Poll: Old vs New

[Dexs]

Here is my opinion.
If a game is good I'll play it, but there are times when that doesn't affect my situation.

When I was younger I played Turok: Evolution all the time. It was a good game that my three brothers and I could jam out on Gamecube. When I heard that there was a new Turok game coming out I was completely expecting half dino bad guys that we quench my desires for a new Turok game. I bought the game, but was disappointed by the fact the only reason the game is called Turok is because the guy is an indian like in Turok: Evolution and also because thats his name. Did I like Turok as a completely different game? Yes. Would I of liked it more if it was more like Turok: Evolution? Hell yes!

 

[Abedeus]

So you just called Xbox 360 an old console, and games for it "old". And a year from now, PS3 will have been an old console too.

Your argument is faulty because your assumptions are faulty. Better now?

We're talking about games. I'm not making a value call on games that are five years old, far from it. I'm just saying that developers think of five year old games as old. They don't contribute anything except influence. In other words: little to no money is coming from them. THe Video Game business moves just as fast as the movie business.

On the subject of Halo:
The regenerating health system was copied into most shooters and many RPGs. The checkpoint system started to show up in every game ever. The control layout for first-person games is now copied from Halo, with one or two minor changes. Space marines have become the default protagonists. Online multilayer has become popular on consoles mostly thought Halo. The Halo series almost single-handedly launched an entire line of consoles.

It is easy to see a divide. If you call it old vs. new that is your business. I personally find anything without a checkpoint system to be outdated.

Half Life:
FPS games started having interesting characters.
FPS games started having dialogs with each other.
FPS games started having PLOT, as opposed to SHOOT EVERYTHING UP!!! a'la Doom/Quake.
FPS games started having competitive multiplayer with teams and objectives, where you don't win if you just kill everyone you encounter.

Quake:
FPS games in 3D.
FPS games with tons of guns.
FPS games with great multiplayer over LAN.
Tons of mods.

Oh, and checkpoint system deserves to die. But I guess you consider Crysis without checkpoint system (saving is normal + auto-saves at key events), Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 old, Fallout 3 outdated...

See, you ARE kind of new to the gaming.

 

[CIA]

So you just called Xbox 360 an old console, and games for it "old". And a year from now, PS3 will have been an old console too.

Your argument is faulty because your assumptions are faulty. Better now?

We're talking about games. I'm not making a value call on games that are five years old, far from it. I'm just saying that developers think of five year old games as old. They don't contribute anything except influence. In other words: little to no money is coming from them. THe Video Game business moves just as fast as the movie business.

On the subject of Halo:
The regenerating health system was copied into most shooters and many RPGs. The checkpoint system started to show up in every game ever. The control layout for first-person games is now copied from Halo, with one or two minor changes. Space marines have become the default protagonists. Online multilayer has become popular on consoles mostly thought Halo. The Halo series almost single-handedly launched an entire line of consoles.

It is easy to see a divide. If you call it old vs. new that is your business. I personally find anything without a checkpoint system to be outdated.

Half Life:
FPS games started having interesting characters.
FPS games started having dialogs with each other.
FPS games started having PLOT, as opposed to SHOOT EVERYTHING UP!!! a'la Doom/Quake.
FPS games started having competitive multiplayer with teams and objectives, where you don't win if you just kill everyone you encounter.

Quake:
FPS games in 3D.
FPS games with tons of guns.
FPS games with great multiplayer over LAN.
Tons of mods.

Oh, and checkpoint system deserves to die. But I guess you consider Crysis without checkpoint system (saving is normal + auto-saves at key events), Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 old, Fallout 3 outdated...

See, you ARE kind of new to the gaming.

? Those all have checkpoint systems. Maybe you're just confused because the also have manual saves.

Quake and Half-Life are influential; however, they did not change the rest of gaming. Their influence stayed strictly in the FPS genre.

How can you possibly disagree with the statement "Halo changed the way people make games"? It quite clearly did. I'm not saying it was good or bad, just influential.

 

[Abedeus]

So you just called Xbox 360 an old console, and games for it "old". And a year from now, PS3 will have been an old console too.

Your argument is faulty because your assumptions are faulty. Better now?

We're talking about games. I'm not making a value call on games that are five years old, far from it. I'm just saying that developers think of five year old games as old. They don't contribute anything except influence. In other words: little to no money is coming from them. THe Video Game business moves just as fast as the movie business.

On the subject of Halo:
The regenerating health system was copied into most shooters and many RPGs. The checkpoint system started to show up in every game ever. The control layout for first-person games is now copied from Halo, with one or two minor changes. Space marines have become the default protagonists. Online multilayer has become popular on consoles mostly thought Halo. The Halo series almost single-handedly launched an entire line of consoles.

