Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 121 to 128 of 128
  1. #121
    Network Hub Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    156
    Well, removing the modern games from that list, we're left with Deus Ex, Quake 3 and Thief. I would say of that list, Thief and Q3 still hold up. Deus Ex.. just.. I can't do it.

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    781
    Checked out a Let's Play of Thief 1 and a bit of 2. Wow, the levels do seem a little too big. Q3 annoyed the hell out of me having to bunny hop (something completely illogical within the game world) and memorize item placement/trek routes. Nothing like getting blown to hell by a guy pimped up with megahealth and red armor along with railgun and rocket launcher while you have...armor shards and a shotgun. It was also a pain having to manage like 4 different projectile weapons at once. The more modern games have more or less done away with items and made things a bit easier to handle by putting you into specific classes. This way you can stick with one or two weapons and learn them first. I like that a lot better than q3's approach where they throw the kitchen sink at you.

  3. #123
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sinister agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,071
    Ah, but Unreal Tournament holds up quite well - it even plays without faffing around on Windows 7, which was a pleasant surprise, considering the Max Payne refused to even start.

  4. #124
    Lesser Hivemind Node fiddlesticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Zürich
    Posts
    751
    My apologies. I didn't intend to stir up another debate on genres and their definitions, I just worded my question poorly. What I'm trying to get at is that many problems commonly attributed to older games seem to stem from their presentation, rather than the substance. To make a more concrete example, releasing a new game that is exactly like Doom would only give you a niche market at best, but if you took the gameplay of Doom and gave it the appereance of a modern shooter, I think you could still attract a large audience.

    I guess what I'm saying is that the first impression matters just as much, if not more, than what is actually behind it. Sure, Game X might have an amazing storyline and varied gameplay, but if the player never gets past the interface, he'll never notice.

  5. #125
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,994
    Quote Originally Posted by fiddlesticks View Post
    I guess what I'm saying is that the first impression matters just as much, if not more, than what is actually behind it. Sure, Game X might have an amazing storyline and varied gameplay, but if the player never gets past the interface, he'll never notice.
    Yes. But you've also got to consider that while interfaces have improved, they have often improved because gameplay complexity has been reduced. Compare the UI of a roguelike with the UI of a shallow modern shooter. There's a limit to how friendly you can make an interface with complex game interaction. So what I'm saying is that you can talk about improving the UI of an older game, but the best you may manage is the interface of Wizardry 8. A whole lot better than past games for expert players, but probably still too overwhelming for the masses.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by hamster View Post
    Q3 annoyed the hell out of me having to bunny hop (something completely illogical within the game world) and memorize item placement/trek routes. Nothing like getting blown to hell by a guy pimped up with megahealth and red armor along with railgun and rocket launcher while you have...armor shards and a shotgun. It was also a pain having to manage like 4 different projectile weapons at once. The more modern games have more or less done away with items and made things a bit easier to handle by putting you into specific classes. This way you can stick with one or two weapons and learn them first. I like that a lot better than q3's approach where they throw the kitchen sink at you.
    I've got to say that I disagree with absolutely everything you've written here. Every single one of Q3's weapons was well balanced and each one had their place within the level. Also, it brings in a nice strategic map control element. If you can deny the other players the rocket launcher on an open map then that's a lot of the battle won. (Except that if you only have a shotgun you need to be frequenting the tight corners of a map where one or two shotgun blasts can kill the dude with the rocket launcher and he can't use it for fear of blowing himself up as well.)Sure it may require you to actually know the layout of a map to get an edge on the opposition, but really, is that really a negative? Can you also explain how it is a pain dealing with more than two weapons if you have a mouse wheel? After a minutes play it becomes instinct. Choice is good. Also all those powerups are a good democratic reward for being a good player. If you survive for long enough, know the map and don't get hit don't you deserve to get a bit of a reward?
    Last edited by Wooly Wugga Wugga; 12-10-2011 at 10:38 PM.
    "You go up to a man, and you say, "How are things going, Joe?" and he says, "Oh fine, fine — couldn't be better." And you look into his eyes, and you see things really couldn't be much worse. When you get right down to it, everybody's having a perfectly lousy time of it, and I mean everybody. And the hell of it is, nothing seems to help much." - Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

  7. #127
    Obscure Node
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by archonsod View Post
    I am responding to the question, I answered his question in my initial post in what to me appears to be a rather simple if broad statement that the average Golden Retriever could probably understand. At least assuming it was reading the thread rather than simply picking out parts of individual posts.

    Although for one last try:

    It has nothing to do with the story. In fact, I was saying the only reason a modern player would want to go back to playing Wizardry VII would be the story. If you're already familiar with the story or simply don't care about it there's no point in playing it, because there are more recent games which do the same thing. Specifically, Wizardry VIII which, and I don't think this is a huge stretch, gives you the same gameplay with a slightly different story, and lots of modern (well, 2001) niceties to mitigate the "old game hurdle" you would otherwise have to overcome.
    In other words, Wizardry VII is a bad example precisely because if that hurdle was an issue you could simply play Wizardry VIII, which has a far smaller (or indeed non-existent) hurdle to a player used to modern sensibilities than it's 1992 prequel. It's not like we're even talking about a different plot or atmosphere really, given both were part of the Dark Savant trilogy.
    Second point being that party based RPGs were still being made after 1992, and are still being made today (Avadon is one example), hence depending on what features it is of Wizardry VII you like, you can probably find them in a more recent game which would, presumably, have less of a hurdle and be far more familiar to your 2011 gamer.
    My argument, in other words, is that I believe the reason people don't go back and play older games is (imho) likely because they can get the same experience (or at least that part of the experience they actually liked) in more recent games which, simply by dint of progress and polish, tend to offer a better experience overall.
    Like I said, I only mentioned Wizardry VII because that was the specific example given. It could equally have been Mandate of Heaven, or Doom, or Elite, or any number of examples whereby you're picking an earlier title in a series which has a more modern successor. If you remove the nostalgia is there any real reason you would want to play Doom rather than Doom 2 (or Serious Sam, or any of the multitude of Doom like shooters which have come out since it's release).
    Thanks to archonsod I now know that the only reason I prefer games I played for the first time in the last year (Mandate of Heaven, Wizardry 6-8) to more modern games is blind nostalgia

    praise be

    my eyes are opened

  8. #128
    Secondary Hivemind Nexus sabrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    GMT-7
    Posts
    3,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Well, removing the modern games from that list, we're left with Deus Ex, Quake 3 and Thief. I would say of that list, Thief and Q3 still hold up. Deus Ex.. just.. I can't do it.
    Finally! I'm not the only one who can't get into Deus Ex! I've tried 3 times now, and I've yet to even walk in to the Statue of Liberty.

    Thief, on the other hand, is a deeply atmospheric, intricate, fascinating game. With a shitty control scheme, you'll have to work on that.

    I think the problem I have with this thread is that what constitutes "modern scrutiny" and "good games" is so subjective that it is entirely pointless to argue about it. The real question is: What older games actually bloody run on my modern computer? And without much fiddling, too. After spending 4 hours trying to get Grim Fandango to work, only to repeat the process when I was forced to format my computer, my tolerance for such things has diminished greatly.
    Last edited by sabrage; 13-10-2011 at 12:44 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •