Retro games vs New games

[Feathers]

So I've talked with many many people about my opinion of older video games, but I never meant that I hated them or that I was being "shallow". All the old classics will always hold a place in my gamer's heart. Heck I still have those old hunks of plastic and metal (SEGA, SNES, Gameboy 1.0, PSX, Game Gear, etc.) laying around even though they serve no purpose anymore.

The whole graphics vs. content debate seems to be more popular than ever nowadays. A lot of people asked me things like "what, you only care about graphics?" or "why don't you come back to enjoy the old days?". While I do enjoy graphics, even more so now that I spent nearly $2000 on a new computer, it's not actually the determining factor for a game for me.

The thing is, once I play a video game, new or old, I don't play it anymore. I've never been one for New Game+ when I could just get a new game instead of playing a game I've already mastered. I like new information, to see new innovations, experience new technology, and most of all see new stories/characters. I'm not anti-retro, but I personally can't play an old game anymore because I feel like I've done all I could with it. Just as I could never go back to my eye burning CRT monitor, or give up my Nintendo DS for that (unrechargable) battery sucking beast called a Gameboy, I can't play a game that takes me back from what I've become used to (Quick Loads over Passwords, for example).

This isn't to say I can't enjoy a retro inspired games like Sonic Colors, The New Super Mario Bros, Kirby's Return to Dreamland, Fire Emblem Radiant Dawn, etc. I LOVE when retro games are taken into the new generations and made into beautiful masterpieces. No, it's not just about the graphics either, it's the fact that these games can still prove amazing even though their time was thought to have passed.

I love to witness the evolution of games. From DOOM to Borderlands 2, from Xenogears to Xenoblade, from Final Fantasy Tactics to Disgaea 4, from Pokemon Red to Pokemon Black 2, etc. I can still see the inspirations from the old and I love it! Not playing the old doesn't mean I don't like the old. They laid the foundation for a lot of best selling games made today. I agree that A LOT of games focus too much on graphics and forget about the characters and story (Star Ocean 4 honestly disappointed me story and character wise). There is still games like Skyrim which can be just as fun as classics like Baldur's Gate and still to be able to enjoy both the RPG elements and great graphics.

So in conclusion, let it be known that I enjoy games both new and old, and more specifically, the combination of the two. I enjoy a mix of the present and the past for my means of entertainment when it comes to video games.

[DogKama]

well its mostly cause a lot of retro games were games we played during our childhood and therefore hold value to use. Cause of this we remember what games were and how they were made before todays current standard. Still we get some good games that remember how a game is meant to be made like Bioshock, X Com, Assassins Creed 2( Cause of the story and many gameplay features it improved on), ect. Most of use will agree they're making to many clones and cannibalizing games for DLC.

I remember a picture where it should games in the past, 3 years ago, and current.

The past showed Dawn of war, and three expansions.

3 years ago showed Dawn of war and two expansions

and Current it showed Dawn of war missing three pieces of it and those pieces were labeled DLC

[Oersted]

Personally, the reason I prefer older games is that even today they seem more original, and the people that made games didn't seem to be deathly afraid of trying something new, seriously, most of the game I see today look alike to me.

That, and I love 2D graphics much more than 3D.

[Hood]

Just two...well, four words...

Chrono Trigger
Suikoden 2

I have spoken

[musical74]

While my computer is current, the consoles I have are: NES, SNES and PSX. I'm more of a *plot-driven* guy anyway, graphics aren't the first thing that matters, sometimes it's not even in the first 5. Case in point: an old computer game called NFL Challenge. Graphics? Um, Xs for defense, Os for offense, you choose what is done and hope they do it right. It's also one of the best football sims around, because of penalties and taking into the account of the people at the time. Heck, my NES is hooked up to the TV right now, I love games that focus much more on the *fun factor* than the *OOOOOOOO PRETTY GRAPHICS* type...which seems to be the main problem now, there's great graphics...and that's about it for 3/4 of the games out there.

[Feathers]

Truth be told, there was just as many bad games in the retro times as there is now. I recall looking for HOURS at Block Buster skimming through endlessly boring looking titles to find a semi interesting looking title. Back then $50 for a game you can beat in a few hours was a HUGE investment so the rental business cashed in a lot with their $1 per day sales. The same goes for C64 that my dad gave me as a kid. He literally gave me STACKS of games and I would go through maybe 30 a day and most of them were just terrible. Most of the good ones that I liked where from Konami, Activision, E.A., etc. (guys, EA used to actually be cool!) If you ever played Mail Order Monsters, Racing Destruction Set, M.U.L.E., Archon Chess, etc. you will know what I'm talking about!

Funny enough most of the games I did like became to be known as "classics". I never used to read magazines or anything back then, I choose games purely by how the boxes looked (of course I didn't always score good and rented a couple bads). Now my Chrono Trigger cart is worth more than a current gen game.

[Gamergirl64]

I'm in the middle. Heck, I don't care if its old, or new. I just like a good game!

