Quote:
Originally posted by Lucullus@Mar 28 2006, 08:52 AM
To put it simply: What differs between old games and new games is playability and addictiviness. I can still play good ol' civilization and play it for hours where with Civilization 4 i can play it but then I take a long break because it just isn't keeping my head up.
What I lack in most new games of today is lack of playability and great story lines. Some of them do keep it good together but a lot are just kicked out to gain funds.
|
Many (or better most) old games are missing story. Only thing that new games are missing is better 'printed' manual. LOL (now that they fixed packing as EOF said
)
You can't argue that Civ 1 plays better then following civilization games. AI increased in new games, graphics are easier on the eyes, some logic problems were fixed, added more ways to finish game and reduced time in management with possibility to set what do you like to be developed next… If you make alliance in civ 1 or 2 (not multiplayer version) and declare war, and your ally promise to help you (for fee), you’ll never see any of his units moving towards your enemy. This was fixed in Civ2Multiplayer and later versions of the game.
MOO3 is another story, where new game does not have any similarity (except the name) with original release.
C&C did improve a lot since Dune2, with the same original idea, but they had way to many releases. Renegade - FPS based on C&C universe is a good example that great game from one genre can be base for another great game in different genre.
@EOF – The game that you are used to, UFO in your example is specific game with great game play. I never got new version (is it aftermath?) but I never liked TFTD either, as I did not see any improvements. It had different graphics, but IMHO it should have more then that to be called sequel.
I still believe that appreciation for the new games and innovations in the game industry should be bigger.