View Full Version : Are some Retro games better than the so called Next-gen games?
To this day I still maintain that N64 and its games (such as the awesome and unbeatable Goldeneye) are better than Wii and its games. Having never owned a PS1 or Xbox does anyone else agree that a lot of Retro games are better than new games.
depends
I love playing Smash TV & Gauntlet on XBLA and love them.
But both of the above are classic retro games
Ill agree with you there, theres occasionally a good game that comes out these days but its nothing on the way they used to pump out classic after classic.
DisturbedbyDeth356
18-04-08, 20:12
i agree also, i play many classic games on xbla and feel that old games still have that little something over new games, which is actual fun
Completely agree. I think that its because the companies have used up all of their ideas. Now and again, they have a eurika moment (which could happen more often with the wii controls to play around with), but all the game companies (and a lot of the customers) think about is graphics. The thing that is arguably the least important factor in a game.
Look at that leaf! You can see a hole in it!, that man has two more grey hairs than he had before etc. Thick as.
Ryuu's_Ghost
18-04-08, 21:59
Thats true but the people who fuelled the graphics desire is the consumer aka people like us.
But not all of us. They should do some research and actually realise that some people do not want to move into real-life graphics. There is no need for graphics to go this far. Maybe, the disc space could be used for more game content (Im a bit of a tech noob, if this cannot be done). Graphics are useless, and can sometimes ruin a game (thinking of Pacman 3D and a few others).
The Spirit
18-04-08, 23:39
I think the new games have just the right elements or should I say the tried out formulas thatve previosuly been successful in the past. All we see now-a-days is a beautiful detailed graphics & some new contol mechanisims.
As long as it is good entertainment im sure nobody will have complaints about it.
Im quite happy with video game graphics the way they are now and would be quite happy for them to leave them at the level they are at now, especially if it ment they would put some focus into characters, scripts and actual storylines, those are the 3 most important parts of a game too me. Also, if they have difficulty finding good voice actors they should just leave games in Japanese and add subtitles, shitty voice acting can destroy a game, no matter how good it is.
thezombiemessia
19-04-08, 16:21
A good game is a good game, regardless of age.
Sure, a lot of what we get at the moment is pure crap...but most of you are just looking back at what you used to play with childlike nostalgia.
totally disagree sorry... . the wii and ps3 and 360 are thousand times better than the older consoles because the ideas of capcom and other companies keeps interest me game after game even if they release sequel after sequel after sequel! :devil: :) i know shinji mikami and keiji inafune stays but kobayashi and takeuchi on the resident evils is also very good.
The Spirit
19-04-08, 18:04
A good game is a good game, regardless of age.
Sure, a lot of what we get at the moment is pure crap...but most of you are just looking back at what you used to play with childlike nostalgia.
Ive to totally disagree with you too, people still like to play Resident Evil 2 over Resident Evil 4, why? The story wasnt that intresting, controls were somewhat new and many other aspects, read my previous post about the graphics.
What we now get are the flavour of the month video games, that means youll like the game for about 2-3 months and after that forget about it. A perfect example will be God Of War. You play God Of War, have fun playing it and after a few months you wont hear anything about it ,while the games like Street Fighter II, Metal Gear Solid,Resident Evil 2,Prince Of Persia, Super Mario bros still have more replay value even today.
A good game is always well thought and well planned take Metal Gear Solid for an example, you enjoy the whole experience & want to come back for more.
Final Fanatsy X, a well thought game, intresting memorable story lines.
God Of War (heavy on the Graphics,Blood Gore, Action going forward in a fast way, a total eye candy) most will get put off after completing it aboout 4 times.
So in general a good game always requires time & a careful planning. If the games copies sells more and gets a hit, it doesnt really mean its a good game. Spiderman3 on PS2 was a hit, despite it was much better on the PS3. If your in for making cash (thats what mostly are doing now) well get most of the games that were getting now. Those who really want to have a balance in both aspects are the one whose games are fun, have a good replay value & even praised today.
The Possessed
20-04-08, 14:36
I prefer older games to newer games. There was much more originality back in the 16-32 bit era. Nowadays most of the stuff we get has been done and taken a bit further. Originality seems to be getting more and more difficult. Plus the market is mostly dominated with sequels as opposed to new games now.
Ah give back the days when Streets of Rage and Sonic were all fresh and in their prime.
thezombiemessia
20-04-08, 14:50
This is the problem though...whilst it is certainly true that Retro titles have more goods than bads to list...it does not necessarily mean that new games are bad.
As TP says, it is just harder to make something original nowadays.
As with films, books, comics and music...it is hard to do something new without being told that it is just a mixture of other older things.
Yes, it is harder to find a good game now...but it does not mean that older games are inherently better than newer games.