It is easy to see a divide. If you call it old vs. new that is your business. I personally find anything without a checkpoint system to be outdated.

Half Life:
FPS games started having interesting characters.
FPS games started having dialogs with each other.
FPS games started having PLOT, as opposed to SHOOT EVERYTHING UP!!! a'la Doom/Quake.
FPS games started having competitive multiplayer with teams and objectives, where you don't win if you just kill everyone you encounter.

Quake:
FPS games in 3D.
FPS games with tons of guns.
FPS games with great multiplayer over LAN.
Tons of mods.

Oh, and checkpoint system deserves to die. But I guess you consider Crysis without checkpoint system (saving is normal + auto-saves at key events), Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2 old, Fallout 3 outdated...

See, you ARE kind of new to the gaming.

? Those all have checkpoint systems. Maybe you're just confused because the also have manual saves.

Quake and Half-Life are influential; however, they did not change the rest of gaming. Their influence stayed strictly in the FPS genre.

How can you possibly disagree with the statement "Halo changed the way people make games"? It quite clearly did. I'm not saying it was good or bad, just influential.

Nope, sorry. You are confusing checkpoint-only system (pretty much every single console game... none of them let you save whenever you want, MAYBE some exceptions) with games with the manual saving PLUS auto-save for the lazy/forgetful people.

Halo? What did Halo change for RPGs? Seriously, what? Regenerating health, shields? Yeaaah no.

And I disagree, because it took Halo 2 years to get to PCs. By then, we already had it all. And Half Life 2 next year was better, especially by making everyone and their moms change games to include Havoc and realistic physics. Name me a modern game without at least some physics, I'll name you 10 that don't have anything from Halo.

 

[Dr. Danger]

New games!

They don't have archaic "Lives" systems. Usually.

And the Pokemon games get better every time, too! Well, the gameplay at least. The pokemon designs are horrid.

Pokémon itself is now horrid; especially Hoenn. RIP Pokémon Johto and Kanto-you will be missed...

What? Have you not played SoulSilver or HeartGold? They are a vast improvement to GSC. I only wish I could have played them first.

As for new versus old. I tend to go for newer games because I'm shallow a graphics snob.

 

[FinalDream]

Call me strange but even when I was a young lad with my PS1 I always chose games that presented a strong narrative, or interesting idea, and that taste in games has stuck with me now I have hit my early twenties. I will always love games like Heavy Rain over action games like MW2 (Not that MW2 is a bad game). Now what has this to do with old and new games? Well, a good story is timeless no matter what platform or era, and those games have stayed with me and remain my favorites, even now.

 

[DividedUnity]

I dont care as long as its good. But the fact im still playing Counter strike after all this time says alot for the staying power of older games

 

[Roko_Star]

I say its a Tie

Old Games:
James Bond: nightfire (some of you won't remeber)
Mario games
Sonic games

New game :
Cod:MW2
BFBC2
Assasin creed

 

[Bourne Endeavor]

I am the definition of a retro game at times and as of 2010 have played more older games in the last five or so years than new. My list?

Lunar Silver Story Complete - 20+ (lost count)
Final Fantasy X - 9
Suikoden II - 6
Legend of Dragoon - 4
Chrono Cross - 3-4
Lunar 2 Eternal Blue Complete - 2,3
Final Fantasy VIII - 2
Final Fantasy VII - 2
Xenogears - 3
Suikoden - 2

That is the amount of times I have completed the aforementioned games. Does not count unfinished files and of course recent games I spent a frightening amount of time with. Old games, especially RPGs, were and still are awesome.

 

[Shycte]

New games!

They don't have archaic "Lives" systems. Usually.

And the Pokemon games get better every time, too! Well, the gameplay at least. The pokemon designs are horrid.

I might agree that the technical wonders of the DS have given the newer games some kind of improvment but I still think it was better with 4 stats then having to care about IV, natural stats, special EVERYTHING and that shit.

Simple is the best.

Anyway, It depends on the game ofcourse. Some games wher shitty then, some games are shitty now.

 

[Arqus_Zed]

Hmmm...
I'm gonna go for the:

"depends on what i am looking for at the time."

Mainly because: some genres evolve, other fade away.

If I want an decent action/adventure, shooter or racing games, these are glorious days.
But if I want a jRPG or a platformer...

Well, looking at the present, it just makes me wanna curl up in a corner and cry myself to sleep.

Platforming: Rayman's off with his stupid rabbits, Spyro got his ass raped and then got past around like a damaged blunt, the same goes for Crash, Sly probably got 'point blanked' in his last heist, Jak's plotholes will never be filled, Vexx probably ripped his own heart out, Haven's dead, no one ever heard of Scaler, let alone Doctor Muto and Lord knows we could really use a new Maximo.

