New Generation Games Vs. Old Generation Games

[Alpha]

I got to admit these new games like Matrix "Enter The Matrix" for Playstation 2 are just JAW-DROPPING. I've never seen such better graphics. However I did play it and I wasn't impressed with the gameplay at all. For some reason these new games just can't give the entertainment of gameplay like the older generation games. Sure they can look a lot better, but the only game I can think that was really good in both aspects was GTA: Vice City & Zelda "Wind Waker".

[Diso]

To be Honest. I don't really like the new games. Their graphics are cool and sometimes their gameplay is neat, but their plot is sooooo stupid.

 

How new games work these days:

1. Go and Retrieve someone/something important and they get captured or killed in your reach and you have to kill ultimate evil.

2. You're working for a business and you get betrayed by them.

3. Missions and crap

4. etc. etc. etc. BORING

 

(I still like the fighting games and RPGs cause they're very cool 4 me )

 

Now the Old Generation had games like sonic, megaman, and mario. Those were cool. They were new inventive ideas that appealed to many people. Most of my favorite games were on systems that are almost obselete or are obselete. Now, we get all the games that try to put special affects and abilities to make it seem cool and junk.

 

Old skool all tha way!

 

PS: How "new" are we talking here? PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube wise?

[SWAMP_THING]

i think newer games still try to use the same game play style of olser games. eg collect the key, ok easy in a 2d platformer, boring and impossible on turrok 2, they might have well just said see that haystack over there? find that needle

[ME!]

to me, its all the same...video games, movies and music of today all have one MAJOR thing in common. too much attention is paid to making them look or sound pretty, than to putting any actual meaning behind them.

 

with video games, its usually the plot and gameplay that suffer. with movies, its the plot awell, but also the dialogue. music of today just has nothing to it at all.

 

like with most things, its not a question of, "can we do it?", as much as it should be a question of, "should we do it?".

[emsley]

Turok 2 64----Could have been a really good game i remember buying that game for full price when it came out in england.

 

Hated the pointless trekking around turned of in the end.

 

 

Its all changed we need some classic 2-d games again instead of.

 

The new action adventure in a rich full 3d enviorement.

[DreamCastLover]

I am strictly old school.

 

There are the odd modern game that wows me with a combination of great gameplay and great graphics but it is rare.

 

But for me it's old games all the way. Which is why I love emulation

[someboddy]

Most real games use high realizm. I I want a realizm, I was going out to the street!!!

[SgtSarros]

In the old days... NES, and SNES had long game.s. and I mean LONG games.. that took forever to beat, and were very challenging..

 

Atari 2600 had some games you couldn't beat, just got harder and harder..

 

These days, it's all about the quality of a game gaphic-wise, not plotwise or lengthwise.. what annoys me is when i hear critics say "The game is a little long, it'll take you 12 to 15 hours to discover everything".. what the heck he talking about?!? Any game where you can find everything the first time through, or can beat it on your first time sitting there is NOT a fun game.

 

How about those games that they say are "challenging" but you can get through the game only dying once or twice? *YAWN* I like games where every time you come across a boss you have a good chance of (and usually will) dying, a difficult spot in the game should not be "do this, and that, you're done" kinda thing.

 

This is what far too many games use these days.. I finally got myself a PSX and found a few good games on it.. but for the most part, the older systems still run the show.

[stjames]

I have been avidly playing games since the 2600 days and I don't think that much has changed if you think about it (Besides the obvious graphics improvements). How many good games were there for say the 2600? How about Colecovision? or even the Commodore 64? Evene when you get into the 90's with the 16 bit systems there really were not that many great games, Although the 90's was IMHO the highpoint of the industry in so far as the highest average of quality titles as opposed to bad ones. I think that if you can get 10-20 great games for any given system you are doing good.

 

As far as graphics being highlighted nowdays instead of gameplay I will agree with everyone on that. Gameplay should always be the focus of any development team, and then they should design the grapics around that solid concept/plot. In the old days, the grapic capabilitys of the machines just wasn't there so developers had to concentrate on gameplay. But, even then there were a lot of crap games Pac-Man and E.T. for the 2600 come instantly to mind. At least today you can rent before you buy. I spent a lot of hard earned allowance money on sh1t games when I was younger.

[Alpha]

How "new" are we talking here? PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube wise?

 

Yes.. thats exactly what I mean.

 

I spent a lot of hard earned allowance money on sh1t games when I was younger.

 

Samething happened to me 80% of the time.

Some examples:

 

1. NBA All-Star Challenge [sNES] (WORST NBA GAME EVER)

2. Captain America And The Avengers [sNES] (COULDN'T GET PAST THE 1st LEVEL)

3. RoboCop [NES] (COULDN'T GET PAST THE 1st LEVEL)

 

And there is a ton more!!