Progress Is Amazing, Isn't It?

[Verto]

Originally posted by Sava


oh BTW, the Xbox version will suck... as all Xbox games do.

Yes, because better hardware is a surefire path to suckiness.

Hail PS2, the outgunned ***** of Xbox.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Verto


Yes, because better hardware is a surefire path to suckiness.

Hail PS2, the outgunned ***** of Xbox.

actually, hail my pc... my video card is probably more powerful than an xbox

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Sava
actually, hail my pc... my video card is probably more powerful than an xbox

erm no......hail my P166 atleast in terms of the amount of time i play games on it compared to my PIII or xbox

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


Of course I realise that. It doesn't help my case any though, so I didn't mention it.

It does matter though because people tend to compare X-Com and friends with average games from today with better graphics, and conclude that today's games have better graphics and are overall worse games. This irks me.

[child of Thor]

???what? Xcom IS better than any game produced since, surely?



mutter...you've just become deluded by the sweet sweet eye candy that the sugar pimp producers give you to rot your teeth but keep you coming back for more! The monsters!

Edit: On a serious note, Oblivion is looking like an amazing rpg in the making(how many times have we heard this ) and i'm likely to get the new Zelda game as the graphics look a great addition to the gameplay

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Consumers don't buy games with older graphics. It is little wonder that the emphasis has moved towards graphics and away from good game design.

If that was entirely true, consoles would never have succeeded at taking over the PC gaming market and the release of a new platform with good graphics would rapidly kill off older platforms. Neither has happened up to this point.

[Skanky Burns]

...with all else held equal. Price affects things too.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jamski


Yep, and just as we all love popcorn movies, we all love popcorn games too. They're the ones that sell best in both media.

somehow i recall eating popcorn while watching Seven Samurai, and 2001:A Space Odyssey, etc. And really enjoying those films. But then I can stay up to 3 AM playing EU2. Im just weird, I guess.

Never got into Friday 13th genre, though.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


It does matter though because people tend to compare X-Com and friends with average games from today with better graphics, and conclude that today's games have better graphics and are overall worse games. This irks me.

How do we define "todays games" Does EU2 count? cause if so, im ready to sign up in the todays games are better camp. (sorry if im going on too much, in deep in the throws of fanboydom)

[child of Thor]

Eu2 is soooo old

'Todays games' are i think in 3D only.

'Yesterdays games' are of the 2D variety.

well if you want it in reference to the developing arguement this thread is in danger of becoming

[DrSpike]

EU2 is middle ground I'd say. Certainly CoT's 3d/2d distinction is rubbish, either way.

I'll save everyone's time by posting the conclusion that the following discussion will come to:

Improving technology increases the potential for great games. Unfortunately, all to often companies substitute eye candy for good gameplay, and no one approves of this except the casual gamers that drive the market. Still, the potential of better technology is realised in a small set of games, same as the classics we remember (like X-Com) were a small set of games set afloat in a sea of mediocrity.

The jury can justifiably be out on genres like TBS, where the effect of improved technology is less than in general, though it can still improve AI and add potential for complexity.

Don't say I never do anything for ya.

[Alex]

I told you, you're all getting old.

[DrSpike]

Shut up and GEROFF MY LAWN!

[duke o' york]

The original Doom picture looks like it has the background from that stupid Windows screensaver.

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by DrSpike
EU2 is middle ground I'd say. Certainly CoT's 3d/2d distinction is rubbish, either way.

I'll save everyone's time by posting the conclusion that the following discussion will come to:

Improving technology increases the potential for great games. Unfortunately, all to often companies substitute eye candy for good gameplay, and no one approves of this except the casual gamers that drive the market. Still, the potential of better technology is realised in a small set of games, same as the classics we remember (like X-Com) were a small set of games set afloat in a sea of mediocrity.

The jury can justifiably be out on genres like TBS, where the effect of improved technology is less than in general, though it can still improve AI and add potential for complexity.

Don't say I never do anything for ya.

on the money i'd say

And yes we're old - so what, doesn't mean we don't know a good game when we can get our zimmer-frames in front of our pc's. youth - no respect these days

I think on the progress part of this thread, the bit i'm not happy with is the comparative rise in technology tied in with the rise of better gaming.

In the 80's + ealry to mid 90's technology was often the defining aspect of what developers could do. Coders would really have to push the machines capabilities to get the best results.
Now you get much less of this 'clever' programming. Storage is vast, mhz really move and ram is in plentifull supply.

So we should see a comparative rise in awesome games? well many old timers think we should, i do tend to be on that side of the fence, and sadly these great games are few and far between