rant: i hate all new games

Hahaha! It's been said before,but there are great,good,okay,and horrible games for every generation.I think that there's a lot of hate for newer games from many old school gamers simply because such and such game isn't as cool as such and such game I played back in the good ol' days.

 

Something I strongly feels needs to make a comeback is set save points. It used to be you couldn't save until you beat a long level or a whole set of levels, now in most games you can save wherever you want whenever you want. I feel like that's why I don't beat many games on new consoles. I know I can just save and quit whenever so sometimes I forget to come back to the game. First time you played Super Mario World you beat the first world and felt like you actually accomplished something and you had something new to look forward too. Now when you save it's just another point in the game.

 

I think partially this is because we're not kids any more, and partially because a lot of old school gamers aren't actually playing any modern games, which will tend to preclude them from liking any.

 

The question is, what controls taste? My suggestion is that the expectations that we have of a game plays a major role. Many modern games have one thing in common: They are easy, or at least they don't require you to actually gain skill to master a situation. Like in CoD MW, if you just shoot, rest, shoot, rest, shoot, rest - everything will be fine. The difficulty that once resulted from limited medi packs has gone - only one example, representing the ongoing process to turn games into interactive films that are meant to simply be enjoyed, i.e. through the extensive story or audiovisual pleasure, rather than to master a challenge.

I would say what new games transformed into is not bad, but so different. Many of those gamers who grew up with video games as a "free time challenge" apparently won't accept to let their hobby become "the movie of tomorrow" which they have to watch for 8 hours and that's it. As for achievements, I believe they are a good thing as they make lots of people play their games more instead of just giving up after the staff roll, but then again most achievements are just dull endurance contests with no point.

That's exactly what I like about them. Of course you have to bring some enthusiasm and discipline to get better, but it pays more than a story-based game if you ask me. Whenever I play something like GTA, I don't feel challenged. It's fun and entertains me for quite a time, but what I am looking for in a game is not really there, or just in a very limited way (like the best times in a race).

I believe the nature of many new games is so controversially discussed, especially by mature gamers, because the new generation created an entire new style of gaming. Pure entertainment, instantly served - rather than expecting consumers to put in a lot of work by themselves to get the full package. That's what puts the one side off and attracts the other.

 

How many genres only have one primary player left in the field?

That was my point. > 50% of the 2D shooters coming out these days are from Cave, who really make one type of game (this estimate includes ports).

It wasn't a diss to Cave and it wasn't necessarily something I was singling them out for. But since they pretty much ARE the genre these days, the fact of them being that way pretty much makes the genre as a whole seem fairly confined.

 

How about we call them Bullet Clusterfuck games?

That being said, I'd rather play Axelay than many of Cave's efforts, but I really love both.

I have a special place in my heart for Dangun Feveron.

 

I know what you mean. But each company more or less had their own flavor for the old genres. To an extent, anyway. Look at the multiple *dius game and the Salamander cousin. A lot of Capcom horis have a similar feel... Konami, Toaplan (RIP), etc. It's a far more confined genre than side scrolling platformer (also RIP ) but the idea is generally there, hence my statement. I can buy someone saying, "I don't like Cave games" but saying "b/c they're so similar" is a bit cruel and unusual.

 

I'll go nuts and throw in my couple bucks worth of cents:

There are a LOT of re-releases as of late. Not that since the Playstation we haven't seen a bunch (Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VI amongst others) that were re-releases with some bonus material added in (In the case of the Square "remakes/re-releases" there was additional animated segments added to the games. Being I haven't played them I cannot comment on how well integrated they are). With Chrono Trigger we have a SuperNES title that commanded a rather hefty price on eBay as did most Square titles did. Come along the Playstation re-release and we can now all go out and buy this game. For cheap. And Square gets to make new profit on old property that otherwise would sit gathering dust.

Come along the Nintendo DS and we start to see re-releases out of the gate with Mario 64 DS as a launch title. Very well done, however I'm sure I'm not the only one time find the additions of Luigi and Wario to be very annoying at times. With the Nintendo 3DS we might potentially see GameCube ports depending on the power of the 3DS.

Now if you would turn your attention to XBox Live Arcade you will see a shitload of ports of old properties from Sonic from the Genesis to Duke Nukem 3D from the PC. I have no idea how many people on this board are my age (I'm 23) but I fondly recall Duke 3D and would likely buy it if it is superior to the Saturn version with it's spiffy lighting effects. I grew up with a SMS and Genesis almost completely ignoring Nintendo properties unless I was at a friends house so to see Sonic 1-3 and Knuckles as well as a slew of other Genesis titles at a cheap price makes me very tempted. However most of the other offerings on XBLA I consider tripe and not worth my time with gems like Geometry Wars the exception to the rule. The very night I found out Rez was available on XBLA I pulled out my credit card and bought it to play it again since I had on my DC years prior. Got a friend addicted to it as well.

