StarDestroyer.Net BBS

People only seem to remember the good parts of old games. I remember my C64 and Amiga, there were quite a few classics there, but just like today there were a hundred cruddy cookie-cutter games to go alongside them. Jump and run platformers UGH! They might have been good once but they were the FPS of their day, frigging zillions of the damn things and 99% were the same old crap. Top down shooters weren't much better, either. But people are all nostalgic for them now for some reason.

Companies weren't expecting to make a lot of money, so the creators were more careful in their programming. That's why games back then didn't require "Upgrades" or "Patches."

Or it could be because games have a codebase an order of magnitude greater in terms of lines of code. There are still far too many bugs, but you have to cut them some slack when they have codebases of well over a million lines of code and ridiculously tight deadlines. Something just has to give.

phongn wrote:Game quality is still good, but the quality of the manuals has gone down. SC2K and Civ2 had wonderful manuals - SC4 and Civ3's were nowhere near as good (hell, SC4 gives you a pamphlet(!))

I think this is the area where games have fallen the most, SC4's manual is a joke. However, as someone else said some things go up some go down. More time is spent on graphics today.

I hope you all dont think Im arguing the "techinical" aspects of the games have not improved, they certainly have. I was more interested in whether or not gameplay has suffered. ( of course you have to adjust your expectations to hardware standards at the time of release ).

I wonder if part of the problem is new ideas are hard to come by. Gamers my age have been playing since the days of C-64 and how many times can you kill the dragon for gold, before you go "yawn".

Crazy_Vasey wrote:Or it could be because games have a codebase an order of magnitude greater in terms of lines of code. There are still far too many bugs, but you have to cut them some slack when they have codebases of well over a million lines of code and ridiculously tight deadlines. Something just has to give.

A single order of magnitude? More like 3-5 order of magnitude greater code base...

I would have to say that newer games IMHO seem to be too easy. Their graphics, sound, and gameplay all are vastly superior; but developers seem to focus on the eyecandy and 'easter eggs' rather than plot and difficulty. Final Fantasy is the epitome of this. Going through the game is not hard at all so the only thing left to do is find all the extras: cards for those damn card games, leveling up your materia to insane levels for no damn reason, killing impossible bosses ect. I rather have a hard game to play than having junk thrown in. Perhaps the mindset of gamers have changed. Some others can be mentioned here like Metalgear Solid 1&2, Parasite Eve etc.

However, this seems to be the norm. Eyecandy = no challenge. Now, look at all those McCheese games from ages past. They were impossible! TMNT 1 was impossible, Blaster Master was impossible, Adventure Island was impossible, Castlevania was impossible, freaking Battle Toads was impossible! I have NEVER beaten any of these games...which continually pisses me off even today. These games, even comparing them to the standards of the day, were not the best when it came to eyecandy.

Oh well, my humble thoughts.

3rd Impact wrote:Still, manuals were generally better, back in the day. Or rather, a few years ago.

Oh hell fucking yes, remember Wing Commander 1's manual? THAT FUCKING
RULED.

or Aces in the Pacific's Manual. Once again, that FUCKING RULED.

WC1's Claw Marks and WC3's Victory Streak were the best manuals of the WC series. The WC2 manual was kind of perfunctory, and the WC4 manual was written with the assumption that you were going to buy the strategy guide.

After-market strategy guides are what killed decent manuals.

Iceberg wrote:WC1's Claw Marks and WC3's Victory Streak were the best manuals of the WC series. The WC2 manual was kind of perfunctory, and the WC4 manual was written with the assumption that you were going to buy the strategy guide.

After-market strategy guides are what killed decent manuals.

Hell, I think companies now days make the guides on purpose just to increase revenue. Cant blame them for wanting to make money, but it sucks for us consumers.

Yer Doomed wrote:I would have to say that newer games IMHO seem to be too easy. Their graphics, sound, and gameplay all are vastly superior; but developers seem to focus on the eyecandy and 'easter eggs' rather than plot and difficulty. Final Fantasy is the epitome of this. Going through the game is not hard at all so the only thing left to do is find all the extras: cards for those damn card games, leveling up your materia to insane levels for no damn reason, killing impossible bosses ect. I rather have a hard game to play than having junk thrown in. Perhaps the mindset of gamers have changed. Some others can be mentioned here like Metalgear Solid 1&2, Parasite Eve etc.

