yeah. Tekken is no match for donkey kong or Super Mario Brothers. What was I thinking all these years. I think the problem you're encountering is that there were 1 or 2 "good" games in the old days, whereas now there are many good games, so the bar has been raised. Every time somebody makes a killer game the bar is raised and that killer game is just "average."
Please tell me what game from "the earlier ones" is "great," I would really like to know
I could mention some of my favorite games for the various classic consoles, but that's beside the point.
I'm saying that glitz and glamor do not a game make. Technology advances allow us to prettify games by adding better sound and graphics, but I don't play games for their sound and graphics. I play a game for the game part of it.
If you believe that good graphics make a good game, then in your world there are lots of great games and they're getting better all the time.
I don't agree. All that matters to me is playability and replayability. Originality is good too. All three qualities are becoming less prevalent in the game industry today, possibly because the industry recognizes that most of its customers are like you, willing to relax their purse strings for some eye'n'ear candy.
This isn't about what console is hot or current or best. This is about how cool it is that someone finally got their game out. The bit about using it to support charity is just an added bonus.
The features of a given console are irrelevant - what's important is the quality of the games it has. The current generation of consoles has a long way to go to live up to the greatness of some of the earlier ones.
If somebody were to release a new Atari 2600 or Colecovision game today, I would be likely to buy it simply because it would be cool to see someone supporting a classic system. If it were actually a good game (as many 2600 games were), so much the better.
Slashdot Mirror
Please tell me what game from "the earlier ones" is "great," I would really like to know
I could mention some of my favorite games for the various classic consoles, but that's beside the point.
I'm saying that glitz and glamor do not a game make. Technology advances allow us to prettify games by adding better sound and graphics, but I don't play games for their sound and graphics. I play a game for the game part of it.
If you believe that good graphics make a good game, then in your world there are lots of great games and they're getting better all the time.
I don't agree. All that matters to me is playability and replayability. Originality is good too. All three qualities are becoming less prevalent in the game industry today, possibly because the industry recognizes that most of its customers are like you, willing to relax their purse strings for some eye'n'ear candy.
The features of a given console are irrelevant - what's important is the quality of the games it has. The current generation of consoles has a long way to go to live up to the greatness of some of the earlier ones.
If somebody were to release a new Atari 2600 or Colecovision game today, I would be likely to buy it simply because it would be cool to see someone supporting a classic system. If it were actually a good game (as many 2600 games were), so much the better.