SnakeEyes99 said:
What about the generation before that? And then the one before that? I quit with SNES
Wow, how does everyone get it so wrong? Im one of those that quit HEMMA's ago. I might see a game here or there I might like to try, like new Metal Gear games, new Ninja Gaiden games, new Zelda games. But honestly I played kick ass version of those games long ago and as the years wear on the newer versions are terrible watered down versions of the original. And unlike most I could give a rats ass how pretty they look, if there is no gameplay depth I'll be yawning inside of 20 min.
|
So I'm curious, what change is good and what change is bad?
So Twilight Princess is watered down but was the change in Ocarina of Time good or was it just another 3D game? Should Link to the Past tried something radically different like Zelda II did or should it have just been another Legend of Zelda?
Case in point, Resident Evil 5= Trash
Why did everyone call RE 4 one of the best games ever made? Because it was new, truly different, innovative with great game play depth. RE 5 is ANOTHER shooter you can finish in an afternoon, *yawn* Its time we started making these developers feel the pain of half-assing a game like this over and over again. There have been at least 3 other 1st person shooters for Xbox with about 10 hours of play time
Another fun point-- RE5 tried to change things by adding co-op to survival horror. Now they didn't do it well, but still, they are trying something different. Isn't that what you're advocating? Not every expirement can be a success.
And isn't RE5 about the same length as RE4? I assume it is because I haven't heard people bitch about it being too short.
Not to mention 1st person shooters are so tired, how many times can you play the same F-ing game renamed over and over again? They keep spoon feeding the masses the same games with WEAKER play mechanics requiring less skill so almost anyone with half a brain can beat them and feel accomplished, but people claim the Wii caters to non gamers?
Ok, so FPS are so tired, lets group many different games into one genre. If we do that lets go back to the SNES days since that seems to be your golden age. How many platformers do you think there were then? The market was full of generic, bad, cheap, done before platformers back then.
Go play the older versions and you will find better games, older gamers like myself have higher standards, unlike the younger fools with little skill that need easier, prettier games to play so they feel secure about how good they are, where as actually good gamers can finish the game in and afternoon(No joke either) or less than a week. But the fools keep going back to buy another piece of trash. Everyone says Nintendo caters to non gamers, I say this whole generation caters to non gamers and the idiots that THINK they are gamers go buy the new systems and find plenty of cream puff games that have been all spiffed up for them to easily plow thru. The only thing people hate about the Wii is that it cant pull of the spiffy new graphics, who cares about how well the games play right? Jesus
What older games are you talking about? If you go dig through the NES and SNES library you will find some terrible games. Not only that, some of the "greats" just aren't that good anymore because they haven't aged well or just weren't that good in the first place.
Hell, a few months ago I decided to have some nostalgia fun and play Spy Hunter again and that game was horrible yet it's fondly remembered by many as a really good game.
Oh, and just an FYI, most NES/SNES era games can be finished in an afternoon and the longer ones can be finished in a weekend.
I remember playing Final Fantasy II on the SNES and it took months to go thru that game, it was tough as hell. The main guy took me a month alone to finally randomly get a win and beat the game. Fast forward to me finally getting to play Final Fantasy VII, the game looks great, but the difficulty was a joke. I breeze thru the game less than a week, I finally get to the main guy, saving and getting ready for an ultimate throw down, thinking Im gonna die at least 20 times before I get to see all his multiple forms ect. 1st time I fight him, I totally screw up heals and attacks and I easily beat him. The only conclusion you can make, if the games are too hard, few people will be able to beat them, so few will like them if they are too tough, and therefore few will buy them. Make the games easier so they become more accessible to the masses and make more money. That is what has happened in this and even previous generations, FF VII was playstation one right?
FFII on the SNES took you months? Really? I had it beaten within a few weeks and that's even with sharing it with my brother and sister. Also, I hope you realize how unbelievably funny it is that you think the game was difficult.
Emulators for the win!
You call yourself a gamer yet you support the things that are killing gaming? Way to go.
All I really see here is someone who simply thinks they're better themselves because they were around during the "golden age" of gaming. You probably think that Halo is terrible, Gears is trash that has been done 100 times, and CoD4 is just another shooter.
If you bother taking your nose out of the air you would notice things like how the original Halo revolutionized the way multiplayer console games are played and made a new trend in FPS health popular, Gears revolutionized cover in games, and Call of Duty 4 may have been just another shooter but it did everything amazingly well and made it all feel new.
You may have fun playing your golden age games over and over thinking you're better than anyone that has a newer system but instead of being incredibly stuck up actually try those things you think aren't games out or stop criticizing people for their opinions on things you're too close minded to even try.
Oh. and welcome to the forums. 
