The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Retro games are better than new games. That's a fact. Anybody who argues with me should go straight back to Sensible Soccer and play that for 1/2 an hour. After that they'll never be able to say that FIFA and the like are better.
Why were the old ones better? Surely games would evolve and become better? Shouldn't game developers have learnt from the past and use their ideas and 'stand on the shoulders of giants'? Apparently not. Back in the SNES's golden days you could almost guarentee that there would be at least 5 games that you MUST own each quarter of the year.
I think the wealth of 'AAA' titles back then was because it was all new - Developers were still searching for what the public wanted as home Gaming had just hit the main stream whereas previously it had been 'geeks only'. Publishers weren't certain either, and so let a lot of game through that probably wouldn't have got a look in if they were thought of today. Bomberman is a prime example. If it wasn't such a classic all those years ago, would a publisher had even touched it if it was thought up today? I doubt it.
Games these days have a lot of thing which they can hide behind. Kids don't want long, interesting games and brilliant storylines, all they need is good graphics and friends who want the game. A little bit of violence is good for the mix too. Examples? Grand Theft Auto. If it was based around, lets say, a debt company instead of the mafia, and instead of kiling people you had to go around giving them strongly worded letters without getting threatened, sales figures would go through the floor.
Back in the day (I've always wanted to say that) games had nothing to hide except for gameplay, because the NES/SNES/Megadrive didn't allow much good music or graphics. I believe that, if it went back to the way thing were, games would start getting back to their former glory. Why? Developers would have to spend less money on getting the graphics just right and have to make gameplay a lot better.
I blame it all on the Playstation...
Why were the old ones better? Surely games would evolve and become better? Shouldn't game developers have learnt from the past and use their ideas and 'stand on the shoulders of giants'? Apparently not. Back in the SNES's golden days you could almost guarentee that there would be at least 5 games that you MUST own each quarter of the year.
I think the wealth of 'AAA' titles back then was because it was all new - Developers were still searching for what the public wanted as home Gaming had just hit the main stream whereas previously it had been 'geeks only'. Publishers weren't certain either, and so let a lot of game through that probably wouldn't have got a look in if they were thought of today. Bomberman is a prime example. If it wasn't such a classic all those years ago, would a publisher had even touched it if it was thought up today? I doubt it.
Games these days have a lot of thing which they can hide behind. Kids don't want long, interesting games and brilliant storylines, all they need is good graphics and friends who want the game. A little bit of violence is good for the mix too. Examples? Grand Theft Auto. If it was based around, lets say, a debt company instead of the mafia, and instead of kiling people you had to go around giving them strongly worded letters without getting threatened, sales figures would go through the floor.
Back in the day (I've always wanted to say that) games had nothing to hide except for gameplay, because the NES/SNES/Megadrive didn't allow much good music or graphics. I believe that, if it went back to the way thing were, games would start getting back to their former glory. Why? Developers would have to spend less money on getting the graphics just right and have to make gameplay a lot better.
I blame it all on the Playstation...
Page:
Sensible Soccer - hehehehe - I never liked it. Retro was good, but not good enough. :-(
Adidas Power Soccer - now that was a game. :-D
Adidas Power Soccer - now that was a game. :-D
Retro games are better than new games. That's a fact. Anybody who argues with me should go straight back to Sensible Soccer and play that for 1/2 an hour. After that they'll never be able to say that FIFA and the like are better.
Why were the old ones better? Surely games would evolve and become better? Shouldn't game developers have learnt from the past and use their ideas and 'stand on the shoulders of giants'? Apparently not. Back in the SNES's golden days you could almost guarentee that there would be at least 5 games that you MUST own each quarter of the year.
I think the wealth of 'AAA' titles back then was because it was all new - Developers were still searching for what the public wanted as home Gaming had just hit the main stream whereas previously it had been 'geeks only'. Publishers weren't certain either, and so let a lot of game through that probably wouldn't have got a look in if they were thought of today. Bomberman is a prime example. If it wasn't such a classic all those years ago, would a publisher had even touched it if it was thought up today? I doubt it.
Games these days have a lot of thing which they can hide behind. Kids don't want long, interesting games and brilliant storylines, all they need is good graphics and friends who want the game. A little bit of violence is good for the mix too. Examples? Grand Theft Auto. If it was based around, lets say, a debt company instead of the mafia, and instead of kiling people you had to go around giving them strongly worded letters without getting threatened, sales figures would go through the floor.
Back in the day (I've always wanted to say that) games had nothing to hide except for gameplay, because the NES/SNES/Megadrive didn't allow much good music or graphics. I believe that, if it went back to the way thing were, games would start getting back to their former glory. Why? Developers would have to spend less money on getting the graphics just right and have to make gameplay a lot better.
I blame it all on the Playstation...
Why were the old ones better? Surely games would evolve and become better? Shouldn't game developers have learnt from the past and use their ideas and 'stand on the shoulders of giants'? Apparently not. Back in the SNES's golden days you could almost guarentee that there would be at least 5 games that you MUST own each quarter of the year.
I think the wealth of 'AAA' titles back then was because it was all new - Developers were still searching for what the public wanted as home Gaming had just hit the main stream whereas previously it had been 'geeks only'. Publishers weren't certain either, and so let a lot of game through that probably wouldn't have got a look in if they were thought of today. Bomberman is a prime example. If it wasn't such a classic all those years ago, would a publisher had even touched it if it was thought up today? I doubt it.
Games these days have a lot of thing which they can hide behind. Kids don't want long, interesting games and brilliant storylines, all they need is good graphics and friends who want the game. A little bit of violence is good for the mix too. Examples? Grand Theft Auto. If it was based around, lets say, a debt company instead of the mafia, and instead of kiling people you had to go around giving them strongly worded letters without getting threatened, sales figures would go through the floor.
Back in the day (I've always wanted to say that) games had nothing to hide except for gameplay, because the NES/SNES/Megadrive didn't allow much good music or graphics. I believe that, if it went back to the way thing were, games would start getting back to their former glory. Why? Developers would have to spend less money on getting the graphics just right and have to make gameplay a lot better.
I blame it all on the Playstation...
Page: