The increasing popularity of games may hurt games as an art.

[ChichiriMuyo]

trashleg said:

ChichiriMuyo said:

trashleg said:

please dont shout at me i was born in 89, didnt have a NES tho..

maybe when i was younger i just got lucky in that my parents bought me games i just happened to really enjoy? i've been gaming since i was old enough to understand moving images on a TV screen, thank you very much.

but you can't possibly be arguing that the Wii and DS don't have the most awful non-games out on them? the entire "Imagine" range, for a start.

bolded: don't speak to me like i'm a fucking retard. kthx.

Don't act like a retard?  Really, I can name games on the older systems that would make the imagine series look like a godsend to you.  Ever play Davia or Jack the Giant Slayer?  I wrote FAQs on them for GameFAQs because most people can't stand to play such horrible crap but I did.  Try playing Milo's Secret Castle some day, a game I actually enjoyed from those days. Or maybe Fester's Quest, which I also liked.  Tell me either of those two aren't terrible.  Most of the games I liked then were terrible, because most of them were terrible.  Most games of all time have been terrible.  That's the nature of the gaming industry.  It's also the nature of the movie industry, the novel industry, the animation industry, the television industry, the comic industry, the music industry, and the paitning industry.

no need to get personal. whats your problem?

and just because you may know games that are worse than the ones i mentioned, doesn't mean that my opinion needs to be corrected or is invalid. like bdbdbd said, and i acknowledged, this isnt about bad games. its about the loss of imaginative creative games and their replacement by churned-out lazy games.

 

chill?

It's not personal with you at all.  My personal relationship wit hgaming back in the day, however, is, and the fact that you weren't really part of it yet you act like it was some golden age is asinine.  Your opinion IS inalidated and DOES need to be corrected.  There simply weren't many, if any, games that can be considered art from the past.  Not from the NES, not from the SNES/Genesis, and not from the N64/PS1/Saturn.  It's not until the Ps2 that games even pretended to be art and even still most weren't.  Games are GAMES, not art, and while man may be as much of an art as Chess is, that number is still very, very few.

How can you dare say this isn't about one thing but it's about that thing?  It's about lazy, churned out games?  Name me a mainstream system and give me half an hour (not now, I want to sleep soon) and I can name over 100 such games with ease. Every, EVERY system has way, way, way, way, WAY more crap than it has cream and you're simply dilusional if you disagree.  You're a a self-invested fool that wants to make youself feel better if you don't realize that "crap" is the rule, not the exception, in the history of video games.

 

Again, for every great game you can name from the past I can name one from the present, and for my personal taste I myself would pick older gaming over newer gaming most days.  A newer gamer wouldn't give your BS the time of day.  There really, really isn't one realistic justification for the basic argument to begin with.  Take this from someone whose gaming dipped dramatically when eveything went 3D and has only gone lower since.  There's no art to the old days that isn't simply bested in the modern day and there are simplay far too many games today that are considered "midling" that absolute destroy the average game of yesteryear.  It's not a matter of taste, it's a matter of realism.  Even games I cant stand today (like most of them) as simple more deserving of credit than the vast majority of older games.  You only, maybe, win if you compare this (the 7th) generation of games to all of the others that exist before.  If you compare one gen to any one other, this is by far the the best outside of the 6th and this one isn't done yet.