[Feathers]

Speaking of retro, this is the very first monster game I played as a kid! Build your own monster and kill defeat the enemy one! Remind me to thank my dad for passing me on his old Commodore 64. I never could get it to work on the emulator since it requires disk swapping. There was hidden content I never got to see because of the pesky disk swap thing.

[youtube]Azyqd45WQYA[/youtube]

I was actually going to make a "Mail Order Monster Girls" at one point, but the idea kinda dropped off my mind.

[Gamergirl64]

I didn't really have much of a childhood, and didn't play video games until I was 11. I try to download a bunch of retro games on virtual console on my wii and 3ds.

[DogKama]

i still remember me and my brother playing snowboard kids!

[Feathers]

Been playing games since I was about 4 and started with the C64 and Atari that my dad had given me. I couldn't get Nintendo till way later because of cost issues. I tell you what though, I would never trade and go back to the ancient 5 1/4 floppy disks. X_X Five minute load times every second! 360KB for two sides! LOL

[Pierce]

Oh boy, here goes a long rant for me...

I chose both, mainly for nostalgics and (like Feathers already mentioned), to play new games.

I started off with SNES, and Genesis.
For SNES, played Starfox, Super Mario World and that bulky-assed goddamn, old floppy disked emulator attachment that went on top of the console to play games without the cartridges.

For Genesis, only Mortal Kombat II and Ren and Stimpy: Stimpy's new invention.

(Virtual Bart and Top Gear 1, and Ren and Stimpy the Veeidiots were my past highlights for the disk)

Next, I jumped to PS2 and Gamecube (Wasn't a fan of Xbox at all). And admittingly played pirated games that Pacific Mall/Toronto notoriously used to do with PS2's (Before the RCMP came down on their ass for Pirated DVDs/Games: Added a mod chip and you could play copied games..

Currently, I'm with my PS3 hitting up Armored Core V like a drug addict, chatting with our clan (SOS Brigade) and making MGE emblems to pass time. , my Wii picking up dust, and sticking with my Acer aspire one to hold my cherished SNES emulator games (Including MAME32, and NEOGEO games).

Used to like FPS games (NEW and OLD), but I don't find it skillful to point and shoot, whereas I play mech games to actually make an effort to destroy an enemy, rather than being some cheapshot camper waiting from a distance...

To sum, I love old games for it's replay value, but I love the newer games for its cutting edge technology, innovation, and to get fresh air at something different. (Damnit when can we get visor monitor helmets? I feel we are a decade overdue for that)

[Severontous]

Play them all. There is no reason not to. Your retro titles aren't going anywhere and those new fangled AAA titles will be waiting for you when go for them.

[Helios Leinheart]

Back in the day, games didn't have to look lifelike to be entertaining. They didn't need mind blowing graphics or jaw dropping sound effects and triple A voice acting. These days, that's what people need to enjoy a game. About 75% of the time.

For me, the graphics in Donkey Kong Country are mind blowing. The sound effects in Symphony of the Night are jaw dropping. And the sound of Kefka's 16 bit cackle is f**king top notch voice acting. I'm just stuck in the past I guess. I can still play new stuff like new Mario iterations or Disgaea, but I refuse to pick up any of the games that try so hard to look like real life.

If it looks like real life, then you're escaping one reality just to be put inside another that doesn't look that different. Chrono Trigger. Now that's escaping reality.

[PAZ]

Realistic I guess it is what FPS aim for, you get to shoot polygon that look like real human. Therefore it is good stress relieve material.

[Severontous]

[Kids today rant]
I have NO idea where kids today got this idea from. The idea that visuals are the end all-be all of games.
There is the casual category (your mario and DKs even team fortress and whatnot).
There is the simulation category (War of the Roses, ARMA, Forza, Skyrim, etc).
Then there is the core (cinematic) category (most modern AAA titles, Arkham asylum/city for example).
Lastly the hard-core category (starcraft, quake, etc)

Categories are the defining infrastructure of games which follow a standard, and these are called "focus groups". At that point it has nothing to do with retro vs modern.
So you are a casual gamer, I like seeing more people like that and it's okay to bash on a title that you actually tested yourself and did not like. But when you start hating on an entire hemisphere, meaning you will judge a title based on a shallow mechanic such as visuals of all things then that is simply silly and naive.

I play all of these categories with neither complaints nor grief. In the end media entertainment is just that, entertainment.
It is not as simple as just getting that high score anymore.

For example; the simulation enthusiasts, who enjoy entering anothers shoes or living through historical events that you normally could not. Things that cater to an entirely different group of individuals and have no comparison to something like angry birds. Which caters to those wanting an easy on the eyes pure fun experience, rather than an immersive one.

Kids today seem to think that there is a war between visually intensive games and casual games.
If I smoked, I would want whatever you were on because it MUST be pretty damn good. Not only is this illusion getting more and more obvious as the days go by.
But even the line of the categories is greying out. I mean there are family games today that have top tier visuals.

If you ask me, both sides need a reality check and to at least pretend that they know what they are talking about.

Those who insist in only playing games that look realistic.
And those who never play games that look realistic; while, that is all fine and dandy as an individual... Don't look
for much credibility in your opinion in discussion boards and review sites.
[/rant]