This article compares older games to newer ones and why gamers may like older games more.
While this is an opinion piece, it brings to light a factual statement, which is that older video games (5th and 6th generation) are better than newer games...simply for being a complete product (i.e. gamers got the entire game, including unlockables). Not only that (although the former is the most important), but the quality of the games was much better gameplay wise then it currently is now. The focus in the 5th and 6th gen was on game genre variety, whereas now it is not. The author of this article says older games are not better than newer games, yet he finds hisself going back and playing older games over newer ones. He attributes this to "childhood nostalgia", however he doesn't want to admit the truth. Older games...by a larger part, where more thought out than newer games. I'm not sure what console this author favored then (it seems like N64), but when it comes to Playstation...their 5th and 6th gen games, put their 7th and 8th to shame. So in the end...I suppose it depends on your console of choice.
Age has nothing to do with quality.
older games are actually working and is a finished product. this newer gen cater to the bad players so they make the games easier, and they rely on downloadable patches instead of trying to make a perfect game that is working from the start.
Not to mention older games tended to be a lot longer. Though not everyone cares about the how long a game is and prefers the quality of the game, or most games. For us we enjoy a game that tends to take 50+ hours to complete, and we are talking just the main storyline. Not counting any side quests or mini-games that might be involved.
Actually, most older games were shorter than even the shortest of modern games. The technology of the day didn't allow for robust, dynamic environments or greater character mobility/flexibility that made the game "big."
"Are the old games better than the new games? No. In almost every regard they are not" I completely disagree. The fact that NES games are still being compared to games over two decades later shows that development quality hasn't progressed as much as people want to admit and they can hold their own against, if not beat, newer games.
I'd say the amount of actually good NES games is about 6% and the rest are utter and complete garbage.
Assuming the 6% is correct...it's even lower than that today. We all remember Contra, Castlevania, etc. Do we remember today's "big" franchises a year later? Sure, some stand out, but more stood out back then.
Could'nt rlly say. I will say the games I replay the most are usually on GC or PS2.
It really depends on the type of game, we have better graphics, controls, production value, but in return we have half finished games, and somehow the writing has gotten worse for the AAA games.
Yes. WwF no mercy is better than wwe2k14. ESPN NFL 2k5 is better than madden 25. Morrowind hangs with Skyrim just fine. I can go on but I think anyone with common sense knows it. It's more about graphics than game play these days which sucks.
Variety, ingenuity and innovative games were given a chance, and it was a less profitable industry when those games came out. We see so many long standing franchises just dissolve or disappear in the sake of benefits that this fun hobby and fun job (for the developers) has turned into a business driven empire. Creativity is muffled by money. Give me back a Sega console any day with their flagship titles. You still have beautiful experiences nowadays, but they're few far in between. Japanese developers need to release all the amazing gems they are creating for Japan only. Even if it's digital only.
The budgets are way too migh these days that´s what killed creativity in many games. Indies only a few actually seem to be great games the rest of it is always apreciated but i rather spend my time playing older games.
nothing can beat old school ps1 rpg like suikoden,legend of the dragons,ff7,ff8,and alot more only ones i compare is Naughty dog games and Bethesda games
I find that most older 2d games are amazing while old 3d games are painful to look at and play.
Just like ANY era in gaming there are some standouts among the garbage. SNES was my favorite era but I don't pretend everything on that system was incredible. Link to the past, Mario World, Metroid, Final Fantasy 4 and 6 (2 and 3 for us Americans), the list will go on. Gaming now isn't without merit, there are always pros and cons in any era. Great stuff out now, sure, but the business side of gaming has reared its ugly head in a more pronounced way for us than ever before. With the exclusion of content (mass effect 3's day-one dlc anyone?) and franchise fatigue that is way, way more common than ever before, and the concept of the "season pass" (which is paying for content that isn't even finished thereby giving them permission to not care what they deliver because YOU ALREADY BOUGHT IT), gaming isn't what it was for certain, but this is just the era we're in. Good and bad, we're gamers and we love games.
I feel like only a very small percentage of old games are any good and the rest are total garbage. I guess it's the same now, but it seems like there were an awful lot of 1 out of 10 games produced in the 80s and 90s.
Older games had personality, as did the older consoles themselves, with the lack of hardware power developers had to invest time into the story, music, characters and game play to keep gamers interested, giving every game it's own identity. So yes, older games are better, very few games to brag about these days, and next to none to stand alongside the greatest games ever made, disagree or not, you were a gamer in his/her element back then, today's gaming focus is terrible seeing as people expect more from consoles, shame really, at least we can say we lived in the golden age of gaming.
the problem with games today is that the costs are way too high to make. older games could be made in a shorter time with less people which meant les costs and less risk also older games are easier to eemember because they were probably the first of its kind. its hard to be innovative these days since most ideas have already been done. the cost too make a game also means that publishers do not want to risk it on an unproven style of game. new tomb raider barely made any profits despite the amount they sold. was that due to development cost being so high or just over marketed the game?
Example that hits me the most: Resident Evil 2, the style of game play, the focused setting, focused atmosphere, the incredible musical score, the few but deep characters to serve the plot. Incredible experience, stands as on it's very own with limited tech. Resident Evil 5 & 6, altered game play, unfocused setting, changes in atmosphere constantly, didn't even know it had a musical score, many characters that are just as quickly forgotten, main characters development time used on extra's instead, with strong hardware. Yet Resident Evil 2, a game from the late nineties, puts it to shame even with behemoth hardware compared to the PS1, why? focused direction with personality, shame.. Bioshock 1 and TLOU acquired the focus and did unbelievably well, don't abuse stronger tech because you can, developers are just getting lazy.
Ps2, GC, Xbox and Dreamcast will always be my favorite gen. That was simply the greatest gen ever with an unparalleled variety of quality games. There will never be another gen like that.
There are great games in every era, also crap in every era. My only gripe is that the game industry seems to have forgotten whole genres which were great, and instead they keep putting out shooter after shooter.
Bring back awesome 3D platformers and just oversaturate the industry with RPG's again and i'll sleep happily
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.