As for jRPG's: well, it's been since 2005 a jRPG completely sucked me in. And with FF XIII behind us and the knowledge of the near future, I don't see that changing anytime soon...

 

[CIA]

Nope, sorry. You are confusing checkpoint-only system (pretty much every single console game... none of them let you save whenever you want, MAYBE some exceptions) with games with the manual saving PLUS auto-save for the lazy/forgetful people.

Yes. The checkpoint plus system. I understand that. It has checkpoints. Are you being this dense on purpose? Did you play any of the games listed?

Do you really think that being influenced by something means to copy it completely?

Name me an RPG that has a checkpoint system, and I'll show you a game made after 2001.

 

[LastCelt1989]

Lol, of all the boards to say 'Halo changed the face of gaming' on, the OP chose the escapist. Thats brilliant.

Gotta say guys I love retro gaming especially around the SNES to PS1 era but you have to look at it objectivley. Yeah there are games today that suck but at their most basic they are at least functional and if they are broken than they are more likely to be to easy due to a glitch you can exploit rather than being ridiculously broken and nigh on impossible like SNES and especially NES era games.

I dunno just a few thoughts, I guess Im saying yeah games back then were great but I cant deny that the overall quality is better now.

 

[Abedeus]

Nope, sorry. You are confusing checkpoint-only system (pretty much every single console game... none of them let you save whenever you want, MAYBE some exceptions) with games with the manual saving PLUS auto-save for the lazy/forgetful people.

Yes. The checkpoint plus system. I understand that. It has checkpoints. Are you being this dense on purpose? Did you play any of the games listed?

Do you really think that being influenced by something means to copy it completely?

Name me an RPG that has a checkpoint system, and I'll show you a game made after 2001.

...Gah... WHICH ONE WAS FIRST - CHECKPOINTS OF MANUAL SAVES?!

I'll answer it - MANUAL SAVES!! Adventure games very early started using saved games to avoid sitting for 7-8 hours straight, with a guide book on the side... Hell, the first "saved game" was the unforgettable "write down the password to go to this and this level". It wasn't "saved" game per se, but one step below the manual saving system.

Then, because some people found it to be easier to just save it on the crucial moments, plus the manual saves (FPS games and RPGs), they added auto-saving to games. Then, because consoles were a bit lacking in the "saving" department, they got rid of the manual saves in favor of checkpoints.

RPG with a checkpoint system? By your definition, every single RPG ever made, since you think that checkpoint = auto-save.

...Seriously, the issue was - Xbox is not old, your definition of old is faulty because your assumptions that Halo = revolution is faulty.

Your whole argument is faulty. Stop being wrong.

 

[Fox1789]

i am quite partial to classic games..

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

I think the linegap would be 2001 before it were the "Old Games", and afterwards came the "New games" like UT2004 etc with polished graphics...

 

[Shycte]

New games!

They don't have archaic "Lives" systems. Usually.

And the Pokemon games get better every time, too! Well, the gameplay at least. The pokemon designs are horrid.

I might agree that the technical wonders of the DS have given the newer games some kind of improvment but I still think it was better with 4 stats then having to care about IV, natural stats, special EVERYTHING and that shit.

Simple is the best.

Anyway, It depends on the game ofcourse. Some games wher shitty then, some games are shitty now.

Its not so much that the IVs and stuff are bad, its that the game never mentions them or allows you see it and compare it with other stats in any way, its like the developers are hiding something from you.

Regarding the topic, if the diving line is set at Halo (which came out in 2001) I would have to say "older games" because I have a hell of a lot more to choose from.

It doesn't? I thought it did :O

Btw, you name is sexy.

 

[Dr. Danger]

New games!

They don't have archaic "Lives" systems. Usually.

And the Pokemon games get better every time, too! Well, the gameplay at least. The pokemon designs are horrid.

Pokémon itself is now horrid; especially Hoenn. RIP Pokémon Johto and Kanto-you will be missed...

What? Have you not played SoulSilver or HeartGold? They are a vast improvement to GSC. I only wish I could have played them first.

As for new versus old. I tend to go for newer games because I'm shallow a graphics snob.

No, and I don't want to. To me Gold was perfect the way it was. I fail to see why a graphical update and being able to use 3rd and 4th gen Pokémon make the game better.

Sorry, but I look upon Gold with the rose-tinted specs.

There is so much more to SoulSilver and HeartGold than a graphical update and added Pokemon.

As much as I respect loyalty, I hope you'll give it a chance in the future.