However, this seems to be the norm. Eyecandy = no challenge. Now, look at all those McCheese games from ages past. They were impossible! TMNT 1 was impossible, Blaster Master was impossible, Adventure Island was impossible, Castlevania was impossible, freaking Battle Toads was impossible! I have NEVER beaten any of these games...which continually pisses me off even today. These games, even comparing them to the standards of the day, were not the best when it came to eyecandy.

Oh well, my humble thoughts.

I disagree. About a month ago, I got on a "nostalgia" kick, and installed a bunch of my old games - like Duke Nukem, Major Stryker, Dark Forces, TIE Fighter - games that I remember being super hard, but now they were just plain easy. DN, MS, and DF I had beat in under a day, whereas they took months before. TF took a bit longer b/cs of the sheer number of missions, and the fact that I can't use my 3rd axis to roll anymore , I have to use button 2 and right/left.

MKSheppard wrote:

3rd Impact wrote:Still, manuals were generally better, back in the day. Or rather, a few years ago.

Oh hell fucking yes, remember Wing Commander 1's manual? THAT FUCKING
RULED.

or Aces in the Pacific's Manual. Once again, that FUCKING RULED.

I feel the need to point out this:

http://claw.solsector.net/

Back on topic, Pong is absolute video game perfection in every way possible. And no, I don't think the average video game has gone down in quality - but the AVERAGE quality of a video game has, probably. Also, all the really good games seem to be FPSs, which kind of pisses me off seeing how I don't play FPSs (aside from Renegade, and that was only because it was based off an RTS game).

Vympel wrote:

HemlockGrey wrote:Are you kidding? Tetris has and always will suck.

In that, we are in total agreement.

- Tetris sucks

- Space invaders sucks

Heresy! Burn him!

MKSheppard wrote:or Aces in the Pacific's Manual. Once again, that FUCKING RULED.

I remember the old Jane's flight combat sim manuals - they were even spiral bound so you could easily keep it open on a page.

MKSheppard wrote: Oh hell fucking yes, remember Wing Commander 1's manual? THAT FUCKING
RULED.

or Aces in the Pacific's Manual. Once again, that FUCKING RULED.

Strike Commander also had a really nice manual. Today most manuals aren't
worth the paper they ae printed on.

Thunderfire wrote:Strike Commander also had a really nice manual. Today most manuals aren't worth the paper they ae printed on.

And when you consider how worthless the paper the print it on is...

I rather have a hard game to play than having junk thrown in. Perhaps the mindset of gamers have changed.

Actually, the market has shifted. Back In The Day, it was just Hardcore Gamers that played PC or console games, and that was it. It was a niche market, and so games could be marketed to the insane nutjobs that would dedicate a week of ten-hour days towards beating the game.

Nowadays, we have (said with derision) "Casual Gamers" (sigh) that just want to see flashy lights appear on the screen and want an easy sense of accomplishment. These so-called "Casual Gamers" are a FAR larger market than the hardcore gamers, and as such the entire gaming industry panders to them, giving them what they want and screwing over the hardcore gamers (who, ironically, are the ones most likely to own the hardware that can actually RUN the flashy graphics that are used to wow the casual gamers... hence the popularity of console systems).

Game companies have to go where the money is, or else they won't exist for much longer. It's a shame, but Joe "PS2" Average isn't going to drop fifty bucks for a game that's touted as "All but impossible to beat! For the hardest of hardcore gamers!"

SPOOFE wrote:Game companies have to go where the money is, or else they won't exist for much longer. It's a shame, but Joe "PS2" Average isn't going to drop fifty bucks for a game that's touted as "All but impossible to beat! For the hardest of hardcore gamers!"

Hell, fuck no! I hated those goddamned games! My brother was able to beat
them and all, but I fucking sucked at them, no matter what! I'm not going
to waste my money on a piece of shit game that requires you to memorize
the exact pattern of all 20 bosses...

I still can't get through R-Type (Sega Master System version).

MKSheppard wrote: Hell, fuck no! I hated those goddamned games! My brother was able to beat
them and all, but I fucking sucked at them, no matter what! I'm not going
to waste my money on a piece of shit game that requires you to memorize
the exact pattern of all 20 bosses...

That's why, back then, there were two kinds of people: Gamers, and those who ostracized gamers.