Post by Belix on Dec 31, 2011 16:21:27 GMT -5
I still play a lot of older games ranging from 1993 to 2007. Many new releases seem to lack the charm some of the old classics have.
Functionally speaking, games have changed very little over the years. Today's latest installment in the Call of Battlefield Honor Cry series isn't much different from 1993's DooM aside from mouse aiming and fancy graphics.
It is for this reason when I look for new games to play, I look back in time as much as forward, and ultimately how I find gems like Sacred that I missed back in the day. No doubt some people would call Sacred "ugly" in comparison to today's games, but you know what? It's fun. And there's a lot more to it than your average new release. Some new games I can complete in a mere 6 hours over the past few years; whereas some of my 'classics' can occupy hundreds of hours, from RPGs to turn-based strategy.
I find a lot more bang for my buck looking back, too. You can pick up some wonderfully lengthy and entertaining games for a fraction of the price of new releases marked at $60 USD. Goodness!
There was a quote I saw in a forum, and it may have been this one, but it read:
I don't think games are good because they are old, or bad because they are new; there are good games to be found everywhere. I just find in general that they don't make games like they used to. Now that the gaming industry is larger and more lucrative than Hollywood, most companies cranking out games seem more concerned with money than fun.
So what makes a fun game for me? Depth, replay value, variety - all things that many new games are greatly lacking. Many I play once, put away and never think about again. And that makes me sad!
Functionally speaking, games have changed very little over the years. Today's latest installment in the Call of Battlefield Honor Cry series isn't much different from 1993's DooM aside from mouse aiming and fancy graphics.
It is for this reason when I look for new games to play, I look back in time as much as forward, and ultimately how I find gems like Sacred that I missed back in the day. No doubt some people would call Sacred "ugly" in comparison to today's games, but you know what? It's fun. And there's a lot more to it than your average new release. Some new games I can complete in a mere 6 hours over the past few years; whereas some of my 'classics' can occupy hundreds of hours, from RPGs to turn-based strategy.
I find a lot more bang for my buck looking back, too. You can pick up some wonderfully lengthy and entertaining games for a fraction of the price of new releases marked at $60 USD. Goodness!
There was a quote I saw in a forum, and it may have been this one, but it read:
There are two kinds of fool. One says, "This is old, and therefore good." And one says, "This is new, and therefore better." - John Brunner, The Shockwave Rider
I don't think games are good because they are old, or bad because they are new; there are good games to be found everywhere. I just find in general that they don't make games like they used to. Now that the gaming industry is larger and more lucrative than Hollywood, most companies cranking out games seem more concerned with money than fun.
So what makes a fun game for me? Depth, replay value, variety - all things that many new games are greatly lacking. Many I play once, put away and never think about again. And that makes me sad!
)
Fun story: If you enter your character name as "Zelda" you immediately advance to the alternate harder world you reach after you defeat Ganon (sp) the first time. I was pretty young when I got my paws on this game, and I mistakenly thought Zelda was the name of the hero, and entered such... I had seen someone else play the game before and I couldn't find things where I remembered them. I was awfully confused for awhile!!