Are Games Getting Better, or Just Prettier?
- Thread starter Fallensky7
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This.quack35 said:
Games have way more depth then they ever have ever before. Does this really need to be discussed? It's a simple fact. MGS4 is a way better game then MGS1. I realize that a game like MGS1 might have a special place in someone's heart, but MGS4 is a much better game by comparison in both looks and gameplay.
Yep.SendMeNoodz84 said:
Games are getting better at telling a story, immersing you in a virtual world, and making you actually care. They're getting better at providing fun action and characters. They look, sound, and control better than ever.
Older games are certainly still great obviously, but I think it's fairly stupid to say that games aren't getting better.
I find this, but I think I have a (particularly bad) case of "rose tinted nostalgia glasses" and also, I'm just older now, and seem to enjoy computer games less than I did when I was a kid. In any case, while my instinct may tell me "prettier" I'm afraid that may say more of me than the current generation of games.
That said, my previous ventures into retro video games have dredged up some real pearls. I had a blast playing Ristar through again, to the point where I even went and beat Super just because I was having so much damn fun doing it. Super Mario 64 was fun to beat to the final boss, even if I didn't have either the skill or the patience to go as far as actually getting all the stars. I still love streets of rage 2 (even if I suck at it now) and Sonic and 3 + knuckles was one of my favourite games. However, I've also really enjoyed games like Fable and Halo 2 as well, not to mention having a whale of a time on Saints Row 2. Overall, I've found myself in a fairly objective position to judge both here, and I find the old games to generally be just as much fun. This may be because I may fall into the dreaded demographic Yahtzee dubbed as being the XBOX playing fratboy who can't go a second without killing something (minus the fratboy as I'm actually very solitary.) but I find that in terms of fun the old games are just as good (or bad) as the more recent ones in many cases. Sure, the graphics are worse, but aside from that you can have just as much fun in streets of rage as you can in Halo 2, the difference being your whacking 2D criminals with metal pipes instead of blasting cowering grunts with assault rifles. Older games tend to be more of a challenge than more recent ones, many suffering from a bad case of "nintendo hard" syndrome, but of course this can actually enhance replayability. Finally, older games also get more replayable, ironically, because of the lack of storyline, I can replay the action without listening to waves of dialogue I've heard once or even multiple times before. They may lack story, but that can be a blessing in disguise (guess what puts me off replaying RPG's.)
Overall, both old and new games have advantages. Quite often for different reasons. Old retro games tend to be short, intense, replayable to the extreme and often very challenging, but lack on the story/freedom side, unless its a game like Super Mario 64, which is an example of how awesome things get when the best of retro meets the greatest elements of the new age (minus storyline, Super Mario 64 was pretty lacking in that department, but it didn't matter because the game involved at one point racing a penguin down a massive ice slope dodging bottomless pits and hazards en-route.) New age games, on the other hand, often offer spectacular graphics, deep storylines, and freedom to move around taken to new heights, and can also be much longer (though I sometimes wonder if thats a good thing.)
One of my main gripes with new age games is that when developers make these massive open worlds, they forget to put enough stuff in them to keep me hooked. In Fallout 3, for all the impressivness of the wastes, I want to find some super-mutants/raiders to kill without spending 20 minutes finding them, only to run short on bullets and spend hours scavenging tin cans to get enough money to buy more ammo to track down more fights to... you see my point. Oblivion was even worse for this. What some of these open world games which embody the freedoms, graphical miracles and deep storylines of the new age games need to remember is what made the old games so great too: sheer, mindless fun in between the great moments. Thats why I remember games like Super Mario 64, Legend of Zelda and even the FF games because they manage to cross the divide, they get all the goodness of the new age without losing the charm of older titles. Its funny that almost all of these titles are series that successfully crossed the retro/3D line. (Successful series, I'm not talking about Sonic the Hedgehog, though some fans still think thats good so who am I to argue?) So thats what makes so many of the old Playstation/nintendo 64 era games so good, as well as games on the playstation 2. That link to gamings past, while still making use of all the new age stuff, often to spectacular and lasting effect.
