Viewing Thread:
"How long do good games last?"

Hi.
Has anyone here ever wondered why you can't get the old classic games like "Monkey Island", "King's Quest" and the original "Prince of Persia"? They've been around, what, ten to fifteen years at the most? Stuff like books or movies seem to improve over age, but games seem to get forgotten. So, I ask you, in this age of 3D graphics, Windows XP and Linux, Pentium 4 Processors and so on and so forth, is there room for the good old days? And how long do the games we're raging about now, like Half-Life and Final Fantasy, have left?
Oh, by the way, some of the old adventure games are EXCELLENT, yet the genre's dead. Consider that.

I suppose seeing if a game is still widely played many years after it's release is the strongest test of how good it is. I seriously doubt that many of today's best games will still get played in 10 years time because nobody will want to. Technological advances will always kill off the older games, no matter how good they are.

Agreed, the game industry has to advance. But that shouldn't mean the death of older games, if they're good. I can't find any of the old LucasArts classic adventure games anywhere!

The Grand Empathist wrote:
It's not that that I have a problem, it's the fact that what people have worked really hard on (often with good results) are forgotten because someone's made something *better*.

If nobody ever bothered to improve on anything then the games industry would get no where. Advancements have to be made.

Yeah, OK, fair enough, but shouldn't the games industry strive for perfection? It's not that that I have a problem, it's the fact that what people have worked really hard on (often with good results) are forgotten because someone's made something *better*.

New pretty games doesn't always = Good games

I think the main reason there is so many new games that are always striving for better graphics is that alot of gamers are shallow and feel that the games have to have great graphics to be a good game.

I think the type of person playing games has expanded alot now too, with the introduction of products like the playstation there was this sudden rush of games and each trying to advertise and appeal through the graphics.

I find that i play my older games alot more than the new ones, something somewhere along the line was lost in many genres. There are now alot of different types and variations in the genres and although to a point this a good thing it means that certain games arn't getting the attention they deserve.

It saddens me that companies have closed or straied to other genres just because they are popular at the time, even though the company are alot better at making a different type of game.

Better games? Does that not mean that the old games can not be good enough to survive?
And another thing - there are people who play games over and over again because they're so good, as proved by a couple of people who answered my original post. So there's gotta be something going for them.

What phone do you have that lets you play Monkey Island?

Chr1s wrote:
> Games get forgotten because far better games come along. The quality
> of the special effects in movies can improve, but good acting is
> still good acting and a good story is still a good story. Is Zelda
> The Wind Waker better than the first Zelda? Definitely.

But it's not better than Ocarina of Time and that is older and the special effects aren't as good.

I just completed MGS1 again tonight to be honest.

Games get forgotten because far better games come along. The quality of the special effects in movies can improve, but good acting is still good acting and a good story is still a good story. Is Zelda The Wind Waker better than the first Zelda? Definitely. Is The Matrix better than The Godfather? Hell no.

Technical advances have a far bigger impact in the gaming world than any other entertainment genre.