Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

why older games seem better...

1246717

Comments

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906

     

    Originally posted by FinalFikus
     

    Isnt the perceived value a pretty good way to quantify a loss in quality or service?

    Depends on whose doing the perceiving I suppose.  If MMORPG is the judge then the genre died c. 2004.  If the entire MMO-playing public were polled, I daresay the result would be quite the opposite.  Plus, the flaw in that sort of thinking has already been exposed by way of the overwhelming human tendency for believing that the best has already come and gone, despite having no evidence for it and often in the face of evidence to the contrary.

    I think if they polled the entire playing public, you would find the majority of current players pay absolutely nothing, nor do they ever plan to. That is the trend.

     Whether or not they think the genre is dead or not wasnt what I said. When over half and still trending pay zero dollars, isnt that perceived value correlated with quality and service?

    Or how can the value of something fall (is this even questionable with f2p becoming more prevalent) and the quality and or service remain the same or be better? You don't see a growing trend in gamers thinking mmorpgs are cheap disposable entertainment?

     

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906
    Originally posted by drivendawn
    Yep, rose tented are the glasses. I'm in my thirties and believe you me I loved Everquest, and FFXI but man am I glad the grind is gone. Also camping mobs for hours that had a 5% drop rate. They really weren't more challenging just tedious.

    Well you pick out a couple negatives from old games and assume that's what people want now?

    I could use the marketers own words to describe the shift. "much too much reading. What players want is kill, get treasure, repeat." You guys really want to go there?

    The virtual world with the game built around it. There was never a reason to abandon that, unless they wanted to give all their customers to other platforms.

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • AntiquatedAntiquated Member RarePosts: 1,415
    Originally posted by Arglebargle
    Originally posted by worldalpha
    People are generally nostalgic.   That feeling about games is no different.  Everything was bigger, badder, more superior when I was a kid, is a common feeling that isn't always based on reality.

    70's Rock, man!   All that other stuff since then is just trash!   Back then, we had it just right!

    And for anyone who might doubt it: C&T with classic 70s! MMmmm and this classic! And the biggest hit of all.

    It really is a  pretty good analogy for the problem with 'old games were the bestest'. Selective  memory hard at work.

    (I remember a handful of 70s bands quite fondly, too; without forgetting the 70s included Disco and all kinds of other musically revolting dreck.)

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906

    Jump to light speed does look ancient and it's gameplay was nothing to brag about when compared to its newer version. Being able to fly from planet to planet as well might have been neat back then, but compared to options today, it sounds so cheap. Who the hell would want to fly in space in multi-person ships?

    You guys are right as usual.  I could go on and on, but I dont want to be embarrassed by all the new ways in which newer games own the old ones. So ill stop.

     

     

     

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • aspekxaspekx Member UncommonPosts: 2,167
    Originally posted by Magiknight
    Even if I do have more trouble adapting to change as I get older that doesn't change the fact that the games have changed. Now they are shallower, emptier, shorter, easier, quicker....

    well, as i said at the first, i certainly do not think that neurology is the sole issue here. the games have changed. i just realized that there might another non-game issue going on as well.

    "There are at least two kinds of games.
    One could be called finite, the other infinite.
    A finite game is played for the purpose of winning,
    an infinite game for the purpose of continuing play."
    Finite and Infinite Games, James Carse

  • daltaniousdaltanious Member UncommonPosts: 2,381
    Originally posted by Magiknight
    Even if I do have more trouble adapting to change as I get older that doesn't change the fact that the games have changed. Now they are shallower, emptier, shorter, easier, quicker....

    Actually games are BETTER then ever. Yes, yes, ... did not like all changes to all games I like to play ... BUT for sure there were MORE good changes then bad one.

    And yes, I have kind'a nostalgic memories to my first car .... but, no, thank, would never change my current car for old one even if somebody would still be making same cars.

    Have good memories to time have spent playing Pacman ... but no, thanks. Will not play again and Pacman IS NOT better then nowadays games.

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906

    If new games are better, could you guys please give us examples. If it was simple nostalgia and selective memories, surely you could tell us what is better about new games, since we are incapable of recognizing change for the better.

    They offer more convenience and less artificial timesinks. But that doesn't make a game good or bad by itself. If we're so blind it must be  easy to point to example after example of newer games being as good if not better than games that came a decade before them. Side by side comparisons should show it.

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,218

    This nostalgia argument is getting old, so old it brings a tear to my eye reminiscing about the first time I heard it.

    If this argument was true people would not change. Everyone would be supporting the same political party, playing the same sports, like all the same genres in entertainment, same authors and same food. Is this the case for any poster here?

    Blaming inability to change is just an excuse to dismiss the issues that are being raised. You will find this argument is used at work, in politics, in the entertainment industry, used everywhere in fact. If you have any objections to the current programme you are being old fashioned etc.

    More sophisticated, in depth entertainment has been replaced by a dumbed down crowd pleaser since time immemorial. So why does anyone think this could not happen to MMOs or gaming?

    The first huge crowd drawer in ancient Rome was the theatre. Brought in from the Greeks it was a huge hit, people would flock to the amphitheatres to see the plays. Historical plays led to spectacle which eventually became gladiatorial contests. The amphitheatres on which had been played some of the greatest works every written became the circuses of Rome. Theatre faded away becoming a literary medium, from then on only bread and circuses would do!

    Dumbing down for the masses is not new, but if the concept is new to you get used to it, it is rather in vogue.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    If new games are better, could you guys please give us examples. If it was simple nostalgia and selective memories, surely you could tell us what is better about new games, since we are incapable of recognizing change for the better.

    They offer more convenience and less artificial timesinks. But that doesn't make a game good or bad by itself. If we're so blind it must be  easy to point to example after example of newer games being as good if not better than games that came a decade before them. Side by side comparisons should show it.

    What you're asking for would be like asking fans of 70's rock and fans 90's rock for definitive reasons why their chosen sound is better. It's just not measurable in a fact based way. It's too subjective a question, as it all boils down to what an individual prefers. There's no fact about it.

    The only definitive thing to define is a comprehensive list of what each design is focused on, perceived strengths and weaknesses. IE SWG focused on interdependent community play. SWTOR focused on story driven bioware style roleplaying. What's better would depend on who likes what or prefers what, the "better" part remains a subjective opinion.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • xxtriadxxxxtriadxx Member UncommonPosts: 155
    Originally posted by Magiknight
    Even if I do have more trouble adapting to change as I get older that doesn't change the fact that the games have changed. Now they are shallower, emptier, shorter, easier, quicker....
  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    If new games are better, could you guys please give us examples. If it was simple nostalgia and selective memories, surely you could tell us what is better about new games, since we are incapable of recognizing change for the better.

    They offer more convenience and less artificial timesinks. But that doesn't make a game good or bad by itself. If we're so blind it must be  easy to point to example after example of newer games being as good if not better than games that came a decade before them. Side by side comparisons should show it.

    What you're asking for would be like asking fans of 70's rock and fans 90's rock for definitive reasons why their chosen sound is better. It's just not measurable in a fact based way. It's too subjective a question, as it all boils down to what an individual prefers. There's no fact about it.

    The only definitive thing to define is a comprehensive list of what each design is focused on, perceived strengths and weaknesses. IE SWG focused on interdependent community play. SWTOR focused on story driven bioware style roleplaying. What's better would depend on who likes what or prefers what, the "better" part remains a subjective opinion.

    Really? So you don't have any examples in other words. 70s rock isn't an argument. Please stop it.

    I listed the example of the space game in the old starwars and the space game in the new one.

    I listed the crafting system of the old starwars to the new one.

    In warcraft when you hit the button, the skill fires instantly. That is better than any of the old games and is so vital with having your avatar be an extension of yourself. No wonder WOW took off.  It was clearly better at combat reaction time. But Im looking for others opinions not my own of what new games do better. I don't know if wow is a new game.

    2 quick examples of how my opinion was formed. And one example of what im looking for.

    Readers should be able to decide for themselves what is better for them personally.  All im asking for is opinions.

     

     

     

     

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • PandaEQNPandaEQN Member Posts: 3
    It's called immersion. And it's all THIS guys fault.
  • AkulasAkulas Member RarePosts: 2,540
    The games are the same except for the time factor which has been reduced and the random people you will probably never see again you sometimes get placed with. So, the older games had community and was slower paced. It meant more when you progressed back then.

    This isn't a signature, you just think it is.

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906
    Originally posted by PandaEQN
    It's called immersion. And it's all THIS guys fault.

    Immersion is king, yes indeed.

    Doesn't Mr Kern repeat what people in this thread have been saying? Doesn't make him right, but do people disagree with him?

     

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • daltaniousdaltanious Member UncommonPosts: 2,381
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    If new games are better, could you guys please give us examples. If it was simple nostalgia and selective memories, surely you could tell us what is better about new games, since we are incapable of recognizing change for the better.

    They offer more convenience and less artificial timesinks. But that doesn't make a game good or bad by itself. If we're so blind it must be  easy to point to example after example of newer games being as good if not better than games that came a decade before them. Side by side comparisons should show it.

    First would be problem to define WHICH games exactly are "NEW" and which "OLD". Can you specify some examples so I can compare?

