Page 5 of 5

Re: What do the old games have that the new games don't?

Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 2:54 am
by the7k
BogusMeatFactory wrote:There are games that exist in the days of old that are still fun today because the game, in essence is a great game. It is still fun to play because the people who developed it made it properly.


I get the feeling that we aren't going to be seeing many games that are still fun to play years later with this current generation of games - likely due to this "Blockbuster" mentality.

Quite frankly, I haven't played many games recently that even slightly enticed me to replay them. It really feels like all games want from you these days is to play it once and then sell it off. Rather than building a solid gaming experience, they seem to focus more on making the game marketable enough to snatch the money away from the consumer, even if said consumer sells the game in less than a week.

Heck, even a good bit of the games I've enjoyed this generation have felt like this.

Re: What do the old games have that the new games don't?

Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:14 am
by RCBH928
I don't know if these things have been discussed yet, but:

*Lives, I kind of miss them

* Levels, we still have levels today, or worlds, but they don't have the same taste as back then. A new stage meant a lot back in the day. It was such an excitement to see the next level especially when its different. The first Sonic levels comes to mind as they are very different, from the grassy level to the fire one and then to the casino. It was like "WOAH" . It worked in every game. Also meeting a new boss had the same effect. any one remember saying " Did you reach *this* boss or *that* boss" , they were like landmarks in the game.

*CHEATS. I miss those a lot, it was so important back then it had dedicated magazine. Every game had cheats. No longer as far as I understand. Now they have walkthroughs and strategies.

Re: What do the old games have that the new games don't?

Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:36 pm
by flamepanther
This may already have been said--it's a longish thread and I'm just now coming into it--but I think the real answer requires a change in the question...

The more cutting question is "what do the old games lack that is bogging the new games down?"

Re: What do the old games have that the new games don't?

Posted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 5:43 pm
by AznKhmerBoi
old games are
-easy pick up and play
-no load time
-can skip story or intro if you like
-simple controls
-awesome 2d art
-games sound like games are suppose to not like real life
-doesnt make sense but it does because its a game
-no patches or update that we need to pay for
-cartridge are easy to store and last forever
-cartridge art are way cooler than art on cd
-every console had their own cart design
-easy pick up and play ( by the wway im accustom to all nex gen control)
-no tutorial on a shooter
-go gimmick just game
-

Re: What do the old games have that the new games don't?

Posted: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:03 am
by J T
kingmohd84 wrote:* Levels, we still have levels today, or worlds, but they don't have the same taste as back then. A new stage meant a lot back in the day. It was such an excitement to see the next level especially when its different. The first Sonic levels comes to mind as they are very different, from the grassy level to the fire one and then to the casino. It was like "WOAH" . It worked in every game. Also meeting a new boss had the same effect. any one remember saying " Did you reach


Yeah, I always liked this. You would almost always have a forest level, a water level, a lava level, an ice level (I always hated those slippery bastards), and a city level. I like when games take you on a tour through a bunch of environments.

Re: What do the old games have that the new games don't?

Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 1:26 am
by Lord Huggington
One thing I like about old games was that they weren't trying to be movies on some level. Stories were simpler (with the exception of RPGs), and it was more a simple premise that kept gamers going. Now we're inundated by muscle-bound space marines, and various other cliched stories. At least a cliched premise only takes a few seconds to get past. A cliched story one has to suffer through for hours on end. I still like stories in some recent RPGs, but in a lot of other genres I just can't stand them, and they take sooooo much of my time.

This goes back to what Breetai was saying on the first page of this thread. Older games would instantly engage the player, whereas a lot of new games are a lot slower. A lot of that arcade-y pick up and play feel is lost in newer games, with the exception of what comes out of the indie / doujin community.

Re: What do the old games have that the new games don't?

Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 4:48 pm
by BogusMeatFactory
Lord Huggington wrote:One thing I like about old games was that they weren't trying to be movies on some level. Stories were simpler (with the exception of RPGs), and it was more a simple premise that kept gamers going.


You can make this argument with some games, but this doesn't apply to every old game. Like I said in my earlier post, there are tons of games from the 1980's that had a very heavy presence in storytelling.

People have this strange concept that older games are different from current games. The only difference is the technology. Game developers now have the ability to do more things with the technology they have and thus are able to represent the concepts of story and character development more easily, albeit not necessarily well-done.

If you think that the, "Old Games," have something that new games don't, play some of the more recent games like Scott Pilgrim, Sonic 4, Earth Defense Force, Flower and so many more. These games aren't being, "Retro," they are just catering to that style of play which is, pick up and play, have fun, put down.

Re: What do the old games have that the new games don't?

Posted: Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:32 pm
by flamepanther
BogusMeatFactory wrote:If you think that the, "Old Games," have something that new games don't, play some of the more recent games like Scott Pilgrim, Sonic 4, Earth Defense Force, Flower and so many more. These games aren't being, "Retro," they are just catering to that style of play which is, pick up and play, have fun, put down.
Actually, Scott Pilgrim is a poor choice of examples here, because it deliberately makes an effort to be "retro" with only a little bit of a fresh twist, and directly homages a ton of old games. This was done in order to remain in keeping with the books and the movie, which are both heavily retro-centric.