| LegitHyperbole said: Couldn't agree more. I've been gaming since '97 and have played games since '94 and I could never have imagined how good it would get. Sure, there's a lot of rubbish now and it felt more pristine bavk that's only cause there was rubbish back then too, the ratio of rubbish to gold has remained the same but both have grown exponentially. Not mention, I'd be priced into one or two titles a month in the 90's (Now I have the option of dozens depending on how AAA I wanna go) as games remain on shelves indefinitely and often gets sales so deep that never would have happened back then. There is also a lot of rose tinted glasses going on, not being able to save games, then loosing memory cards, renting games cause they cost about 150 euro of today's money and if you're on PC...well, I think I might have spent more time trouble shooting than playing. |
As a big retrogamer I have to agree with this. I love my retro games, but I buy them to collect just as much to play them. I'm not spending $100 on an old SNES game so that I can play it. Everdrives exist. I'm spending that to own a real copy. Anyway, back in the 90's only a handful of games were worth the full $70 asking price on SNES and Genesis. Then when PS1 came along things got a little better but RPGs were the only things with cash to time ratios like modern games. You can drop $70 on something like Persona 5 and play for a hundred hours. Meanwhile a ton of fun but short games from the 90's like Rocket Knight Adventures were $70 for a couple hours of fun. And don't get me wrong. I love short games like Starfox 64. I love shmups. I love fighting games. But as a kid those games were really bad in the dollars to funtime ratio.