    But in general (and depending on game of course, not ALL "new" games are better): better physics, better and more fun quests, incredibly fun spells or abilities where one must execute in proper order and pay attention to get desired maximized effect, great scenery, moving avatars with mouse instead of WASDF (wondering how I was able for years to play with that horror), .... Best so far Wow, Swtor, .... ahm, ok, then CO (which is unfortunately very shallow even if fun for fast paced combat), TSW, War, Aoc, EQ2, ...

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by FinalFikus
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    If new games are better, could you guys please give us examples. If it was simple nostalgia and selective memories, surely you could tell us what is better about new games, since we are incapable of recognizing change for the better.

    They offer more convenience and less artificial timesinks. But that doesn't make a game good or bad by itself. If we're so blind it must be  easy to point to example after example of newer games being as good if not better than games that came a decade before them. Side by side comparisons should show it.

    What you're asking for would be like asking fans of 70's rock and fans 90's rock for definitive reasons why their chosen sound is better. It's just not measurable in a fact based way. It's too subjective a question, as it all boils down to what an individual prefers. There's no fact about it.

    The only definitive thing to define is a comprehensive list of what each design is focused on, perceived strengths and weaknesses. IE SWG focused on interdependent community play. SWTOR focused on story driven bioware style roleplaying. What's better would depend on who likes what or prefers what, the "better" part remains a subjective opinion.

    Really? So you don't have any examples in other words. 70s rock isn't an argument. Please stop it.

    I listed the example of the space game in the old starwars and the space game in the new one.

    I listed the crafting system of the old starwars to the new one.

    In warcraft when you hit the button, the skill fires instantly. That is better than any of the old games and is so vital with having your avatar be an extension of yourself. No wonder WOW took off.  It was clearly better at combat reaction time. But Im looking for others opinions not my own of what new games do better. I don't know if wow is a new game.

    2 quick examples of how my opinion was formed. And one example of what im looking for.

    Readers should be able to decide for themselves what is better for them personally.  All im asking for is opinions.

    No, Distopia is right. Ultimately, the answer is subjective.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by FinalFikus
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    If new games are better, could you guys please give us examples. If it was simple nostalgia and selective memories, surely you could tell us what is better about new games, since we are incapable of recognizing change for the better.

    They offer more convenience and less artificial timesinks. But that doesn't make a game good or bad by itself. If we're so blind it must be  easy to point to example after example of newer games being as good if not better than games that came a decade before them. Side by side comparisons should show it.

    What you're asking for would be like asking fans of 70's rock and fans 90's rock for definitive reasons why their chosen sound is better. It's just not measurable in a fact based way. It's too subjective a question, as it all boils down to what an individual prefers. There's no fact about it.

    The only definitive thing to define is a comprehensive list of what each design is focused on, perceived strengths and weaknesses. IE SWG focused on interdependent community play. SWTOR focused on story driven bioware style roleplaying. What's better would depend on who likes what or prefers what, the "better" part remains a subjective opinion.

    Really? So you don't have any examples in other words. 70s rock isn't an argument. Please stop it.

    I listed the example of the space game in the old starwars and the space game in the new one.

    I listed the crafting system of the old starwars to the new one.

    In warcraft when you hit the button, the skill fires instantly. That is better than any of the old games and is so vital with having your avatar be an extension of yourself. No wonder WOW took off.  It was clearly better at combat reaction time. But Im looking for others opinions not my own of what new games do better. I don't know if wow is a new game.

    2 quick examples of how my opinion was formed. And one example of what im looking for.

    Readers should be able to decide for themselves what is better for them personally.  All im asking for is opinions.

    No, Distopia is right. Ultimately, the answer is subjective.

    Ultimately, no shit.

    Did you read where I said I was looking for opinions? Did you choose to ignore that part because "ultimately" it's subjective. I guess you could say a 5 year old on guitar hero is better than Clapton too. But the readers are not so damn dumb that they cant make up their own minds. So let them. Lets hear the examples. I know it subjective.

     

    Is it possible to give a direct answer? Geez.

    BTW I know its just opinions. OK? Its subjective. We knew that on page 1. Why respond at all?

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906
    Originally posted by daltanious
    Originally posted by FinalFikus

    If new games are better, could you guys please give us examples. If it was simple nostalgia and selective memories, surely you could tell us what is better about new games, since we are incapable of recognizing change for the better.

    They offer more convenience and less artificial timesinks. But that doesn't make a game good or bad by itself. If we're so blind it must be  easy to point to example after example of newer games being as good if not better than games that came a decade before them. Side by side comparisons should show it.

