Quote:
Originally Posted by toretorden
Being oldschool in everything doesn't always make complete sense, though. It means you put more stock in sentinemtal value than anything. You can admit that a game like super metroid is much better than the original for the nes, but still the old one makes the list while the snes version does not (well, thinking hypothetically - I know it's not on anyone's list). Then what you're rating is your own feelings regarding the game rather than the game itself. Either that, or it's a simple matter of having a wish to be as old school as you can.
|
That's not true at all, if I think a game is truly better, I'll say it, even if the game it's better than is something I'm sentimentally attached to. I already said Super Metroid is better than Metroid.
But to say the only reason people prefer the older games is because of nostalgia is an unfair generalization, some people prefer the original Metroid just because it's a lot more challenging.
Quote:
Maybe that's not critique worthy, it's a list of your 10 favourites and that implies some sentimental attachments. My own list has quite a bit of nostalgia in it. I'd say though, if your whole list is games that came out before 1996, you've been missing out as a gamer. 
|
Well, only two games from this decade were on my list and they were both Wii games so you got me there I guess.
Quote:
|
Games are getting better, I think. There are many brilliant titles and franchises in the market these days, but someone who puts more stock in sentimentality than quality will be too hard to please.
|
C'mon, that is very unfair, I admit I'm rather biased towards older games, but to say I don't rate games on their quality just isn't true, I've played my share of horrible old games and no I don't spare them any criticism just because they're old.
That was a sincere list of my favorite games, those were the games that most wowed me when I first played them and the games I still come back to the most often.
There were other games I could have added to the list that would have made it seem a little less Nintendo biased, like San Andreas and Homeworld. But just consider those my number 11 and 12 spots, respectively.
I won't deny that I'm biased towards older games but that's not merely out of sentiment. I personally think a lot of older games are just better, I don't know why that's any more far fetched than say a movie buff who still thinks older movies were better, or someone who still thinks the best era in music was the 60s and 70s.
Sure the industry's evolution into 3D brought about new genres like first person shooters (which I'm not a terribly big fan of) but I think 2D just works better for all the older genres. I personally don't think there's been that many big innovations in gameplay styles since the 64 bit era. The most popular PC games are still RTS games which are usually from an isometric persective, they're the kinda games even a 32 bit system could replicate, sure the graphics wouldn't be anywhere near as good, but all the gameplay related content could be crammed in there somehow.
There was a time when better graphics meant a greater opportunity for more innovative gameplay, new perspectives, better physics and so on. But now I think better graphics only mean one thing, and that's better graphics, that just isn't enough to impress me anymore.
As for sentimental attachment, personally I was much more sentimentally attached to OOT than LTTP, but I now acknowledge LTTP to be a better game not because it's older, but just because I consider it a flawless game, while OOT has at least one annoying flaw and that's wrestling the camera which can be a real hassle during boss battles, but that's a criticism I have with 3D games in general (the exceptions being rail sooters and games with an isometric view), because of that one inherent issue with every truly 3D game I've ever played, I don't think a 3D game can ever be completely flawless, like some 2D games can.
That's just my two cents. Have fun bickering at me.
