I stopped the conversation a bit after that; the stupidity was actually lowering my IQ level.RedEyesBlackGamer said:The argument that new games are inherently better and worth a purchase over old games "because new" hurts my brain.
I stopped the conversation a bit after that; the stupidity was actually lowering my IQ level.RedEyesBlackGamer said:The argument that new games are inherently better and worth a purchase over old games "because new" hurts my brain.
Kevin Delgado said:First off welcome. Secondly, to each their own. All I know is that I have studied film as well and I absolutely HATE black and white film. The drabness of it, the filming techniques, the expositionary techniques, even the musical stylization all lull me to sheer and utter boredom.viranimus said:That's the opposite to what I believe; I'm all for old films. I'm studying Film at my University, so learning about the classics is good to know in my case. I love so many old films such as It's a Wonderful Life, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. All B & W movies XD
I know a lot of people look down on modern films, especially those that were either remakes or inspired by earlier films but I never could understand that.
Perfect example. The recent Conan the Barbarian film with Jason Mahmouwuowuwramalamadingdog. I know the escapists resident film critic absolutely panned this film, but personally I loved it. It set out exactly what it was supposed to do and it was devoid of two things. Period dating (from both the cinematography and musical stylization) that makes it clearly a 1980s film, and extensive amounts of cheesy acting. (Id gladly take bad acting over cheese) In the abscense of that, it made the film rather watchable and enjoyable.
Anyway, my point is why exactly is it we think that we should automatically bestow a badge of quality just because it came first? I mean is that not the very reason WHY we remake movies? Because the originals only explored one facet and by remaking it we get to explore more angles on the originally intended theme.
Anyway, as I said, its just a subjective opinion, to each their own.
As for games. I have to wonder if they too will (or do) suffer that same effect, and will we see one day a heavy retreading of remakes in games? I know there are people who out and out beg for it (FF7 modern console remake cries anyone?) But at the same time you get something like Halo CE: anniversary to which it looks like fans might not like. So It stands to reason that this argument about film, will in due time start to work its way into gaming as well.
Considering a few days ago I went and got 5 games for $30, part of which was Jak and Daxter, Jak 2, and Jak 3 . . . I'd say yes buying old games is a good thing.Kevin Delgado said:I recently was in an argument with a friend of mine; I enjoy buying old games when I can. Whether they'd be for the Playstation 2 or even the original Assassin's Creed for the 360 that I traded in a long time ago. He said that it was pointless to buy old games when there were games, such as Arkham City, that I could be spending my money on. I explained to him that sometimes, I prefer to have various games to play rather than just buying one for over fifty dollars. If I can play over 3-4 games for the low price of 20-25 bucks, why shouldn't I play them even if they are a few years old?
So my question for you guys is whether you believe that buying old games is idiotic or simply a way to get more for out of your money's worth?
viranimus said:Not all films made back then were good; if you ever see the box set that they sell at Best Buy and Walmart with 50+ "classic" movies, it will prove to you how terrible films were back then. An example could be "The Giant Claw"; that movie is horrible especially that puppet! However, those that are revered such as The Day the Earth Stood Still, were the ones that either introduced techniques that affected the movie industry forever or were simply great stories. The limitations of B & W movies caused them to focus on story telling rather than having CGI all over the place. That's not to say that I hate modern movies because of CGI, that would be stupid. It's the over abundance of CGI that is the problem; putting VFX over story telling. It's a Wonderful Life still has a message that can be applied, no matter what the year; same with the Day the Earth Stood Still. The cinematography in those films may not have been the best, the special effects certainly were not good (except for the stop motion animation that is so difficult to do) but it's the way they used what they had to their advantage that makes them so memorable.Kevin Delgado said:First off welcome. Secondly, to each their own. All I know is that I have studied film as well and I absolutely HATE black and white film. The drabness of it, the filming techniques, the expositionary techniques, even the musical stylization all lull me to sheer and utter boredom.viranimus said:That's the opposite to what I believe; I'm all for old films. I'm studying Film at my University, so learning about the classics is good to know in my case. I love so many old films such as It's a Wonderful Life, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Day the Earth Stood Still, etc. All B & W movies XD
I know a lot of people look down on modern films, especially those that were either remakes or inspired by earlier films but I never could understand that.
Perfect example. The recent Conan the Barbarian film with Jason Mahmouwuowuwramalamadingdog. I know the escapists resident film critic absolutely panned this film, but personally I loved it. It set out exactly what it was supposed to do and it was devoid of two things. Period dating (from both the cinematography and musical stylization) that makes it clearly a 1980s film, and extensive amounts of cheesy acting. (Id gladly take bad acting over cheese) In the abscense of that, it made the film rather watchable and enjoyable.
