gaming Classic vs. Modern

[Nintenboy195 384]

I consistently go back to old and new games. And since I'm not a graphics whore, that helps too.

[Discordian 6,013]

I find classic games to be a lot more enjoyable then modern games. Don't get me wrong that a lot of modern games are really fun to play but it's just that with classic games they couldn't rely on the graphics to get the game popular and the games had to be good gameplay/story wise.

I can honestly say the graphics have been so standardized that it almost isn't a selling point anymore and hasn't been for several years. Good graphics are nice to have but almost no one would let graphics make or break a game sale and I've not seen many games that tout graphics in a way that hinders the rest of the game's design. If there is a problem with the gameplay the graphics have absolutely nothing to do with it. It's laziness/lack of skill on the developer's part.

[Splashee 28,537]

I always do the classic games.

[Lucky Bolt 34,914]

I don't game, but I occasionally like to play on my family's Playstation. It's an older version but I'd prefer the newest. 

[DixonTheAdversary 1,631]

I don't really have much of a preference. I like to play games both old and new. I guess I find myself playing older games more often, though.

[EpicEnergy 22,082]

I prefer modern games, although I still love some classic games.

[Pentium100 2,056]

I had a console (a NES clone) only for a relatively short time, most the games I played are on PC. I usually play modern games, but once in a while I start up an old PC to play some Diablo or an even older PC to play some Wolfenstein 3D, Commander Keen or Duke Nukem.

[Pastel Heart 6,463]

I'm old school and prefer the 90s, 80s and early 00s consoles and games, but I do enjoy some modern games; specifically things like Mass Effect and Dragon Age

[Cash In 21,513]

I usually prefer modern games, since they're generally more polished have more quality of life improvements. I still enjoy a lot of classic games, hell, some of my favourites are classics, but a some of them haven't aged well sadly.

Edited April 28, 2023 by Cash In

[Stone Cold Steve Jobs 22,410]

I prefer classics, but I won’t say no to a decent modern game now and again. I learned not to buy into early access though.

[Splashee 28,537]

Classic Sonic is better than Modern Sonic. That's because my childhood says so!

[Moony the Cat 3,697]

I enjoy both Classic and Modern games and everything in between. It really depends on the game, not on the gaming console or from what year they are.

[bubbleteapony 583]

Classic 100%, purely because A-list game producers are getting so cheap and greedy their games are getting boring and movie-like (excluding indie games, which are almost the only games nowadays that have any heart to them). There are some modern games that are fun and enjoyable like the zelda series but otherwise, so many new releases I'm seeing are rushed and/or half-hearted. Lookin' at playstation and mainly X-Box here, though nintendo is also at fault (pokemon and animal crossing were released as unfinished games, like cmon)

I don't wanna play a game thats so "realistic" that it just looks boring. The lighting is so "realistic" it just looks like I walked into a regular old forest, which I could do at any time. Realism or not, games as an art form still need to be stylized to look interesting, and also have a decent plot and gameplay. If all the game is "shoot enemy watch cutscene press quicktime event button watch another cutscene", it's less of a game and more of a mediocre movie

[honk friend 1,972]

Everyone knows there is no console that will ever surpass the divine grace of the PS2.

[Vefka 1,499]

Modern games. Classics can be great, memorable and GOTY, but when they have lowpoly or 8-16 bit graphics and ancient mechanics it's just painful to play. Eg. Fallout 2, it's a great game with great world and pretty decent graphics, but the gameplay is ancient and confusing, it's from times when there wasn't standards and everyone did what they thought were right

[Early Sunsets 2,106]

I prefer modern consoles and games. It's cool to go back and play old games for nostalgia every now and then, but for the most part they're not as enjoyable. There are definitely a number of exceptions, though (basically all of the Zelda games are at least somewhat enjoyable many years after release).

[Splashee 28,537]

Not to forget, older games tend to be very difficult. Like, no save games, save states, one boss game over difficulty stuff! Going back to the very beginning, games were so hard you died on the first screen (Monty on the Run, Commodore 64, but the music is great!):

 

[Dreambiscuit 8,024]

I liked Nintendo 64 best probably because it was simple and had the best controller. I never liked dual joysticks (which came with Playstation later on) because the whole point of a joystick is to function in ANY direction; not one stick for left and right, and another stick for up and down. But the powers that be decided that by making two they could say, “Hey, we’ve got twice as many as the other guys!” In this case less is more. I also liked the lighthearted games made for Nintendo. I was never much for blood and gore games. Newer consoles went downhill from there I think; nice graphics and all that, but a step down for general gameplay.   

