Go Back   Forums > Community Chatterbox > Gaming Zone
Memberlist Forum Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Search Forums:
Click here to use Advanced Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 28-03-2006, 04:47 AM   #11
TheGiantMidgit
Abandonia Homie

 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ,
Posts: 608
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Blood-Pigggy@Mar 28 2006, 02:56 AM
I'm saying people that repulse from new games, those are the snobs.
And it's not only a question of graphics, it's of control, sound, atmosphere, graphics, gameplay mechanics, power, and optical illusion graphics (HDR lighting for example) my point is not whether they're good or not, my point is that now we don't have to leave it to our imaginations, the creators of the games have the creative license they have deserved from the get-go of the industry.
It's understandably more expensive, but it pays off for the player, who'll get to experience the world he's in.
Play Colossus or the newer Zelda games, they're prime examples,
Well, if you want games that still stimulate imagination, look at all the fan fiction and fanart and crap out there for new releases. I've seen competitions for "Designing your own colossus" that have yielded incredible turnouts and results.

I've seen some even weirder examples where people take games and expand on the world offered significantly, inventing their own mythology and everything... The Neverhood community was a big offender of that, and it wasn't a visually sparse game.
TheGiantMidgit is offline                         Send a private message to TheGiantMidgit
Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2006, 07:06 AM   #12
efthimios
Home Sweet Abandonia

 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ,
Posts: 957
Default

I remember back in the 80s I was thinking how much I would like to play games that you had your little army and fighting and all looked nice and it was a strategy game. I remember remembering exactly that when after few years I first watched my cousin play Dune 2 on his super duper fast 386 system (I still had my ST). All the nice graphics, the music the full blown Dune universe, right there, with the armies for you to control! Amazing! How you actualy had under your command your units, which you could see moving and fighting in real time, with very nice graphics and excellent sound.
After a couple of years screenshots of Command and Conquer first appeared on a magazine, I still remember the one which showed a couple of tanks, soldiers, a watchtower guarding a river crossing. I was speechless. Only two more times I remember getting so eh.....interested to a game by screenshots, Battle Isle and the first SimCity. Imagine, real armies fighting under your commands, you can actualy see the tanks move and fire, the humvees firing and the troops getting blown up in full colour!
Were strategy games before that time exciting too? Sure, there were some very nice games like Joan of Arc, Ring of Medusa, etc, that had elements, but the PCs of the time could not produce something as big as CC. (back in mid to late 80s).

This is just one small personal example of why new games are not all that bad.
A previous poster mentioned a couple reasons and I agree that some of them can exist and "force" some people to be biased against new games. I remember a cousin of mine that had a k5@300 till 2 years ago and he would talk down on all new games, about how they are only about the fancy graphics etc etc. Then he got a brand new fast PC, and when I mentioned to him a couple of months ago that I was thinking of buying a PSP, he said why bother with such an old technology (~PS2 level)

efthimios is offline                         Send a private message to efthimios
Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2006, 02:52 PM   #13
Lucullus
Super Freak

 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hobro, Denmark
Posts: 194
Default

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.
Lucullus is offline                         Send a private message to Lucullus
Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2006, 03:11 PM   #14
punch999
The true Shadow President
 
punch999's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Celebration, United States
Posts: 1,195
Default

I have never played a new game (except some extreamly bad ones) That I didn't like more then almost ALL abandonware games. Sure abandonware is good. But you can't make any sort of argument on wolf3d vs hl2
punch999 is offline                         Send a private message to punch999
Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2006, 03:58 PM   #15
efthimios
Home Sweet Abandonia

 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ,
Posts: 957
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Lucullus@Mar 28 2006, 02:52 PM
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.
That's not fair! Civ IV sucks
efthimios is offline                         Send a private message to efthimios
Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2006, 04:04 PM   #16
Eagle of Fire
Friendly Fire
 
Eagle of Fire's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Valleyfield, Canada
Posts: 4,892
Default

To me it's the contrary. I hardly ever play a "new" game without first having to compare it to an older game. I never said originality is easy to come by... But when you played Dune 2, C&C, Starcraft, Warcraft 1 and 2 and Red Alert... Other "new" RTS really feel bland. New graphics are not going to help here, on the contrary.
__________________
I'm on a hot streak... Literally.
Proud member of The Abandoned since 2005.
Eagle of Fire is offline                         Send a private message to Eagle of Fire
Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2006, 04:22 PM   #17
efthimios
Home Sweet Abandonia

 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: ,
Posts: 957
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Eagle of Fire@Mar 28 2006, 04:04 PM
To me it's the contrary. I hardly ever play a "new" game without first having to compare it to an older game. I never said originality is easy to come by... But when you played Dune 2, C&C, Starcraft, Warcraft 1 and 2 and Red Alert... Other "new" RTS really feel bland. New graphics are not going to help here, on the contrary.
Homeworld, Rise of Nations, Sacrifice, Blitzkrieg series, etc. Even if you argue that neither of them are at all original, then I have to ask you, why must "original" must be so important, even more so than a game being good?

