Author Topic: 16bit vs 1024bit  (Read 5540 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Spunky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Karma: 71
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Gaming Discussion
16bit vs 1024bit
« on: June 12, 2006, 11:13:38 am »
This weekdn i had a games at my house. Began as usual with Guilty Gear fights and some random capcom beat-um-up games (I only like GG).

But then do you know what we did for the rest of the day?

Played emulated megadrive games on the Xbox from Alienstorm to Monopoly.

What does this tell you about games now-a-days?
Current Games: Gears of War 2, Left 4 Dead, Rockband 2, Red Alert 3 (PC)[/center]

Offline Armakuni

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Karma: 0
  • Gender: Male
  • ARMAKUNI [SAYS]
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2006, 12:00:17 pm »
over 85% of the new games are too short or too bad

Offline Einkoro

  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 2771
  • Karma: 59
  • Gender: Male
  • ~tima
    • http://www.janpingel.com/
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2006, 12:20:51 pm »
over 85% of the new games are too short or too bad

+1

Some games can be short without being bad, for example Max Payne. Max Payne was the first game I ever played that was under 20 hours play time. Since then it seems almost every damn game has dropped down to 10 or under yet the price remains $50-60. Not to mention most games seemed to be dumbed down. Unforunately it seems to be all for reaching a bigger market. Appeal to the casual gamers so they can pick it up within a few minutes and play through it without investing lots of time.  :'(
"Don't believe anyone when they tell you irony is just a literary convention. It's a universal constant, like the coefficient of gravity." - Alfred Bester

Offline Valentine Revolution

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1020
  • Karma: 37
  • Gender: Female
    • Twitter
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2006, 12:26:42 pm »
I think its a silly arguement that old games are better, or that the huge wave of movie/tv tie-ins and sequals are a new thing. There were just as many shit games then as there is now; maybe we're just more forgiving of the flaws of older games, letting our nostlagia gloss over the bad points. Games getting shorter? Since I only really play RPGs all games are long to me so I can't comment on that, but a lot of good retro games are arcade ports, designed for quick play. We just played them more :)

Offline Einkoro

  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 2771
  • Karma: 59
  • Gender: Male
  • ~tima
    • http://www.janpingel.com/
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2006, 12:56:01 pm »
I think its a silly arguement that old games are better, or that the huge wave of movie/tv tie-ins and sequals are a new thing. There were just as many shit games then as there is now; maybe we're just more forgiving of the flaws of older games, letting our nostlagia gloss over the bad points. Games getting shorter? Since I only really play RPGs all games are long to me so I can't comment on that, but a lot of good retro games are arcade ports, designed for quick play. We just played them more :)

Going back and replaying many of the older PC games circa 1995-2000 in the past few months I've concluded that it isn't nostlagia that makes them seem better, at least for me. They are still considerably more fun than anything new. Also, they all worked out of the box for the most part. I never remember having to patch games for singleplayer on PC until after 2000. These days it seems I have to download patch after patch to get anything semiworking.

Particular strong examples being C&C Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert. No new games seem to have as interesting stories or engaging gameplay as the above in my opinion. And in the case of C&C, no games come anywhere near consuming so much time of my life. C&C TD/RA alone seem to make up the majority of my childhood and early teen memories.

However, I agree there was always lots of shitty games. I just never played them and stuck to the quality titles that interested me. But these days the so called quality titles don't seem to be particularly high quality. Just look at all the crap that seems to get 8 and 9s in the reviews these days. Infact it seems almost all new games score that high despite their quality.
"Don't believe anyone when they tell you irony is just a literary convention. It's a universal constant, like the coefficient of gravity." - Alfred Bester

Offline Valentine Revolution

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1020
  • Karma: 37
  • Gender: Female
    • Twitter
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2006, 01:04:03 pm »
I agree about magazine scores, I mean how many crap FPSs have we seen with quotes on them saying '<insert format here>'s answer to Halo, 10/10 - Some shit offical mag'. Patching as well raises its own issues. How can companies defend the high game prices by stating ever-growing dev costs when they can't even get a finished product to shelf. Content patches I don't mind so much as you can still run the game without them, and yeah some bugs don't get caught in testing and therefore need a patch, but it is happening more and more that games are being shipped with glaring errors. And now its happening on consoles too as they go online. I've always preferred consoles to PCs because when you buy a PS2 game you know it will work in a PS2. Will we be able to say the same for PS3/4/5? Who knows?

Sorry, didn't mean to derail thread. Continue the retro lovin'. (side note: Bubble Bobble is still one of the best games ever ;) )

Smeagol

  • Guest
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2006, 03:22:50 pm »
I also do the same thing as BloodAngel. I decided to redownload WinUAE, and I don't think I've actually played a game made after 1993 for the last 3 weeks or so. The Amiga had so many amazing games, which were all incredibly fun and difficult (Chaos Engine, Cannon Fodder etc). Games nowadays seem to concentrate too much on looking pretty.

