what does everyone miss about the old days of gaming?

[rabidmedia]

You my friend, are gonna go somewhere in life =]

Thanx! I plan on it.

HA! Thanx!

There wasn't as much focus on graphics, it was all about gameplay. Didn't have emulators for people to cheat games with, you actually had to be good to beat them much less get anywhere in the game. The soundtracks are often the biggest reason, something about the hypnotic sounds that attracts people like moths to the flame. If you were born pre 90's but grew up playing 90's games, chances are you're going to have a stronger connection with games from that era than games coming out today. You may not realize it, but you possess a bias towards what you think a game should be. If you don't see that coming out in modern day, you probably won't like it. Even if the game is good for other reasons.

I DIDN'T SAY ALL NEW GAMES WERE BAD OR UNMEMORABLE! Besides, My Bias will make me successful, Even If I don't get rich and famous, I'll still be doing what I love. Particulary Platformer Games, But I don't appreciate the heart being torn away from people wanting to challenge others to their own World and it's Obsticles. I find Nothing Worng with Making the Player THINK when Playing a game, Trying to hone their skills and coreograph their next moves. I suppose maybe I'm just an old fart (yeah...23 in April...) but I'm not the only one. I have been ADICTED to So many things (Cigaretes, Caffine, ...weed) but none More Than an Adriniline-Fuled, Perfect run through of Sonic & Knuckles, with one sit down and one life (yeah, I'm gonna beat the all time high score once I get me a SEGA genesis for my birthday). I'm not trying to outdo anyone, I'm just trying to test my limits, and live life the only way I know how.

[Raype]

There wasn't as much focus on graphics, it was all about gameplay.

The master system, genesis and the game gear all sold HARDWARE on graphics/specs.

The SNES did much the same (some of the best looking titles were launch titles/very early titles. It wasn't until a while later that games were allowed to be overly grainy and pixilated. How about that?)

Also, Atari.

[Drageuth]

Graphics have always been a factor in gaming, ever since the early days, like Ray pointed out. Hell, half of the reason why most people bought a Super Nintendo was because of how sexy the games look in comparison to the Nintendo NES. And again, one of the big arguments for getting a Genesis was because it was 16 bit graphics rather than the 8-bit of the NES. The games themselves hardly factored into those kinds of decisions. What I've always seen is a plethora of good looking, but not necessarily fun, games during launch, then a year of somewhat decent but nothing exciting games, then a couple of great games that pushed the hardware a little more, then a year or so of somewhat decent games working around the concepts presented in previous successful game, and if you were really lucky, a couple of freaking awesome games towards the tail end of the system's life.

The gameplay is what keeps people coming back to play the games more often, but it's usually the graphics and/or word of mouth that actually sells the games. Or being build into an incredibly successful franchise, like Call of Duty/Halo/Final Fantasy/Zelda/etc/etc/etc...


(Also, flashback to the first commercial for the Legend of Zelda for the Nintendo NES:

Nerdy Kid With Huge Glasses: "Look at those awesome graphics!")

[Shareware]

This thread is becoming more and more unnecessary the more people post the same thing.

[bigbigbuddy]

Thanx! I plan on it.

HA! Thanx!

No problem =]

Graphics have always been a factor in gaming, ever since the early days, like Ray pointed out. Hell, half of the reason why most people bought a Super Nintendo was because of how sexy the games look in comparison to the Nintendo NES. And again, one of the big arguments for getting a Genesis was because it was 16 bit graphics rather than the 8-bit of the NES. The games themselves hardly factored into those kinds of decisions. What I've always seen is a plethora of good looking, but not necessarily fun, games during launch, then a year of somewhat decent but nothing exciting games, then a couple of great games that pushed the hardware a little more, then a year or so of somewhat decent games working around the concepts presented in previous successful game, and if you were really lucky, a couple of freaking awesome games towards the tail end of the system's life.

The gameplay is what keeps people coming back to play the games more often, but it's usually the graphics and/or word of mouth that actually sells the games. Or being build into an incredibly successful franchise, like Call of Duty/Halo/Final Fantasy/Zelda/etc/etc/etc...


(Also, flashback to the first commercial for the Legend of Zelda for the Nintendo NES:

Nerdy Kid With Huge Glasses: "Look at those awesome graphics!")

I've noticed with a lot of games lately that the better the graphics get, the poorer the game play and originality get =/ I'm not saying all of the games with better graphics. Call Of Duty: World At War is a good example, that was some pretty awesome game play =] especially with Nazi Zombies 8D

This thread is becoming more and more unnecessary the more people post the same thing.

Replying with a similar idea helps with your argument/post =P well it helps me sometimes.

[rabidmedia]

Graphics are a Very important part of games. they help bring the digital world to life. As long as the gameplay is consistant, varied, and solid, there is no reason to condone good graphics. Yeah... the commercials were all about graphics (Nintendo, Now your playing with power) but I also remember how commercials would show the fun parts of gameplay, rather than the cinematic visual quality (A good FPS game can still pull off both, Duke nukem forever, Bullet storm, etc...)