EDIT: that was one really REALLY long post wasn't it?
That said, my previous ventures into retro video games have dredged up some real pearls. I had a blast playing Ristar through again, to the point where I even went and beat Super just because I was having so much damn fun doing it. Super Mario 64 was fun to beat to the final boss, even if I didn't have either the skill or the patience to go as far as actually getting all the stars. I still love streets of rage 2 (even if I suck at it now) and Sonic and 3 + knuckles was one of my favourite games. However, I've also really enjoyed games like Fable and Halo 2 as well, not to mention having a whale of a time on Saints Row 2. Overall, I've found myself in a fairly objective position to judge both here, and I find the old games to generally be just as much fun. This may be because I may fall into the dreaded demographic Yahtzee dubbed as being the XBOX playing fratboy who can't go a second without killing something (minus the fratboy as I'm actually very solitary.) but I find that in terms of fun the old games are just as good (or bad) as the more recent ones in many cases. Sure, the graphics are worse, but aside from that you can have just as much fun in streets of rage as you can in Halo 2, the difference being your whacking 2D criminals with metal pipes instead of blasting cowering grunts with assault rifles. Older games tend to be more of a challenge than more recent ones, many suffering from a bad case of "nintendo hard" syndrome, but of course this can actually enhance replayability. Finally, older games also get more replayable, ironically, because of the lack of storyline, I can replay the action without listening to waves of dialogue I've heard once or even multiple times before. They may lack story, but that can be a blessing in disguise (guess what puts me off replaying RPG's.)
Overall, both old and new games have advantages. Quite often for different reasons. Old retro games tend to be short, intense, replayable to the extreme and often very challenging, but lack on the story/freedom side, unless its a game like Super Mario 64, which is an example of how awesome things get when the best of retro meets the greatest elements of the new age (minus storyline, Super Mario 64 was pretty lacking in that department, but it didn't matter because the game involved at one point racing a penguin down a massive ice slope dodging bottomless pits and hazards en-route.) New age games, on the other hand, often offer spectacular graphics, deep storylines, and freedom to move around taken to new heights, and can also be much longer (though I sometimes wonder if thats a good thing.)
One of my main gripes with new age games is that when developers make these massive open worlds, they forget to put enough stuff in them to keep me hooked. In Fallout 3, for all the impressivness of the wastes, I want to find some super-mutants/raiders to kill without spending 20 minutes finding them, only to run short on bullets and spend hours scavenging tin cans to get enough money to buy more ammo to track down more fights to... you see my point. Oblivion was even worse for this. What some of these open world games which embody the freedoms, graphical miracles and deep storylines of the new age games need to remember is what made the old games so great too: sheer, mindless fun in between the great moments. Thats why I remember games like Super Mario 64, Legend of Zelda and even the FF games because they manage to cross the divide, they get all the goodness of the new age without losing the charm of older titles. Its funny that almost all of these titles are series that successfully crossed the retro/3D line. (Successful series, I'm not talking about Sonic the Hedgehog, though some fans still think thats good so who am I to argue?) So thats what makes so many of the old Playstation/nintendo 64 era games so good, as well as games on the playstation 2. That link to gamings past, while still making use of all the new age stuff, often to spectacular and lasting effect.
EDIT: that was one really REALLY long post wasn't it?
I'd say both. they are getting "prettier" but at the same time they are getting pretty badass I mean look at prototype.
neither
generally, all modern games I've played were boring / had no reason to continue playing, and the graphics just lack the charm / direction that makes older games easier to look at. Gears of War looks like shit compared to Morrowind, in terms of direction, atmosphere, variety, charm.
generally, all modern games I've played were boring / had no reason to continue playing, and the graphics just lack the charm / direction that makes older games easier to look at. Gears of War looks like shit compared to Morrowind, in terms of direction, atmosphere, variety, charm.
Definitely agree with this. I used to be such a little hardcore gamer back in the day. Now, I find it rare if I'm ever looking forward to a new [good] game.New Troll said: