Do you normally play older games or new games?

[Adagio]

I have found a few Boulder Dash clones, but none of them is as good as the Amiga version(s)

[lord of the mark]

Can I speak up for newer games????

IF I had a new system id be VERY interested in Simcity 4, and in Victoria (assuming id already played EU2 a fair amount) And in Medieval Total War. There ARE . apprently, some very good recent games out there.

[Trifna]

Well I don't have a system that can keep the rythm, but normally I'd give a try to a bit everyhing. There were good games, and there still are good ones created. So...

I didn't voted anywhere, since it didn't include both old and new categories

[child of Thor]

Graphically, sonicaly and in overall production values; new games are king.

In something else a large majority of them are missing something that used to be fairly common - what exactly that is i'm not 100% sure

[Alex]

Originally posted by child of Thor
Graphically, sonicaly and in overall production values; new games are king.

In something else a large majority of them are missing something that used to be fairly common - what exactly that is i'm not 100% sure

Fun.

[pg]

i voted 6-10 yrs but i do play newer games too. i really have a problem with newer games though and that's the fact that they run like **** unless you have a really powerful pc. i can't stand interface lag, or insanely long loading times, or even sluggish fps(lower than 30 generally). a lot of newer games it seems like i spend more time not playing than i really do(that's just the impression not the actual truth).

i don't mind upgrading if it's worth it but most of today's upgrading is for just a little prettier graphics which isn't worth hundreds of dollars. the last time i can remember a major graphic upgrade seeming worth it was for glquake. one thing i'd spend money on is a broadband connection. just for perspective i've only had 2 pcs a p133 and a 750 athlon(which is my current pc).

plus most newer games don't play multiplayer at all on a 28.8k while older games do. why that is i can never understand particularly with fps since qw/q2/etc run fine but newer games i can rarely stay connected to servers. a few games do work ok which is amazing considering wc3 and mmorpgs are some of them yet at times would seem to be the most demanding considering how many units/people can be on the screen in those games.

there are also way more older games and many are free via the dog house. i do see a scary trend though which is i generally avoid newer games lately. unless they are multiplayer i'd generally rather just wait until they themselves are old games as the experience is generally much better now that i have a faster pc, it's fully patched, lots mods are already finished, etc.

[Drogue]

Re: Do you normally play older games or new games?

Originally posted by Dissident
I still play The Infinity engine (Baldur's Gate, Planescape, Icewind Dale) games, Fallout Games, SMAC, and occasionally Diablo2.

Same here, except I haven't tried Diablo2 or Pallout. BG and SMAC are my main fodder. Also NHL '93, and occasionally Speedball2, for my Genesis emulator, Unreal Tornament and Quake on multiplayer. Put 4-6 years, since mostly it'd be SMAC and BG, but some are around 3 years, and some around 10.

Played Ultima IV a while ago, which is about 15-17 years old, IIRC, but not regularly.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Alex


Fun.

mmmm no its not quite that..........i DO have fun on my xbox, it just that they dont seem to grip me like older games do, not in the same way.

If computer games had soul, i'd say that modern games seem to have lost it to some extent.

And its definately not that in my growing old age i'm just not into computer games anymore - i'm still as passionate as ever, and have the advantage that i can buy more games than i used to as a kid........but for some reason i'm buying less, as i'm slowly collecting the real great games.

I think there is a fundemental problem here, one that is costing games companies lots of money(the ones that survive long enough!), and us the end users in decent games.

And the more i see the movie-tie ins(3D all the same swap the graphics types) , i'm not convinced we'll ever see the good games again

maybe i should change my 'name' to grumpy old games player

[DrSpike]

No, there is some truth in what you say. However, let's not idolise the past too much, and compare the greats of that era with Big Rigs Over the Road racing from this era - that just isn't a fair comparison.

Personally I believe that the potential for great games increases with technological advances. If a game has as good gameplay *and* better graphics it's a better game. Of course many will argue that companies are lazier and produce eye candy games with little content. This is at the heart of the 'new games are rubbish' line of thinking, and examples do for sure exist. However, it needn't be the case, and indeed is not the case for many games I could mention.

And let's not forget, there were hundreds of old games that were both pants and ugly.

Just some perspective from a long time gamer.

Doc

[Space05us]

As a general rule of thumb, I only play games that are older than me.

[pg]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Personally I believe that the potential for great games increases with technological advances. If a game has as good gameplay *and* better graphics it's a better game.

of course it increases but the only major increase in technology lately is in graphics. many other things seem to me at least to be of similar quality(eg, ai, interfaces, etc) since the begining of the windows 95+ era. of course sound has probably reached it's plateau as it's very good.

Of course many will argue that companies are lazier and produce eye candy games with little content. This is at the heart of the 'new games are rubbish' line of thinking, and examples do for sure exist.

unless i'm wrong i was under the assumption spending on eye candy dwarfs everything else. gameplay and content will always be much more important to me. i don't think new games are rubbish as the average new game today i will like much better than the average old game.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Space05us
As a general rule of thumb, I only play games that are older than me.

- i really wouldn't have a great time on my computer if i tried that one

@Doc - yep, there were loads of real stinking dogs of games in the olden days Still as you say - technology should be enabling us to produce the best games ever, but its not happening.
I can pretty much put my finger on the games era when things started to change and the reason for it.

Elite - the 8bit version was an amazing game for what it managed to do with the technology available. Things were looking up as we all dreamed of what could be done with a bit more Ram and faster procesors.

The Pawn - 16bits make an entry into the then popular genre of Text Adventures(Interactive fiction). They added drop dead gorgeous graphics, and we could all SEE the technology working.

Speedball2 - console+16bit, maybe arcade perfection at home.

Still even with the new consoles and 16bit home computers we were mostly left feeling that the full potential of the platforms weren't being realised.

Frontier - first encounters(elite2 basicaly) came along and summed up that feeling for many people, even though it wasn't a bad game at all.

Roll on a few years and we get the eventual domination of the PC - much faster procesors make up for the more primative basic architecture(the procesor speed makes up for the lack of on board gizmo's).
And we get huge amounts of memmory and Hard drive space to play with(huge in comparison to what had gone before).

Pirates/Civ2/Smac/Magic the Gathering/MechWarrior/Doom/MoM/Moo/X-com/X-wing/add some more etc.

A comparative golden age for games?

5-10 years later and what list can be assembled to compete with the above? I can think of a few games, good games no doubt, but imho most dont have that magic ingredient of the later.

Maybe having such good graphic capability detracts from the use of our imaginations, in the same way a good book is always more memorable than a good film? And so the less we have to use them, the more shallow the game experience in the long run?(he he - rip out those £$$ graphic cards now!)

Its most likely a combination of many things, lazy programming,lazy user's(?) - amongst other things

Stil it makes me we have all the gear but no idea how best to use it seems?

I think i'b best go back to my game of pong

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by child of Thor


- i really wouldn't have a great time on my computer if i tried that one

Anyone for an exciting game of tape punching?

Lets see who's fastest at changing vacuum tubes?

Compete at using a room size computer to decode German naval messages?


Nah, not a lot of good computer games from that era

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
No, there is some truth in what you say. However, let's not idolise the past too much, and compare the greats of that era with Big Rigs Over the Road racing from this era - that just isn't a fair comparison.




And let's not forget, there were hundreds of old games that were both pants and ugly.

Just some perspective from a long time gamer.

Doc

I agree - lets recall - with older games we know whats good and whats bad, theyve been extensively played, reviewed, etc. And have been all patched up. And extensively modded, etc. There are intrinsic advantages to older games, of any era, at least for SP.

[child of Thor]

well i just missed out on the valve generation, i was there with the first silicon though.........

Pong/Zx81/Pacman etc - i've played many games on many platforms

And i'll keep playing till i'm old and grey