Offline Spunky

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Karma: 71
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Gaming Discussion
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #7 on: June 12, 2006, 03:46:30 pm »
Games focus so much around graphics that they lose the budget on such important things as, STORY LINE, LASTABILITY.

If they re-did alien storm now it would be an FPS using the Doom 3 engine and just look like a mod of another game.

I love Half life and Warcraft etc, but only because they are apart of an elite group of games that hold such thigns as storyline and lastability.
Current Games: Gears of War 2, Left 4 Dead, Rockband 2, Red Alert 3 (PC)[/center]

Offline Drakonis

  • Fighter from Ninne
  • Community Supporter
  • Sr. Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1849
  • Karma: 56
  • Gender: Male
  • "I am mine own Redeemer."
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #8 on: June 12, 2006, 03:49:54 pm »
I have to agree. The graphics are too much of a focus for numerous reasons. With a group of X amount of people, producing an hour of gameplay in a nintendo game didn't take nearly the resources or manpower that it does now. That same group of people working on a next-gen title are probably spending three times that amount of time on a particle effect. :P

I miss the days of Nintendo, and particularly Super Nintendo, which in my opinion was one of the golden eras for gaming. =)

Offline kellerkind

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 53
  • Karma: 2
  • Gender: Male
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2006, 10:51:51 pm »
Particular strong examples being C&C Tiberian Dawn and Red Alert. No new games seem to have as interesting stories or engaging gameplay as the above in my opinion. And in the case of C&C, no games come anywhere near consuming so much time of my life. C&C TD/RA alone seem to make up the majority of my childhood and early teen memories.
Same here :)

About games focusing too much on graphics & presentation: There are unfortunately a lot of 'good' examples for that. What always comes first to my mind is 'C&C' Generals. That game was purely made for people that don't care about things like atmosphere, story and the like. They took a sci-fi-nearfuture-semirealistic scenario, copied some things from AOE/StarWarCraft like interface and resource-management, and slapped the C&C name onto it for marketing reasons. Needless to say that the game ended up being released with lots of serious bugs, and several features cut (should originally have 30 singleplayer missions, and the name-giving generals that were later introduced with the ZH-expansion). This one is more or less representative for many games especially from EA over the last years. Why put more features in and fix most bugs before release, when the masses will buy it anyway?

The last game I bought that I really liked, was Gothic 2 + the expansion, and I had the luck that I didn't find out about it until the Gold version with all patches applied was released (the original release was from what I've read rather buggy).

Offline L'homme magique

  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 5307
  • Karma: 66
  • Gender: Female
  • Stay Calm
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2006, 11:45:10 pm »
what you've read is correct and incorrect

it had a few game-breaking bugs, but if you got one of them you were doing something stupid anyway.
"It's like growing up reading good books or listening to good music. One good sofa breeds another good sofa; one bad sofa breeds another bad sofa. That's how it goes."

Offline Kasumi-Astra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 575
  • Karma: 22
  • Gender: Female
    • Square Moon
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #11 on: June 20, 2006, 12:11:08 am »
There are number of truely great, inovative and classic modern games:

Ico
Half Life
Gran Turismo (the original game was THE turning point for racers. Gran Turismo was the first time racing and driving felt believeable)
Metroid Prime
The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney
Wario Ware (or Bishi Bashi Special if you prefer an earlier example of the same gameplay)
Dance Dance Revolution
Tomb Raider (the first one)

There are just as many gems around, if you're willing to look...

Offline Einkoro

  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 2771
  • Karma: 59
  • Gender: Male
  • ~tima
    • http://www.janpingel.com/
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #12 on: June 20, 2006, 02:35:43 am »
System Shock, System Shock 2 and Deus Ex all come to mind long before Half Life.
"Don't believe anyone when they tell you irony is just a literary convention. It's a universal constant, like the coefficient of gravity." - Alfred Bester

Offline L'homme magique

  • Machinae Prime
  • *****
  • Posts: 5307
  • Karma: 66
  • Gender: Female
  • Stay Calm
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #13 on: June 20, 2006, 02:37:41 am »
System Shock, System Shock 2 and Deus Ex all come to mind long before Half Life.
Give the man a cigar.
"It's like growing up reading good books or listening to good music. One good sofa breeds another good sofa; one bad sofa breeds another bad sofa. That's how it goes."

Offline Kasumi-Astra

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 575
  • Karma: 22
  • Gender: Female
    • Square Moon
Re: 16bit vs 1024bit
« Reply #14 on: June 20, 2006, 02:45:23 pm »
Now, now. Half Life is a seminal FPS and should be considered on it's own merits, as should System Shock 2.

Deus Ex and System Shock are excelent games, but they shouldn't be compared to Half Life because they aren't quite the same breed of game.

(Do I detect an old scar from the school playground?)