[Brony Number 42 9,928]

I think games stay good regardless of what might be newer. New games are good but one drawback they have is the amount of time they take to play. I guess new games can be simple too. 

[Splashee 28,537]

Classic is not a good word. I think products would sell better if they were called "Nostalgic" instead. And modern would be called "Trash"

[Anneal 2,194]

On 10/20/2020 at 10:09 AM, Vefka said:

Modern games. Classics can be great, memorable and GOTY, but when they have lowpoly or 8-16 bit graphics and ancient mechanics it's just painful to play. Eg. Fallout 2, it's a great game with great world and pretty decent graphics, but the gameplay is ancient and confusing, it's from times when there wasn't standards and everyone did what they thought were right

That's less due to technological limitations and more due to Fallout 2's very short development time. The game didn't even go through a full year of development and more than a third of its content was cut from the final version (which can be added back with the Restoration Project mod). And due to its short development time, some locations were poorly balanced, especially the early game, and there were plenty of bugs.

On 10/19/2020 at 3:15 PM, bubbleteapony said:

Classic 100%, purely because A-list game producers are getting so cheap and greedy their games are getting boring and movie-like (excluding indie games, which are almost the only games nowadays that have any heart to them). There are some modern games that are fun and enjoyable like the zelda series but otherwise, so many new releases I'm seeing are rushed and/or half-hearted. Lookin' at playstation and mainly X-Box here, though nintendo is also at fault (pokemon and animal crossing were released as unfinished games, like cmon)

I don't wanna play a game thats so "realistic" that it just looks boring. The lighting is so "realistic" it just looks like I walked into a regular old forest, which I could do at any time. Realism or not, games as an art form still need to be stylized to look interesting, and also have a decent plot and gameplay. If all the game is "shoot enemy watch cutscene press quicktime event button watch another cutscene", it's less of a game and more of a mediocre movie

Older console generations weren't immune to this. People like to see the past with rose-tinted glasses, but in reality, a lot of game companies tended to get on the gimmick of the time. And back in the 90s, it was 3D graphics and first-person shooters, enough to the point where FPS games were called "DOOM-clones". So game companies getting in and milking the new trend was nothing new. The cutscene-style gameplay that you see in contemporary games nowadays are a direct inspiration off of visual novel games such as Ace Attorney or Danganronpa, so that isn't new either. Not to mention there are games that do pull it off well, such as Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance and Resident Evil.

[bubbleteapony 583]

4 hours ago, Anneal said:

Older console generations weren't immune to this. People like to see the past with rose-tinted glasses, but in reality, a lot of game companies tended to get on the gimmick of the time. And back in the 90s, it was 3D graphics and first-person shooters, enough to the point where FPS games were called "DOOM-clones". So game companies getting in and milking the new trend was nothing new. The cutscene-style gameplay that you see in contemporary games nowadays are a direct inspiration off of visual novel games such as Ace Attorney or Danganronpa, so that isn't new either. Not to mention there are games that do pull it off well, such as Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance and Resident Evil.

for sure, but I'm referring to the decrease in the availability of quality games from larger consoles like playstation and xbox, you can get way better games through steam (I personally only own a switch so i only have experience with nintendo properties). I never liked shooters as they're all very copy-paste and frankly boring to me so imo there hasn't been any improvement or decline for those. Specifically I'm thinking of older pokemon games that actually had heart vs the new switch versions that are just being made to make money as fast as possible

[Splashee 28,537]

48 minutes ago, bubbleteapony said:

the new switch versions that are just being made to make money as fast as possible

I actually associate the Switch console with that behavior. I have never seen that console be able to produce anything that isn't the lowest possible quality for the highest price possible. Basically, if the game has minimal lag, it can still be sold for a lot of money, compared to a game in the classic days that didn't have any lag at all.

[bubbleteapony 583]

@Splashee totally. I got the redo of link's awakening which is one of my favorite games, and it's super charming and fun to play, but definitely not worth $60 considering it's just a 3d version of a game and story that already exists. Also ridiculous considering link's awakening and breath of the wild are the same price, when one is faaaarrr more extensive and complex than the other. also one is an original game 

[Splashee 28,537]

I just watched this video, quite entertaining guy:

 

Seeing how much quality has changed over the years, it is scary! And the modern one is sold as being the classic.