Why do we play old games

[offsidewing]

Movies are straight up entertainment.  I've been to a lot of film festivals, that's what happens when you have a sibling who makes them.  Vancouver, New York, Columbus, LA, San Fran, blah-blah, and it all boils down to one thing:  Did I waste irreplacable moments of my life on the movie I just watched? 

Do I know more about movies that the average pretentious journalist?  I hope so.  Do I know more about movies because I caught the "Blue Skies over Mars" line the first time watching Total Recall?  Probably not.  Movies and Theatre have changed a lot the last 40 years because of one thing:  The audience's imagination.  Audiences are no longer pressed to use their imagination to immerse themselves in a story line.  While that's more detrimental to the stage than to the screen, the fundamental change has affected both forms of ENTERTAINMENT.

An audience no longer has to try to imagine what it's like to storm a beach head at Normandy.  I saw Forrest Gump drag a torso across a beach.  Yeah, that's messed up.  Yet, I do have to imagine what Gweneth Paltrow's head looks like in that box which adds to the f*ckED-UP-ED-NESS to the ending of that movie.  I get to thank Julie Taymour (sp??) for not allowing me imagine what the African safari looks like on stage.  And WTF was up with Starlight Express!

I will rationalize dangerously as this prime example is a hot topic of Fan-Boyism.  The Star Wars prequels.  Setting aside the fact that you already KNOW what's going to happen to Anakin Skywalker, the movies failed to connect with the original (or new) audience because the immagination was stripped from the prequels due to the (in my opinion, wonderful) special affects work.  I didn't have to imagine what it was like in the super futuristic world.  Someone dictated it to me.  The story also stripped itself of inspiring back stories.  "You fought in the clone wars?!?!"  Yeah Luke, and they were a let down once I saw what they were like...

Anyways.  That is why people tend to find older films 'more authentic' or mentally engaging, because they require you to be.

LONG LIVE THE TG-16!!!!!!

[Hobo Xiphas]

There needs to be an option on the poll that says "I like 2D games, but 3D games are okay too!"

I don't care when a game was made as long as it is a good game.

[Monster Bonce]

I don't disagree with your characterisation of film as entertainment and didn't write anything to contradict that. I also agree to it boiling down to whether or not watching was a waste of time. I don't know why I've got your back up so thoroughly, it wasn't my intention. I even agree with your point on why many people, myself included, often prefer older films (though there has also been a clear and corresponding rise in genres that require no thought whatsoever and there are other thinks that irk me about much contemporary film).

Anyway, the movie comparison was simply an analogy. I was wondering if the same held true of games or if they will seem laughably primitive in a few years. I have a fairly low opinion of nostalgia but here I am posting on this forum and playing PCE games. I was wondering if people think there is an appreciable quality to older games that is now lacking, that's all.

[offsidewing]

I don't disagree with your characterisation of film as entertainment and didn't write anything to contradict that. I also agree to it boiling down to whether or not watching was a waste of time. I don't know why I've got your back up so thoroughly, it wasn't my intention. I even agree with your point on why many people, myself included, often prefer older films (though there has also been a clear and corresponding rise in genres that require no thought whatsoever and there are other thinks that irk me about much contemporary film).

Anyway, the movie comparison was simply an analogy. I was wondering if the same held true of games or if they will seem laughably primitive in a few years. I have a fairly low opinion of nostalgia but here I am posting on this forum and playing PCE games. I was wondering if people think there is an appreciable quality to older games that is now lacking, that's all.

More to the point, any movie without Lo-Pan in it just plain sucks.

[MotoRoaderMike]

2D games>3D games any day!

[Kitsunexus]

Why DO we play old games?


Instead we could be playing old women! Yeah it's sick as all f*ck, but hell, those bitches are RICH!

[Turbo D]

Why DO we play old games?


Instead we could be playing old women! Yeah it's sick as all f*ck, but hell, those bitches are RICH!

  Yes, sick as all hell.

anyways, I play old games because they seem to have more heart and effort put into them. All the new supposedly 3D games are rather the same style imo. I do like fps on my pc tho, there is nothing better that owning newbs online 

[Kitsunexus]

Actually, we need to blame 3D games sucking on id Software, makers of Doom and Quake. They pioneered the "license out an engine for a shit game" business method, after all.

[GUTS]

Yeah but the god-awful Unreal series perfected it.

