I hate computer games!!

Hi'ya
Just thought that I would get your opinions,

Is it just me or are old style computer games sooo much better that new games,
it seems to me that new games are just full of great looking graphics but loose the game play!

When you take an amiga game for example
the graphics it can do are usable, but not so good where you could just flog the game for it's nice looking graphics.

What do you think?

;-)

[andy]

It's horses for courses. I love or dislike games of every generation (but I'm not 'easy'!). This idea is one that comes around with each new generation of hardware.

It was always better back then...

Look back at any format (*even* Amiga) and I am sure you will find plenty of dud titles, however you care to rate them.

Perhaps the industry is still in a transitionary period (graphics - particularly 3D - over gameplay) and all will eventually settle down. Still, there's good stuff out there if you make careful and informed choices...

[Fissuras]

I agree that every platform has its of good and bad games. just remember Atari 2600, some great games, and a whole pile of shit that suffocated the console.

I joined the 3D wagon in love with the beuaty of the graphics displayed on my screen. I had bought a Monster 3D (actually a Voodoo I) and I was amazed with Tomb Raider I.

Then I've got Turok, and for the first time I realized how bad this new generation of 3D games could be. Of course I had already tried a whole lot of bad pseudo-3D doom clones, which mostly sucks big time, but Turok 3D early advanced me what was to came.

In the overall I believe older games had more gameplay. Glorious graphics tends to wear out pretty soon, so its is not enough to keep you playing one game. That's why retrogamers still love their old games: the newer ones don't get even close, with a few exceptions.

Perhaps, when you grow older you don't feel amazed at such a degree as you did younger!

There are a number of ppl ranting about that all new computer games are bad and contains no gamplay value and so on and so forth...I dissagre, just because it's not a new superfrog or a new Civilization I or a new Another World, doesn't really mean the game aren't original or that it don't contain any gameplay or (re)playability worth mentoning.

Look at Half-Life, first came out in -97/-98 and is still the most played on-game, although not in it's original form...

I payed about $25 and I can play several games that are of TOP quality for that price just because Valve decided to support the gaming communty and support modification...isn't that some sort of orginality???

Other games in other genres have also proven to be able to show a certain level of orignality and although the major berakthrough on gamong and gemaing genres was developed in the 80's there is new ideas in games, don't look at all new games at once just look at some of them...still most of the relaeses are crap but that have no changed for the worse nor will it change for the better.

Can anyone say that ALL games on the Amiga was BETTER that ALL the games an PC, that the WORST Amiga game is better than the BEST PC game? I think not!!!

I'll be back

[Amiga1992]

Originally posted by DCLXVI

Look at Half-Life, first came out in -97/-98 and is still the most played on-game, although not in it's original form...

Teh old struggle aain... This does not mean it's any good. Same goes with most of today's products. Just because they are popular it doesnt mean they are good. Same goes with music. Just because everybody and its dog listens to Britneay Spears, doesnt mean she's a good artist or whatever.

All fo todays games are not bad, because I consider a lot of the offerings created in Japan to be good (but they, of course, churn out lots of shite too). But I could say almost all the western releases are poop. 2D or 3D. Just look at the euro and US games made for the GBA. you can count the good ones with yoru hand's fingers. I'm really appaled by the quality of most of the 2D GBA games produced this side of the globe.

The thing I hate the most is wired graphics that were reduced in color on thePC. they dont pixel for the GBA exclusiely anymore! They do whatever they want on teh PC, reduce the color depth, and BANG! the ywire it onto the GBA cart. pathetic. Kudos to Titus though, their "kao the Kangaroo" game features a very well pixelled main character, and other nice pixelled graphics around. Most of the stuff has not been "photoshopped" to cope with the GBA's restrictions.

[Twistin'Ghost]

Originally posted by DCLXVI
There are a number of ppl ranting about that all new computer games are bad and contains no gamplay value and so on and so forth...I dissagre, just because it's not a new superfrog or a new Civilization I or a new Another World, doesn't really mean the game aren't original or that it don't contain any gameplay or (re)playability worth mentoning.

I don't recall anyone saying all of those reasons you cite. I don't recall anything of the sort, nor anyone claiming Amiga games are better for being on the Amiga and PC games shite for being PC (even if there is an interesting parallel nonetheless). There is a PC mentality that is rampant in PC games and you can argue this all day long, but it's just a fact. Every week someone else comes along with this defense of PC games and it's really getting old. Isn't there message boards devoted to people who want to argue. This is an Amiga board, right? What's so hard about talking Amiga without having to rerun this inane arguement every week?

Look at Half-Life, first came out in -97/-98 and is still the most played on-game, although not in it's original form...

Akira said it all.