Anyway, my point is why exactly is it we think that we should automatically bestow a badge of quality just because it came first? I mean is that not the very reason WHY we remake movies? Because the originals only explored one facet and by remaking it we get to explore more angles on the originally intended theme.
Anyway, as I said, its just a subjective opinion, to each their own.
As for games. I have to wonder if they too will (or do) suffer that same effect, and will we see one day a heavy retreading of remakes in games? I know there are people who out and out beg for it (FF7 modern console remake cries anyone?) But at the same time you get something like Halo CE: anniversary to which it looks like fans might not like. So It stands to reason that this argument about film, will in due time start to work its way into gaming as well.
Also, just saying, I hated Conan; I couldn't for the life of me get through that movie without going "Oh what the hell!" or find something that was entirely pointless. I understand it was very similar in tone to the novels but I couldn't enjoy it.
To be fair, games that are remade usually never touch the core gameplay; that's the difference between films and games. Remade movies often change almost everything, including the story, games simply raise the textures or do a complete HD overhaul in the case of Halo: CEA. The same gameplay and story is intact, the one that gamers fell in love with.
Well done!Hal10k said:Of course it's pointless. It's like any other form of media. Why would I bother watching Citizen Kane when the new Transformers movie just came out on DVD? It's just common sense.
If you'll excuse me, I've been wearing these clothes for almost five minutes now and I have to go burn them.
GoG.com. Ask them if its pointlessKevin Delgado said:I recently was in an argument with a friend of mine; I enjoy buying old games when I can. Whether they'd be for the Playstation 2 or even the original Assassin's Creed for the 360 that I traded in a long time ago. He said that it was pointless to buy old games when there were games, such as Arkham City, that I could be spending my money on. I explained to him that sometimes, I prefer to have various games to play rather than just buying one for over fifty dollars. If I can play over 3-4 games for the low price of 20-25 bucks, why shouldn't I play them even if they are a few years old?
So my question for you guys is whether you believe that buying old games is idiotic or simply a way to get more for out of your money's worth?
Though we all should keep buying certain games and hope the "Revival movement" wouldn't screw them up... much.sean16 said:I buy old games especially classics like planescape, baldur's gate they are just as great as the day they came out. Same applies to tv (70's and 80's bbc comedies are just brilliant), films and books if it was good to begin with it ages well and is still enjoyable 20 - 30 yrs down the line.
You think the new Conan isn't dated? You think its music isn't highly stylized?viranimus said:It set out exactly what it was supposed to do and it was devoid of two things. Period dating (from both the cinematography and musical stylization) that makes it clearly a 1980s film, and extensive amounts of cheesy acting.
Wait! Wait wait wait wait wait! Old games are actually worth about $120 now? 0o Jesus christ, i have copies of Medieval 1, Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy 7 which still work, among one or two other old Ps1 games.Sen Adara Gar said:Hah, i love how old games are all on the PS1, no super metroid, no final fantasy 1-6, no baldur's gate, no neverwinter nights, no starcraft: brood war, no breath of fire 1 or 2, etcetera etcetera.
I spent eight years playing games on about $40 a year, and loved every minute of it, old games or new, there is richness in every aspect you could want, the hard part now is getting legal copies of the really good old stuff for less than $120 bucks. Yeah, i'm looking at you Final Fantasy 7.
assasins creed is "old"?....so it doesnt matter if its good? (or you know, you want to start from the start)Kevin Delgado said:I recently was in an argument with a friend of mine; I enjoy buying old games when I can. Whether they'd be for the Playstation 2 or even the original Assassin's Creed for the 360 that I traded in a long time ago. He said that it was pointless to buy old games when there were games, such as Arkham City, that I could be spending my money on. I explained to him that sometimes, I prefer to have various games to play rather than just buying one for over fifty dollars. If I can play over 3-4 games for the low price of 20-25 bucks, why shouldn't I play them even if they are a few years old?
So my question for you guys is whether you believe that buying old games is idiotic or simply a way to get more for out of your money's worth?
riiiightSH4DOWSL4Y3R said:Old games tend to be more engaging in story aspects and more often than not you can see that the developers invested themselves a lot more into their product, so of course i'm pro old games.
That's not to say there isn't a few modern gems here and there, but i more than often wait a while (6 months- a year) before i pick up anything unless it is something i have personally tagged as a must-buy (such as sequels to a series i know and love).
plus by your friends logic OP, nobody should ever search for a game they genuinely never had a chance to play, regardless of the level of praise thrown at it.