«

[NrmMyth]

I like all games that i like.
Don't care if the game is old or not.

[Omuletzu]

The thing is the abandonware scene doesn't a give a meep about what he thinks.We are all here because we LOVE oldies.So his opinion doesn't change anything...

[Galadrin]

Time to throw in my two cents...

PC Gamer has always had it's share of tools from my point of view. I remember way back when they had some guy slag a sierra release because he didn't like their new cursor control (this was for a Kings Quest or a Quest for Glory game). The fact is that they're largely gamers and maybe because of that they have strong feelings about what they like and don't like in games. Keeping that in mind, they are also a gaming magazine, and you can only review a game so many times (usually once) before people start asking why they're advertising in or buying the magazine. They have a vested interest in making sure that the newest toys are snatched up by the public, because it means more advertising dollars for them. After all, isn't that the formula for a "good" magazine? Make your readership feel insecure about what they already have so that they go out and buy that one more thing to make themselves better, repeat as needed. Look how well it has worked for womens mags.... :not_ok:

[BeefontheBone]

You have a point, but it's a bit of a cynical one - PC Gamer UK gets occasional letters about its ad content (what do half-naked women have to do with sound cards?) and they generally agree but say it's all handled by the publishers.

Also, I disagree with your signature!

[Kezz]

Well first of all, I think the thing about the old games was taken out of context. The guy who wrote that wasn't saying that old games suck, what he was explaining was how used to insane graphics, sound, and cool factor the gaming community is anymore, and also how much better games have gotten in the respect of production values. He wasn't saying old games are crap, merely that new games can make old ones LOOK like crap because they condition us to like graphics more than gameplay.

as for the adventure game... my guess is it's simply a bad game. I have never once known PC gamer to be wrong about a game, and I've been an avid reader for 4 years now. Sure, sometimes they mark things a little higher or lower than what I think, but it's usually no more than a 5 percent deviation. There is no way they would label a game that is worth anything at all as low as a 14%.

[win98]

old games are way better than new games with fancy graphics and the need for 256mb graphics cards that cos a small fortune and are updated for new games so you need to buy the same graphics card with slight improvments over and over again since a new even more demanding game you want just game out and you bought a new graphics card about a month ago for another game that you wanted
in about 20 years time it will be an old game which won't need a fancy classed graphics card to play it since new more demanding games have came out
also sorry about not having full stops i had to type this quickly because i am busy

[Eagle of Fire]

I did not read the article but it really sounds like a stupid oppinion of old games a lot of "new trend gamers" tend to have by default. That oppinion is simple: if it's not new (and full of 3D graphics) then it's utter crap. The most often heard argument to support their oppinion I heard about is "we should not leave in the past".

Such people are obviously idiots. They usually claim that the past is past and we should not bother ourselves with it, but then again how could we prevent the errors we did in the past as a human race if we would simply ignore or erase what happened before us? That's just like blindfolding ourselves and having someone on our back waving a carrot on a string in front of us so we just walk in the direction he want us to walk.

Stupid. Simply stupid. I don't think there is a better word for that.

[Galadrin]

Originally posted by BeefontheBone@Apr 26 2005, 07:45 PM
Also, I disagree with your signature!

Meh, it's a little joke (very little if you don't agree with me) that I personally find to be highly amusing. Of course, that's probably just because almost all that I associate with 80's pop culture is hair metal and bad movies with feel good endings. If it actually offends you I can always change it.

[PrejudiceSucks]

Oh God yes, I remember when they got more flamed than the beasts of Serious Sam 2 when they had all of those phone numbers for such things as 'The Castle of Kinky Sex', which is just crap.

They did these for a 5-month stint before I think they had more letters coming in about it per week then a whole issue was selling fora month (I imagine).

By the way, this 'graphics thing' that you guys keep taking about is an issue for PC Gamer UK, and they too know that good graphics do not equal a good game.

Although IMO (please don't flame me...) a good game can only be improved by having great graphics. It is not the other way around, though.

So for example, I'm going to presume that everyone here has played UFO: Enemy Unknown at least once in their lives. It is possibly my favourite game ever, but it could only be improved by it having great graphics. That's not to say that this should be at the expense of content, though.

If anyone has ever played ZAngBand Tk, they will know what I am talking about. Fine, the game looks awful, but it is more addictive than coccaine-flavoured smarties. On the other hand, with great graphics, the game would be simply astonishing.

Even that new version of Total Annihilation that I saw in this forum shows that if you take a good game and ramp the graphical quality it can make the game just 'seem' better.

[a1s]

Originally posted by Eagle of Fire@Apr 27 2005, 02:45 AM
I did not read the article but it really sounds like a stupid oppinion of old games a lot of "new trend gamers" tend to have by default.

"no timmey you can't have that turkey, bad timmey!" (©-southpark)
man, you should always read the article in question, saying stuff based on other peoples oppinions is not smart! :not_ok:


Now about the graphics. good graphics are an improvement if everything else is the same, but usualy you can only have limited resources so good gamplay means more time, or crappier graphics. Now before you can actualy sell a game, you have to lure the buyer, think which game would you rather buy:
1)the one that says: excelent story,"game of the milisecond"-Gamers Adviser, and has cool screenshots.
2)the one that says: explore the secrets of gorrila archipelago!,"simply, greatly, ultra, y'now, cool"-Buy or Fry, and has crappy screenshots.
?
sadly enough, most of us will choose the first one, because "what you see is waht you get". You can't see the story from the cover, nor can you see the gameplay, you can only see the graphics.