I payed about $25 and I can play several games that are of TOP quality for that price just because Valve decided to support the gaming communty and support modification...isn't that some sort of orginality???

Support for a game is now referred to as originality? Oh dear...
When we speak of originality, it's considered a given that we are talking about the game or gameplay itself. I wouldn't call a game original for shipping in a triangle-shaped box, either...

...still most of the relaeses are crap but that have no changed for the worse nor will it change for the better.

Pick up any old Amiga mag (pre-1995) and look at the number of good releases from a variety of gaming genres. Then pick up a current PC gaming mag (hell, any from the last 10 years, really) and tell me there's no difference. Tell me there's the same amount of variety today as there was then. I collect game mags, so I can see it with my own eyes. If you can't, then don't purport to know what you appear to just be speculating.

Can anyone say that ALL games on the Amiga was BETTER that ALL the games an PC, that the WORST Amiga game is better than the BEST PC game? I think not!!!

Sure they can. It's an opinion, just as your opinion doesn't think this. So what's the point? Arguing opinions of this sort is rubbish and as useful as spam.

Originally posted by Akira


Teh old struggle aain... This does not mean it's any good. Same goes with most of today's products. Just because they are popular it doesnt mean they are good. Same goes with music. Just because everybody and its dog listens to Britneay Spears, doesnt mean she's a good artist or whatever.

I never said that just because alot of people play it it's good, I am hoever saying that they are playing a 4-5 year old product...AND there are people dedicating hours, days and week supplying FREE modifications for that particular game...and many others...I have seen HIGH quality mods for atleast 5-6 other great games, like Close Combat and UT, now they are starting on to work with the FlashPoint engine...that could produce some interesting mods...

Another point is that it's getting harder and harder to be creative and develope uniqe playbility values to old game genres, as I saw someone replied in another therad here somewhere, he wanted to have a 2D plattform or 2D shoot'em up that was creative and adding uniqe features...the problem is that thoose genres are pretty much used up all ideas for and creating games with new features would be very hard indeed, and then how many would buy it??? I for one would like a Monkey Island III 2D PIXELATED thats the only thing that would make me take up the adventure/puzzel genre again, Simon I, Monkey Island I&II and some of the other classics are the only kind that is really good...

The thing is that I can understand the frustration som people can feel over these issues but saying that everything new is crap is simply not true, although for the majority of the games that are released are infact crap, but there are gold to be found in the barren mountains

As a last note, I feel very sad indeed that no-one has come up with a desent Monkey Island variant...don't wan't anything to happen with the interface, still 16 commands and pixelated graphics....

[Djay]

Retro Vs. Nu Games...

Retro for me is playing any old games, for this then, I enjoy playing Turrican thru emulation, i also enjoy playing Unreal Tournament (online) which is an old game now...

... it doesn't matter to me if a game is very old or only just old (?!?!?!), if i like it i will play it...

as for new games, well i haven't really played many new games (released in the last 2 months)...

the only NEW game i am interested at the moment is UT 2003, but apart from that was NEW games are coming out??????

Steam is a cool idea, giving Broadband users a free multi-player game is cool (Halflife, Counterstrike etc... ), but it is only really meant for BB users as its a 400mb download cache!!!!!

[Miggy2TheMax]

Originally posted by etheridge
Hi'ya
Just thought that I would get your opinions,

Is it just me or are old style computer games sooo much better that new games,
it seems to me that new games are just full of great looking graphics but loose the game play!

When you take an amiga game for example
the graphics it can do are usable, but not so good where you could just flog the game for it's nice looking graphics.

What do you think?

;-)

I remember this discussion from the past, now where is that darn thread... here it is:

http://eab.abime.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3190

I agree with you 100% and the poll from the above thread shows it too, its conclusive, new games suck Retro is the only way to Go!

More seriously, the posts in the above thread raise some excellent points, and give reasoning as to why the games may have evolved into what we see today, its a good read.

[Twistin'Ghost]

Originally posted by Djay
Steam is a cool idea, giving Broadband users a free multi-player game is cool (Halflife, Counterstrike etc... ), but it is only really meant for BB users as its a 400mb download cache!!!!! [/B]

400mb?!?! For what? Sheesh...overuse of cpu power, drive space, resources, bandwidth...what a complete package! I really cannot get excited about this kind of excess.

/me fires up Toobin' in MAME....

[Amiga1992]

Originally posted by DCLXVI

Another point is that it's getting harder and harder to be creative and develope uniqe playbility values to old game genres, as I saw someone replied in another therad here somewhere, he wanted to have a 2D plattform or 2D shoot'em up that was creative and adding uniqe features...the problem is that thoose genres are pretty much used up all ideas for and creating games with new features would be very hard indeed, and then how many would buy it??? I for one would like a Monkey Island III 2D PIXELATED thats the only thing that would make me take up the adventure/puzzel genre again, Simon I, Monkey Island I&II and some of the other classics are the only kind that is really good...