    First would be problem to define WHICH games exactly are "NEW" and which "OLD". Can you specify some examples so I can compare?

    But in general (and depending on game of course, not ALL "new" games are better): better physics, better and more fun quests, incredibly fun spells or abilities where one must execute in proper order and pay attention to get desired maximized effect, great scenery, moving avatars with mouse instead of WASDF (wondering how I was able for years to play with that horror), .... Best so far Wow, Swtor, .... ahm, ok, then CO (which is unfortunately very shallow even if fun for fast paced combat), TSW, War, Aoc, EQ2, ...

    Geez, ok after 2005 is new. Is that specific enough? How about after june 18 2005 @ 11:45 am is new.

    Examples from actual gameplay that influenced your opinion. Moving with a mouse only was possible in old games.

    I said wow blows the older games away when it come to skills firing immediately. Lotro does music better than UO but falls short compared to swg. those are examples of my opinions.

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • Gaia_HunterGaia_Hunter Member UncommonPosts: 3,065
    Older games seems better because you aren't playing them. Once you do, they don't.

    Currently playing: GW2
    Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by FinalFikus
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     

    Ultimately, no shit.

    Did you read where I said I was looking for opinions? Did you choose to ignore that part because "ultimately" it's subjective. I guess you could say a 5 year old on guitar hero is better than Clapton too. But the readers are not so damn dumb that they cant make up their own minds. So let them. Lets hear the examples. I know it subjective.

     

    Is it possible to give a direct answer? Geez.

    BTW I know its just opinions. OK? Its subjective. We knew that on page 1. Why respond at all?

    Because in the end no matter how much you try to quantify and rationalize your choices, people will make up their own mind.

    There are a ton of real life examples where quantifying your choices leads nowhere. Do you honestly think the one with the fastest response time, the greatest processing power and the longest list of features comes always on top?

    Some products may simply be holistically better or hit the right spot.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Older games seems better because you aren't playing them. Once you do, they don't.

    Yup.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by FinalFikus
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     

    Ultimately, no shit.

    Did you read where I said I was looking for opinions? Did you choose to ignore that part because "ultimately" it's subjective. I guess you could say a 5 year old on guitar hero is better than Clapton too. But the readers are not so damn dumb that they cant make up their own minds. So let them. Lets hear the examples. I know it subjective.

     

    Is it possible to give a direct answer? Geez.

    BTW I know its just opinions. OK? Its subjective. We knew that on page 1. Why respond at all?

    Because in the end no matter how much you try to quantify and rationalize your choices, people will make up their own mind.

    There are a ton of real life examples where quantifying your choices leads nowhere. Do you honestly think the one with the fastest response time, the greatest processing power and the longest list of features comes always on top?

    Some products may simply be holistically better or hit the right spot.

    Again, no shit. If it's so pointless, don't respond. I asked a simple question. The answer is simple to give. Just an opinion. If you don't want to join the conversation, why butt in?

    You don't have any examples. See, easy.

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • FinalFikusFinalFikus Member Posts: 906
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Gaia_Hunter
    Older games seems better because you aren't playing them. Once you do, they don't.

    Yup.

     

    Yup. That's why im not playing.

    "If the Damned gave you a roadmap, then you'd know just where to go"

  • QuirhidQuirhid Member UncommonPosts: 6,230
    Originally posted by FinalFikus
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by FinalFikus
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     

    Ultimately, no shit.

    Did you read where I said I was looking for opinions? Did you choose to ignore that part because "ultimately" it's subjective. I guess you could say a 5 year old on guitar hero is better than Clapton too. But the readers are not so damn dumb that they cant make up their own minds. So let them. Lets hear the examples. I know it subjective.

     

    Is it possible to give a direct answer? Geez.

    BTW I know its just opinions. OK? Its subjective. We knew that on page 1. Why respond at all?

    Because in the end no matter how much you try to quantify and rationalize your choices, people will make up their own mind.

    There are a ton of real life examples where quantifying your choices leads nowhere. Do you honestly think the one with the fastest response time, the greatest processing power and the longest list of features comes always on top?

    Some products may simply be holistically better or hit the right spot.

    Again, no shit. If it's so pointless, don't respond. I asked a simple question. The answer is simple to give. Just an opinion. If you don't want to join the conversation, why butt in?

    You don't have any examples. See, easy.

    If you expect only the people who don't think it's pointless to reply, how will you know if it is pointless or not?

    If you started a discussion about how the universe is either geo- or heliocentric, should I refrain from pointing out that both are wrong?

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • meadmoonmeadmoon Member UncommonPosts: 1,344
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

    Why even post? Because he has an opinion, just like you. Next.

     

Sign In or Register to comment.