[Dark Fact]

To me, 2D or 3D, it really doesn't matter just as long as it's a good game.  What really irks me nowadays when it comes to gaming is "how many hours does it take to finish the game?"! Dude, it doesn't matter how many hours it takes! You finish the game when you finish the game, that's it! People asking that kind of question tend to treat games like they are some kind of "garbage in, garbage out" object! Games are meant to be played and enjoyed for their entertaining values, not as a limit to one's tolerance for a specified period of time.  Back when I was a tyke, games were regarded by their awesome graphics, gameplay and difficulty.  We appreciated the games for what they were and looking at it in retrospect, we can appreciate them even more now because of the amount of hard work, heart, and dedication that it took to make them.  Game designers CARED about making a good game, not throwing a bunch of polygon shit together just to get their paycheque.  I look at games from Nihon Falcom's library and realize how much passion they put into making a game with memorable music, characters, and gameplay.  I look at Capcom and its dedication for colorful graphics and gameplay.  I look at Konami and its "serious" style.  I look at Telenet Japan and its dedication to its anime titles as if the anime had real specialty to the game instead of being a stock gimmick.  Today's games rarely capture that feeling (with the exception of some AWESOME 2D games for the playstation which were released by Atlus and the now defunct Working Designs). 

If a game is in 3D, I want it to be done with the prospect of providing us with entertainment, not just to show off for the critics.  Yes, there were crap 2D games back then but the good outweighed the bad most of the time.

So, with the Wii and the Virtual Console, and XBOX's Live Arcade, the chance to relive the glory days of gaming are once again upon us.  Gamers new and old have the chance to see what a REAL game was like back then.  The newbies may not appreciate it but at least the companies are giving them the chance to.

Me? I'll just sit back with a good entertaining video game, thank you very much.

And that...is my 500th post and my 3rd bonk smilie.

[Tatsujin]

1. Nostalgia.

2. Some of the genres I like work better in 2D than 3D.

3. A lot of modern games are dull and stupid.

4. Older games have a better "pick-up-and-play" factor.

5. The music is almost ALWAYS better.

truest!!

[RCduck7]

You may find this strange, but i had strong nostalgia feelings of certain PS1 games at a time the console was still in production.
Propably because the 3D capabilities blew me away at the time, i was totally immersed.

[Monster Bonce]

I don't think that's strange though it may have been a bit unusual. I find it odd the the PS1 now qualifies as retro, though. I suppose it is, given it's no longer in production, but it's still been a pretty quick movement.

[Necromancer]

What really irks me nowadays when it comes to gaming is "how many hours does it take to finish the game?"! Dude, it doesn't matter how many hours it takes! You finish the game when you finish the game, that's it!

I disagree - it most certainly does matter how long a game is.  Whenever I hear somebody ask how long a game takes, it's because they want to get there money's worth (longer is better, and not just in your pants).  If a game is finished in 5 minutes, it sucks.  Even if it's the best five minutes of gaming known to man or beast, it sucked and left you wanting more.

Game designers CARED about making a good game, not throwing a bunch of polygon shit together just to get their paycheque.........Today's games rarely capture that feeling (with the exception of some AWESOME 2D games for the playstation which were released by Atlus and the now defunct Working Designs). 

If a game is in 3D, I want it to be done with the prospect of providing us with entertainment, not just to show off for the critics.

Don't hate on 3D (or do, I don't care).  Fancy visual effects that don't really enhance game play are nothing new.  2D had parallax, scaling, rotation, etc.  3D has radiosity, lens flare, etc.  You'd have to be blind not to see the effort put into many newer games, although that effort has tended towards realistic rather than artistic environs.

[FM-77]

To me, 2D or 3D, it really doesn't matter just as long as it's a good game.  What really irks me nowadays when it comes to gaming is "how many hours does it take to finish the game?"! Dude, it doesn't matter how many hours it takes! You finish the game when you finish the game, that's it!

Playtime is an extremely important factor to me. For example, I would never pay for a game that takes five hours or less to complete (okay, so I did it once - Ys Origin, but that was the biggest mistake of my life). I would also never play a game that takes 100 hours to complete, as I don't have that kind of patience with games. I like games that take 10-20 (and sometimes even 30) hours to complete, but that's it. That's why I'm always interested in how long a game is.