Quote Originally Posted by Xanatos View Post
My biggest issue with huge amount of old, often popular games is how difficult they were, and not in a good way. A lot of those games required abnormal reflexes and forced you to memorize every level to it's tiniest detail (something developers had to do since games back then were short as ****), which, and this may come as a shock to some of you hipsters, is not fun or innovative for that matter. Aside from aesthetics, a lot of games under same genre were downright identical, beat em up genre being way ahead in that regard. Then there's lack of storytelling and character development, tons and tons of truly terrible games, but people tend to forget these issues...

in day and age when we have so many quality games, so much so one with all the free time in this world couldn't possibly handle, I have no sympathy or understanding whatsoever for nostalgic ****s who bitch and moan.

See that being said. Difficulty is what makes a game challenging. Agreed FF5 was impossible. FF4 was even worse. I'm not talking about the remakes you would most likely refer to because those games were a little before your time (that is in no way a bash at your age). Why would you not want to have a game that tests your dexterity? Fun and innovative are subjective. What is fun to today's crowd are games that shoot and shoot and kill and kill. Innovation is determined by what a console can do that the other can't. Which is fine, because honestly, what is there left to do. Everything has been done in terms of games. They were invented in the 80's (I'm not talking Pong and whatever).

You talk about how games were hard in the day. Have a look at the Resident Evil franchise. RE1 gave you puzzles. If you couldn't figure it out well too bad. If you stopped playing for a week and you forgot where you were, that's your problem. Look at Resident Evil 5 and 6. There are no puzzles. And the puzzles you have are spoon fed to you. They practically give you the answer all you need to do is follow the yellow brick road.

My point is the definition of "hard" in games today is so much different because the attention span of the gamer is so low they get bored quickly. Why spend time on a game when there are tons more to play which would give you the cookie in your hand. The notion of working for things is extinct.

Games have no replay value, look at Diablo 3. It flopped, to make it better they introduced so many useless things because gamers simply don't like it.

Also you refer to games that are downright identical. How is that different from today's games?
Resident eveil 5 /6 and Left for Dead, Dead Space and so on . The games are different but have the same roots. Halo and every other shoot em up game at their roots are Wolfenstein, Duke Nukem, and so on.

I couldn't agree more, there were countless terrible games in the 80's and 90's. They out weighed the good ones by tons. But then again, can you possibly argue that you have more "outstanding games" today than terrible ones?
You cannot tell me that "Wii Golf" will be remembered over Super Mario Kart.
It's impossible to say there are better games today than worse ones because there are so many more games to choose from.

The Squaresoft and Capcom and Blizzard North of back in the day are long gone. All the innovation they brought with them disappeared.

That being said it is a little like arguing with a teenager that television today mindless and yesterday's tv is better. It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't know the past. You can't tell a 20 year to get a Walkman is when they grew up with an iPod.

BTW Xanatos awesome name. (I'm referring to the Gargoyles character!)

For the record, I might sound like a 100 year old man with these posts but I'm not much older than the 2 other posters heh.