gameplay, not the other way around.Quote:
Originally posted by ShineAqua
I'm not only talking graphics but interaction, gameplay, and sustance. Those games you listed are fun, but they have nothing even remotely close to the story’s told in todays games if any at all,
In other words; a tuly great game needs no story.
The gameplay should be compelling without it.
Mario Sunshine vs. Robotron 2084Quote:
...and in which of those games there are any harder than Contra: Shatered Soldier, Shinobi, or fucking Mario Sunshine for that matter?
:lol:
Not quite, try again.
Believe me, the feeling is mutual.Quote:
I'm finished with you for the night, I gotta go back to work, besides your stupidity is giving me a headache.
I agree with WereWolf.
I do feel a person's age has something to do with their perception of what the "golden age" of gaming is/was, nostalgia I guess.
Until recently I would have voted for the Genesis, SNES etc. era as the golden age of gaming but I've found myself playing a lot of Genesis/SNES in recent weeks and I've found that many of the games have not aged well.
I used to think the Nomad was the best portable around but after really getting into the GBA I can't really go back, the system and games are more portable, the games have much better graphics and are more social life friendly and even though the screen is not backlit it is much, much better than the Nomad's screen. I didn't really notice all the blurring on the Nomad until after I played the GBA. You can even play a bunch of NES games on the go if you purchase a Flash cart and download PocketNes.
The XBox is awesome, great games, great graphics, tons of emulators if you want to play the games from the past. I don't have a GameCube but will probably get one just to play the New Zelda game.
I also agree with Ste-Von, gaming is better now than it's ever been, don't let nostalgia cloud your judgement.
BTW what's a GP32?
1980-1986 was the golden age of gaming, but it wasn't about consoles. The arcade games made during that period are still better than alot of the stuff we have now. I don't know what ShinAqua's problem is. I'd as soon play Robotron, Tapper, Faantasy Zone, Space Harrier, or donkey Kong Jr as anything in the modern era, and in fact I do play them regularly.
It's a korean handheld that's very similar to GBA hardware but more powerful, but all the games suck.Quote:
Originally posted by ShineAqua
BTW what's a GP32?
I think it's as dull as it's ever been at the moment, and I voted for "32-bit."Quote:
I also agree with Ste-Von, gaming is better now than it's ever been, don't let nostalgia cloud your judgement.
I voted for the 16-bit era as being my favorite time
has my fav console of all time the SNES all though this gen is turning out to be really good for me
It was painful to read some of those anti-early '80's comments. Anyone who thinks that era sucked should have their gaming license removed. There are so many games from that era that are still great today. Some people need to learn some respect for gaming history. The pre-NES years were the most important and virtually every genre was invented back then.
Gamevet
http://lemon64.ayleen.nl/games/scree...gi_yojimbo.gif
It was similar to the recent ps2 Samurai game.
Go play Gyruss or Juno First .......Quote:
Challenge?! So game like Pong are what you find challenging?
As for gameplay yeah cus E.T. was all about the gameplay.
PBmax: I'm sure all those games were good in, like, 1982, but can you honestly tell me that Tempest is better than Panzer Dragoon Orta? That Gorf is better that Steel Battalion? That Yars Revenge is better that Ico? Rez? Devil May Cry?
Joust? Please...
You're living in the past. I grew up with these games too, but I can see the beauty in todays games.
I refuse to accept that the "golden age" of gaming took place when games were as simplistic as they were when I was a kid. Some truly amazing game experiences have come out in the last two generations, it kinda bums me out that you might not see that.
16-bit nearly perfected the 2D gaming and the current generation nearly perfected 3D. I voted for 16-bit, but it's very close.
Quote:
Originally posted by xS
Gamevet
http://lemon64.ayleen.nl/games/scree...gi_yojimbo.gif
It was similar to the recent ps2 Samurai game.
Go play Gyruss or Juno First .......
I think you're quoting the wrong person.
For me, it was the 16bit era, no question. Nothing disappointed me back then, every major game had a multi-console port of some kind unless it was first party, the games held my interest for more than 1 run through, and so much more.
[qoute]PBmax: I'm sure all those games were good in, like, 1982, but can you honestly tell me that Tempest is better than Panzer Dragoon Orta?[/quote]
Gyruss is better:p
I feel bad, I should have voted for 32 bit.:(
Quote:
I don't know what ShinAqua's problem is.
Quote:
Simply put todays games are much better than anything the 2600 or Coleco was ever capable of. When I say interaction what I mean is that you do more than just walk and shoot, move arround in a maze eating pelets, or move a paddle up and down. And that whole bit about watching games is called substance.
No one said that all games then were better than all games now. And yes I would say that Space Harrier is better than Panzer Dragoon, and Gyruss is better than Ico and Devil May Cry, etc. They honestly were. Some of my favorite games are newer, but newer games often lack the replay and refinement of older games, and they have alot of padding that isn't neccessarily a good thing.Quote:
Originally posted by 88mph
PBmax: I'm sure all those games were good in, like, 1982, but can you honestly tell me that Tempest is better than Panzer Dragoon Orta? That Gorf is better that Steel Battalion? That Yars Revenge is better that Ico? Rez? Devil May Cry?
Joust? Please...
You're living in the past. I grew up with these games too, but I can see the beauty in todays games.
I refuse to accept that the "golden age" of gaming took place when games were as simplistic as they were when I was a kid. Some truly amazing game experiences have come out in the last two generations, it kinda bums me out that you might not see that.
I never played Donkey Kong Jr until like 5 years ago. To this day it's one of my very favorite games. Nostalgia is not the only thing that makes these games great. Alot of them really do hold up in the gameplay department, probably alot better than Devil May Cry will 20 years from now.