I do not "buy" that new games must be original or they are not good. And from the looks of it most gamers don't either. Example, Darwinia and Perimeter. Were they original in their own field? Hell yes, nothing like them (in parts or total). Have they sold many? HA!
Reason for this? I can't say for Darwinia, but Perimeter had a lot of advertising space before its release, and both games had many good reviews. Gamers did not buy them en mass. I didn't buy them. Why? Didn't like their original ideas, or at least how they sound on paper. Perimeter sounded like a lot of micromanagement, and Darwinia like a bit too different, I am not in the mood of trying new concepts of games for some time now.

Not exactly sure my points on this post either.
efthimios is offline                         Send a private message to efthimios
Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2006, 04:42 PM   #18
Eagle of Fire
Friendly Fire
 
Eagle of Fire's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Valleyfield, Canada
Posts: 4,892
Default

I bought perimeter myself. Another disapointment, but this time it's all my fault. You see, the only reason I haven't tryied that game is because... I don't have a DVD drive. LOL

Originality is not that important. However, when you played for example the complete FF serie... You are not so thrilled about title #14 for you pretty much know in advance what the game will be about.

In the same vein, I'm sure Red Alert clones are good games by themselves... But they sure don't deserve to have the C&C name by their side.

I must admit that I never heard of most of the games you mentioned. The only games I know are Homeworld (that's a nice game but hardly "new") and Perimeter (and I never played it).
__________________
I'm on a hot streak... Literally.
Proud member of The Abandoned since 2005.
Eagle of Fire is offline                         Send a private message to Eagle of Fire
Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2006, 05:47 PM   #19
Rogue
10 GOSUB Abandonia
20 GOTO 10
 
Rogue's Avatar

 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Afrim, Albania
Posts: 2,113
Default

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.
Rogue is offline                         Send a private message to Rogue
Reply With Quote
Old 28-03-2006, 10:10 PM   #20
Blood-Pigggy
10 GOSUB Abandonia
20 GOTO 10
 
Blood-Pigggy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Wilmington, United States
Posts: 2,660
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Eagle of Fire@Mar 28 2006, 10:04 AM
To me it's the contrary. I hardly ever play a "new" game without first having to compare it to an older game. I never said originality is easy to come by... But when you played Dune 2, C&C, Starcraft, Warcraft 1 and 2 and Red Alert... Other "new" RTS really feel bland. New graphics are not going to help here, on the contrary.
Not really, you're playing the wrong games.
RTS games are really going strong right now, just try to avoid the "me-too" games.
Some good ones could be.

-Battle For Middle Earth
-Warhammer 40k
-Warcraft 3
-Starwars Empire At War
-Darwinia
-Galactic Civililizations II
-Total War

Middle Earth has gobs of units that're a bit more micro-managed that Total War, but it still doesn't have anything like it.
Warhammer is a good game, but it is alot like Warcraft 3, although it makes up for that just because it's so damn good.
Warcraft 3 is just good, I dunno, it's Blizzard.
Starwars Empire at War is just plain awesome, it's completely different from any other RTS games I've ever played.
Galactic Civ II is one of the best MOO type games out there
And the Total War series speak for themselves.
Go try all of those.
Seriously, Starcraft isn't a "old" game, yeah, it came out eight years ago, but that's the same time Half-Life came out, 1997-1998 is when people starting complaining that new games were just trying to push technology and lacking gameplay. I wouldn't include them in this discussion.
One thing that is lacking from newer games is puzzle games! Zuma and Bookworm is cool, but where's Tetris or Q-bert? Those were awesome!
__________________
Youtube Channel -
http://youtube.com/user/BloodPigggy

My Site -
http://sites.google.com/site/eyenixon
Blood-Pigggy is offline                         Send a private message to Blood-Pigggy
Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Battles in a distant Desert pandagopanda Approved Requests 1 08-08-2007 06:21 PM
Car Bashing dodgerman20001 Gaming Zone 0 22-07-2007 09:50 PM
Summer Games/winter Games sprite Gaming Zone 1 06-11-2005 12:23 PM
The No-bush-bashing Thread Sebatianos Blah, blah, blah... 28 14-09-2005 03:01 PM

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump
 


The current time is 08:15 AM (GMT)

 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.