As for Shareware's comment: This is a forum, and this is the INTERNET! all conversations are welcome here, and If others contribute, then Great, don't get all biggity about it. I think this particular conversation is as important as any other online conversation (eccept on facebook....YAWN!!!) if some don't like it, they don't have to look into it, that's the power of the INTERNET!

The Nes was Known for Consistant, solid graphics and gameplay, featuring an arcade-at-home experience at a modest hardware setback.
Snes was known for More Power, more visual and sound quality, and just plain Bigger games.
the Genesis was known, even after the release of the SNES, for Powerful, fast-paced, Arcade-at-home gameplay with comprimises on Special effects (such as transparencies...) for frame rate and more precice gameplay. and The SMS was basicly just Sega's attempt to 1-up Nintendo with more colors on screen and more Fully-Featured gameplay. (compare Super Mario Brothers to Alex Kidd in miricle world, mario don't get a motor cycle...)
not to say that any of these consoles couldent pull off any of the things the other systems claimed superiority over, but I imagine it was much easier to make a visualy stunning RPG on the Snes than on the SEGA, and better to have a hard-core Shmup with thousands of enemies and bullets on one screen on the Genesis than the snes.
anyway's, I'm done ranting for now...

[JKDarkside]

This thread is becoming more and more unnecessary the more people post the same thing.

BUT EVERYYTHING WAS BETTER BACK THEN WE SHOULD ALL GO BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS IN MY CHILDHOOD AND YOUR CHILDHOOD IF IT WAS SIMILAR TO MINE NONE OF THAT ATARI CRAP RAMBLE RAMBLE RAMBLE

[rabidmedia]

..and that's why we have emulators and pawn shops!

[la_familia2]

i miss the old school style of the games themselves like the playing of lunar or something like suikoden was always great for me, i wish they would make an old school rpg on these modern systems and just put way more story, moves, etc.

[Zero_Aurion_666]

what about length? I remember taking at least 5 weeks to beat a game, now its just 3 days max for every game, we need longer games

[Raype]

The Nes was Known for Consistant, solid graphics and gameplay, featuring an arcade-at-home experience at a modest hardware setback.

It's also known for the highest shovelware to decent game ratio this side of the CD-I, but who's counting?

[Miss Piggy]

Graphics have always been a factor in gaming, ever since the early days, like Ray pointed out. Hell, half of the reason why most people bought a Super Nintendo was because of how sexy the games look in comparison to the Nintendo NES. And again, one of the big arguments for getting a Genesis was because it was 16 bit graphics rather than the 8-bit of the NES. The games themselves hardly factored into those kinds of decisions. What I've always seen is a plethora of good looking, but not necessarily fun, games during launch, then a year of somewhat decent but nothing exciting games, then a couple of great games that pushed the hardware a little more, then a year or so of somewhat decent games working around the concepts presented in previous successful game, and if you were really lucky, a couple of freaking awesome games towards the tail end of the system's life.

The gameplay is what keeps people coming back to play the games more often, but it's usually the graphics and/or word of mouth that actually sells the games. Or being build into an incredibly successful franchise, like Call of Duty/Halo/Final Fantasy/Zelda/etc/etc/etc...


(Also, flashback to the first commercial for the Legend of Zelda for the Nintendo NES:

Nerdy Kid With Huge Glasses: "Look at those awesome graphics!")

Acctually the reason I upgrade is because I know they are gonna stop making games for it.

I've noticed with a lot of games lately that the better the graphics get, the poorer the game play and originality get =/ I'm not saying all of the games with better graphics. Call Of Duty: World At War is a good example, that was some pretty awesome game play =] especially with Nazi Zombies 8D

Also, this. I`m not saying that the games aren`t fun, just getting repetitive. It also makes idiots think that the game they got was the first one that had that idea. i.e mass effect with their cutscene buttons. The first game I played it with was in MGS3, where you held R2 to see in first person at certain moments. I know that there were games like that before that too. Also, it`s not just because they`re only focusing on graphics, but because publisher`s are making them spam games. Which is another reason why activision/ EA should be dead in the ground. Now I want you to think; take the number of original games you bought since this time last year, compare that to the number of games you`ve bought, and get the percentage of original games. I bet you it`s less than 50%.

[Raype]

Now I want you to think; take the number of original games you bought since this time last year, compare that to the number of games you`ve bought, and get the percentage of original games. I bet you it`s less than 50%.

Now do the same with games bought during 1988 as well as games bought during 1995.

I sense a pattern emerging.

[LeftyGuitar]

I miss being able to play video games without a care in the world. Seems like there is always something in the back of my mind that I can't stop thinking about. Which makes the game less enjoyable. Dosen't help that games these days are fully loaded on gameplay as they were back then. Donkey Kong Country is a great example of a game that can have good graphics and good gameplay.

[Shareware]

Donkey Kong Country is a great example of a game that can have good graphics and good gameplay.

Then again, so is Devil May Cry 4.

Relativity.