Reading Games

Aug 19, 2004 01:45 # 25611

Articulate_AzN ** wants to know...

Old games... too old?

71% | 3

So. when is a game technically "too old"?

my favorite game of all time is Starcraft. I dont even like the expansion. I find it to be too easy to beat. but a lot of my friends mock me for not being "with the flow" of new games. I just tell them I like Starcraft better because 1) its a great game, 2) it doesnt take up my entire freakin HD, and 3) im really good at it. now, to the third reason, a lot of people tell me, "so play warcraft. its practically the same." but that just contradicts reason 1 and 2. now, others may think its a great game, but I dont like it. and my computer is a piece of crap. so yes, it DOES take up my entire freakin HD.

so, back to my point. is Starcraft officially too old for me to be cool? (not that I really care about being "cool" persay, but I just dont understand why its NOT cool." am I the only one who likes old games better than new ones?

p.s. and not just Starcraft, but mario, pacman, space invaders, sonic chaos, tetris, mortal combat, etc...

"Wishing on a star that's already burned out..."

Aug 19, 2004 04:19 # 25614

Bunk *** replies...

Re: Old games... too old?

?% | 1

So. when is a game technically "too old"?

Well... if this can be applied technically, I would say a game is "old" when there is a new game that is the same or is very similar except better in every possible way. A game is "too old" when all the computers or systems capable of running it cease to exist. ;)

Some of my friends are fairly serious about gaming, ie having the best systems, the newest games, etc. I'm not. I just like to enjoy myself, and not have it become a hassle or a money drain... and yeah, old pc. ;p

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

Aug 19, 2004 12:39 # 25627

r_pendragon *** has a suggestion...

Re: Old games... too old?

95% | 2

I think if you enjoy a game, you should continue to play it, and to hell with everyone else's opinions.

I've always felt that just because a new version has come out, does not mean I need to forsake the old one.

Take Tekken for example. I've had Tekken 1, 2, and 3 for a long time. I never play Tekken 1 anymore, because frankly, it sucks. Once in awhile it's fun to load it up and laugh at the bad graphics, but it's so slow, and missing so many of my favorite characters, that it's not really worth bothering with. But Tekken 2 and 3 are still worthwhile, especially since there are certain characters in them that aren't in Tekken Tag or Tekken 4 (like Jun, Kunimitsu, Devil/Angel, etc.).

I still mostly play Tekken 4, and I will probably continue to play it even though Tekken 5 is coming out very soon. (It's in the arcades this fall here in Japan!)

If anything, you can always argue for nostalgia value...

Aug 29, 2004 14:37 # 25899

Sigma_7 *** replies...

Re: Old games... too old?

?% | 1

my favorite game of all time is Starcraft. I dont even like the expansion. I find it to be too easy to beat.

Actually, I found that the expansion pack is more difficult than the original campaign, especially on a first-time-through. It also may appear easier to beat as Blizzard now has a bit more experience in determining how to make a challenge without resorting to unfair tactics.

Also, Starcraft isn't considered too old, as there is still massive multiplayer going on with the game.

to the third reason, a lot of people tell me, "so play warcraft. its practically the same."

Those people are giving very bad recommendations. Even if Warcraft is similar to Starcraft, there are significant differences between the two. For example, the pathfinding in WC is very sub-par compared to Starcraft.

am I the only one who likes old games better than new ones?

From what I can see what's going on, the old games tend to remain good because there haven't been suitable replacements. There is occassionally a game that fixed a problem with an old game, but either ignores the more important problems or intrucudces new ones. Generally, these games make the older ones harder to play.

In any case, there is a theory that the older games had to place a bit more effort on making a game functional rather than focusing on graphics - mainly because of the lack of memory or processing power in order to make stuff look beautiful. This could be the main reason why these old games last longer then normally expected - a lesson not learned by some big-name publishing companies.

Aug 30, 2004 04:02 # 25910

eljefe *** replies...

Re: Old games... too old?

So. when is a game technically "too old"?

Never (well, depending on the game).

The way you know a game has aged to perfection is when they remake it. Other than that games are not really old, they are just [more] origional.

Fond memories

Sep 09, 2004 14:10 # 26349

Aynjell *** replies...

Re: Old games... too old?

82% | 3

I face the same persecution when it comes to my preference of Quake III over Unreal Tournament 2004. For some reason I like Quake more than I do UT. People tell me that it's my hardware inadequices speaking and not me. But my laptop is like four months old.
Anyway, my other favorite game on my computer is a playstation game. I have all of the cd's for it on my Hard Drive. I am emulating Final Fantasy VII using epsxe. I think it is about eight years old now...
Either way it is really old and I still enjoy the hell out of it. If it weighs your anchor keep on playing it, because games are meant to entertain, if you really want to stay true to that, play the ones that youlike.
Anyway, I am prambling on, I know plenty of people who still play starcraft, and alongside half-life (uh.. half-life, horrible game) it is one gamespy's most played games...
Anyway keep on playing the games you love!

I should be ashamed of myself.

This post was edited by Aynjell on Sep 09, 2004.

Sep 10, 2004 03:26 # 26383

ginsterbusch *** agrees...

Re: Old games... too old?

Anyway keep on playing the games you love!

I do it this way: I'm today able to play the games I couldnt play way back in time, when they came out, because my PC hardware wasnt sufficient, so I play them today and enjoy the well-done programs, see them as the gems that they are.

Still, I prefer 2d-parallaxing side or top-down/bottom-up shooters before any bloody bleached-out 3d ego shooter. My personal fav still is Tyrian I/II, which recently has been released in a new version called Tyrian 2000. I've played through the whole game W/O any damn cheats even in 'insane'/'suicide' difficulty level, and not only once, but dozens of times!

To a friend of mine I said about half a year ago, when we were chatting about this topic, that there's nothing as hard as this game - he didnt believe me, till he dl'd and installed it himself.
Later he was happy that I suggested this game to play ;)

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

Sep 18, 2004 03:10 # 26723

Sigma_7 *** replies...

Re: Old games... too old?

?% | 1

For some reason I like Quake more than I do UT. People tell me that it's my hardware inadequices speaking and not me.

Liking Quake better than UT is a matter of personal tastes. It has nothing to do with antiquated hardware.

Even though Quake and UT appear to be the same on first glance, there are significant differences. Quake seems to favour run-and-gun, while UT seems to slightly favor tactics. The differences are subtle, but noticable to a trained reviewer.

Anyway, I am prambling on, I know plenty of people who still play starcraft, and alongside half-life (uh.. half-life, horrible game) it is one gamespy's most played games...

Well, you'll be pleased to know that Half-Life has fairly major mods. It also appears to be home to mods that make server administration extremely easier to perform, without having to do a single on/off switch (e.g. rcon password) for admin privilages.

It's a matter of taste anyway. Basic Half-Life is fairly simplistic...


Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)