Better graphics and more pixels and 30 buttons does not mean a better game. Far from it. I think gameplay has gone down in many games becasue the focus was on graphics or something other then. Your thought.

I understand your point, but I believe in the advance of games.
The old games were good....for their time.
In today's world, a good game has many options, extreme graphics, and more freedom than what we were offered with the old games.

Imjaison you make a very good point,also PhyberOptycs you make a good point. I would have to say that the word good is defined as the word means good! good graphics, good gameplay, good sound etc. Some older games did have a certain way of telling a story...usually in text but it was noticable that gameplay was focused and seemed to have more features. At times givin that you had a decent machine with a few hundred mhz and some good color capabilites and sound capabilities.You could have played some of the greats. Some games of today have not touched on the features such a racing game i remember playing on windows 98 but it was devloped for dos. It had you start out and browse the newpaper for a used car and it randomized the cars and you could get them damaged, dirty ,needing major, minor repairs, or just used. Also the prices for things were real, like a good race tranny could be had about 1200 or used tranny could be had for 300. You could adjust or advance timing while looking at the engine with pulleys spinning and what not. The name of the game has slipped my mind, but like I was saying the game had great features but the physics for the game were not there and thats important in racing games of today. That requires a lot more coding and education like obviously physics. Beacuse if you cannot do the math then it is really tough to recreate things as they are in the real world. As with the devolpment of expanded source codes and game engines it all gets down to what the delopment teams want to do with a game. There were old games that blew and there are new games that blow.

As a gamer that has game now for three generations, 80s, 90s and 21st century. I always play the classics when I get a free chance because they never really get old and the fact that they are far more challenging then the next generation of games. Due to the fact that you can save and restart if you mess up, but unlike the other games you had to do it in one shot unless you got some games that have the save feature built in. I still play Nintendo, Super Nintendo and Arcade games on my computer and boy to my wrists and fingers hurt after a few hours .

I agree. I'd sooner have a better game plot with mediocre graphics than a game with not much thought put into the plot but fantastic graphics. I'd rather just get the art book or download the wallpaper.

This post has been edited by bishoujo: Sep 7 2008, 05:57 AM

Take into account the story line. Games may have flashy graphics and all, but if it doesnt serve a point and/or a clone of another successful game then you got a point.

But the games were good for its time, heck some of the classics I still like to play now every now and again. Scorched Earth for the PC is one example, Beamrider for Commodore 64 and even Pitfall (the original Atari/Commodore versions). Although some of the classics are later re-released for the more powerful platforms. I liked Pitfall for the PC when that released in the mid 90s.