Debateable... :)Quote:
Originally posted by Frogacuda Alot of them really do hold up in the gameplay department, probably alot better than Devil May Cry will 20 years from now.
I don't know if I've ever been as excited about video games as I have been this generation. As far as I'm concerned, the Wind Waker alone makes this the Golden Age right here.
I have nothing against the 2600 generation, but gaming was in it's infancy then. My statement comparing those games to cave drawings still stands. I voted 16-bit because that was when games started to evolve beyond the simplistic gameplay of their predecessors. The stories evolved as well giving us substance, memorable characters, and an overall better experience. Earlier games were fun but were less of an experience, I can go for mindless fun but prefer to be taken to interesting places to meet interesting people. You just couldn't do as much of that with the 2600.
Shine, I don't know if you're making this error but the classic mistake I notice people ignorant of the pre-NES eras make is that they think everything revolved around the Atari 2600.
The Atari 2600 was the most popular console of its time but it hardly represented the state of video game technology and the best quality in the early '80's. For most of its lifespan, the 2600 was vastly technologically outdated compared to other consoles. Not to mention consoles in general were inferior to home computers and especially arcade games.
maybe you would have been playing text adventures then?Quote:
Earlier games were fun but were less of an experience, I can go for mindless fun but prefer to be taken to interesting places to meet interesting people.
Actually, IMO Tempest is most definitely a better game than Orta.Quote:
Originally posted by 88mph
PBmax: I'm sure all those games were good in, like, 1982, but can you honestly tell me that Tempest is better than Panzer Dragoon Orta? That Gorf is better that Steel Battalion? That Yars Revenge is better that Ico? Rez? Devil May Cry?
Now don't get me wrong, Orta is a damn good game, as are many of today's titles. I never said, nor will I ever say, that there are no good games being made today.
I am simply stating that a game focused on solid gameplay, rather than technical razzle dazzle, will stand the test of time. Tempest will always be fun. Robotron and Yar's Revenge will always be fun. They were fun when they were made, are still fun now, and still will be fun 50 years from.
That is the joy of classic gaming. The time when gameplay was king. These games focus on compelling, challenging, and addicting gameplay with rock solid control. All things that are often overlooked today in the quest for story driven CGI epics.
The fact is pratically every game you play today simply recycles an idea that was thought of in the era that you call crap. Think about that.
A great game.Quote:
Joust? Please...
I don't live in the past, but I do cherish it.Quote:
You're living in the past. I grew up with these games too, but I can see the beauty in todays games.
There are plenty of great games coming out today; but I will never forget, or stop playing, the great games that came before them.
A great game is a great game regardless of it's age.
Don't be bummed out on my account. The fact is my eyes are wide open and I choose to see, and enjoy, the entire scope of gaming; not just a subsection. It bums me out that so many never allow themselves that experience.Quote:
I refuse to accept that the "golden age" of gaming took place when games were as simplistic as they were when I was a kid. Some truly amazing game experiences have come out in the last two generations, it kinda bums me out that you might not see that.
Exactly. Dismissing early video games is like dismissing movies or music that came out before you were born. Being a fan of older games doesn't mean you're living in the past as long as you still play modern stuff.
I still haven't played a game this generation that i'd put in my all-time top 20. I'm getting worried. Ever since the Dreamcast was killed off things have become less interesting for me.
Kinopio, I hear you on that. One of the things you could do, if you haven't already, is look for the games on the newest consoles (PS2, GC, Xbox) and see if any of them would make for great DC games in your mind. Try pulling every mental trick in the book that you can to find some similarities between the games that you have enjoyed and the games that you haven't yet played on the newest consoles.
Let's put it this way. I don't think it held up as well as Donkey Kong Jr 6 months after it was made.Quote:
Originally posted by 88mph
Debateable... :)
THANK YOU.Quote:
Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
Shine, I don't know if you're making this error but the classic mistake I notice people ignorant of the pre-NES eras make is that they think everything revolved around the Atari 2600.
The Atari 2600 was the most popular console of its time but it hardly represented the state of video game technology and the best quality in the early '80's. For most of its lifespan, the 2600 was vastly technologically outdated compared to other consoles. Not to mention consoles in general were inferior to home computers and especially arcade games.
80's were all about the arcade.
When the Dreamcast and PC are included as part of the current era, things look much more impressive.
True that. DC was my single favorite console. And while innovation has stagnated, PC certainly has it's great, and we do occasionally see glimmers of originality like Deus Ex.Quote:
Originally posted by NeoZeedeater
When the Dreamcast and PC are included as part of the current era, things look much more impressive.
That's like saying a game is automatically better cuz it's on DC. I hope everyone can see the absurdity in that.Quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy
One of the things you could do, if you haven't already, is look for the games on the newest consoles (PS2, GC, Xbox) and see if any of them would make for great DC games in your mind.
Sadly though, many people (some here) love the DC so damn much that they actually think like that.
Like this one dude in the new issue of EGM. They were asking people for their opinions on online gaming and their hopes for the future, and he says "Online gaming died with the DC." Man, I'd slap that guy in the face if I could. What a complete jackass.
Omni, I was just trying to help him out there. I can see where's he's coming from with his line of thinking. I don't agree with it, but if I can offer up some help to him, I will.
I know. I just thought I'd address the issue when I had the chance.
I don't like a game better just because its on Dreamcast. I just thought that it was a great system for those 2 years, much better than the 3 current systems.Quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy
Omni, I was just trying to help him out there. I can see where's he's coming from with his line of thinking. I don't agree with it, but if I can offer up some help to him, I will.
I think the reason i've lost interest in gaming a bit is because my 2 favorite developers(Nintendo and SEGA) are in a slump.