ALL ideas are never used up. The human mind can create infinite ideas. The fact that most western publishers dont come up with imaginative, 2D stuff, doesnt mean all ideas have been eaten up. Oh, for new shoot'em ups, look at mars matrix or Ikaruga . I dont see how 3D makes people come up with new ideas, since all I see is just identikit 3D FPS games over and over.

BTW you should check out the MSX games scene today.. Lots of creative, great new games are being coded in japan and Europe.

[Twistin'Ghost]

Originally posted by Akira
ALL ideas are never used up. The human mind can create infinite ideas. The fact that most western publishers dont come up with imaginative, 2D stuff, doesnt mean all ideas have been eaten up. Oh, for new shoot'em ups, look at mars matrix or Ikaruga . I dont see how 3D makes people come up with new ideas, since all I see is just identikit 3D FPS games over and over.

Exactly. Typical PC mentality explanation for so many games being the same genre. If there's no new ideas, how come the old ones aren't more evenly distributed? Simple...the reason "certain genres" get used over and over is because like most media these days, it's all about the money. Everybody is afraid to take a risk and to move towards something that won't make the most riches. All or nothing, I guess. Lame.

[Muzkat]

If you are a postmodernist, you would reject that. Postmodernist academics argue that all originality these days has been exhausted- there are no original ideas left. Hence, we must resort to reproduction and pastiche for our art/literature/television/film/computer gaming etc.

I'm not a postmodernist, by the way. I'm just studying it at uni.

Never said that it was impossible to be creative I just siad it's hard...

[Twistin'Ghost]

Originally posted by Muzkat
If you are a postmodernist, you would reject that. Postmodernist academics argue that all originality these days has been exhausted- there are no original ideas left. Hence, we must resort to reproduction and pastiche for our art/literature/television/film/computer gaming etc.

I'm not a postmodernist, by the way. I'm just studying it at uni.

There is some credibility to that theory. I have my own views on this, which I formed in writing songs (or more directly, in producing songs.) I believe in the parent system. Every child is new, yet derivative of it's sources (parents). When you cross two (or more) elements, they create something new. Look at Lemmings. It took platform games and puzzle games and put the two in the back seat of an old Ford. Nine months later, out pops a new baby. Purists will say the game is not really anything new, since it resembles its parents. But in reality, it is its own new thing. In much the same way modern rock is the culmination of rap and heavy metal (an punk, really...depending on which band and which song...)

In the Amiga days, games seemed a bit more free to experiment with gene splicing...almost a free love generation. Nowadays, games are created by teams overseen by corporate yuppies who really don't care about lofty ideals, but are more concentrated on the bottom line and the static formula. More than ever, a game is produced based upon its potential shelf visibility and not its creative integrity.

That's my analogy, anyway.

[Fissuras]

The problem is, there is almost no surprise at all.

PC Games today seem mostly to be variations on the same theme. They may get better AI, better graphics, better sound, but there is no new concept, nothing relly new, no creative and innovative ideas.
They all look and play more or less the same. The games don't grow on you. They don't reward you, they don't give anything new.

There are one or two new ideas here and there, but used only in little details. Like Max Paine. Bullet time was a good idea, it kick ass, and can be quite handy sometimes. But then what, just an FPS with some comics instead of cutscenes.

And every little idea is reused again and again..

Ok I liked Half-Life, but I couldn't play any other HL game. I tried Opposing Force and Blue Shift, and both were just the same game. I thought: "hey, I have already played this game", and killed both.

The same happened whith Quake I, II and III. I bought Quake I and played it to the and. Nice graphics, but Doom is a lot more fun. Then I bough Quake II and never played to the end. Boring - I thought. I tried Unreal Tournament and I was pleased, since I have never played on-line/multiplayer deathmatch games. But when I loaded Quake III, it played just as UT. Different places and weapons, but the same gameplay.

And what about RTCW and MoH? gee they look (and play) almost the same. But MoH has at least the D-Day at Omaha Beach, and it kicks ass. I played MoH to the end, but now I can't play RTCW because it makes me sleep.

The last RTS I've played to the end was Warcraft II. I missed Total Anihillation and Starcraft, but all recent RTS looks like Age of Empire with different buidings.

I love games, I love PC games, I love a lot of PSX games, and a even bigger lot of retrogames, but I can't deny there could be a lot of more innovative ideas. But companies keep feeding us with the same proof-tested games formulas.

[CPC464]

In my Opinion Games (retro games) like on the Amstrad/CPC/spectrum/Amiga etc were alot more challenging and had tonnes more gameplay and were oohhhh so much more addictive.

but as I said just my opinion