My point? Why spend money making new, interesting, innovative and of utmost importance, fun, on games when you can take an old property and re-release it with a few piddly add-ons like network play? Look at the library for the Wii and it's downloadables. Sweet! A ton of SuperNES, Genesis, NES, and N64 titles available! To hell with new games I've got games I know to be good to pay for!

Oh shit what about all of those Genesis and SuperNES carts on the shelves? Right, I already bought these games...oops.

That said there are a few gems here and there of "new" origin. I'm looking forward to Halo: Reach (say what you will) which is based on a relatively old franchise. Alan Wake I am gagging to play but have heard much good about it. Aside from Pokemon Black/White I can't say there is anything coming out for the DS I give a damn about.

Item #2:
Maybe the great console wars confused devs? In the GameCube v XBox v Dreamcast v Playstation 2 war the Dreamcast tapped out early, the GameCube was basically a platform for Nintendo to put their first party titles on and the XBox was a pc port paradise with a few (mainly Halo) killer apps making it worth your time. The Playstation 2 clearly dominated the arena despite having problems with developers being able to get the most out of the hardware for a while and the hardware having a failure rate on par with the 360 (the laser was a HUGE problem regardless of your admittance for it. Thank god by the v7 release it was mostly fixed).

Come the PS3, 360 and Wii devs were wondering who to go with. The PS3 was looking to have dual video outputs for some damn reason (that obviously got dropped) as well as a lack of rumble as Sony once put it was soooo last generation. I'm sure everyone cried over that one. The PS3 came out a few days short of 1 year for the USA giving the 360 a head start. We saw Sega do the same thing with the Saturn to beat out the Playstation albeit the Saturn's hardware was...shall we say interesting design wise leading to it being a pain in the ass to develop for (sound familiar?) and not having hardware that was stronger than the Playstation in 3D. Combine that with the 32X and Sega-CD creating confusion for the market and Sega was done for...until the Dreamcast pulled some kick ass games.

The head start the 360 had likely had no beneficial effects as people were going to wait on the PS3 to see what it had to offer, myself particularly because Sony kept changing features and specs on us. The Dreamcast had this issue as well with many people not buying a Dreamcast to see how the PS2 would do. So while waiting around to see what everyone would end up with dev studios would be putting their eggs into various baskets.

Blah blah rant over. Rip into it as you will.

 

Nah. 360 didn't suffer Dreamcast syndrome. It's still just ahead of the PS3 in sales, as far as I know.

 

In Japan the PS3 has outsold the xbox 360 by 5 to 1. In Europe (esp the UK) the PS3 has outsold the 360. Taking the sales over the year, the PS3 has outsold the 360 and taking average sales regarding sales to time, you can see that the PS3 has sold more consoles than the 360.

Even last week the PS3 was the best selling console in Japan outselling even the Nintendo DS. ;-)

 

And the Dreamcast sold, what, 10 million all told? My point was that comparing the 360 to the Dreamcast is silly regardless of which metric you choose to examine sales upon.

I've yet to see statistics to that effect, but whatever. I think it's a pretty even draw.

 

Erm... according to vgchartz the worldwide total for the 360 right now is at 41.7M whereas the PS3's worldwide total is at 36.3M. Which, using some advanced mathematical techniques, I can calculate that the 360 has currently sold 5.4 million more units than the PS3 according to the data.

*awaits obligatory "AYE DUN'T TRUST NO SITES WITH NO Z IN ITS TITLES RAR!"*

 

As people can't read what i said, i never said the PS3 has outsold the Xbox 360 outright, but if you take the number of machines sold and divide it by the days it's been available for then you can see that the PS3 has sold more machines.

The xbox has sold on average 24188 machines a day
The ps3 has sold on average 26496 machines a day

So using statistics you can see that the PS3 is in fact the better selling machine on average of the two.

 

Then apparently you were unable to comprehend what Alchy said, as he was referring to overall sales, thus making your little bit entirely pointless. :nod:

 

Wow a machine that was on sale a year before another machine has sold more, who would have thought it....

As alchy was misquoting what I said, I thought I would show some statistics which shows that the PS3 is selling more units, if the Xbox 360 stop selling tomorrow then the PS3 would outsell it in just over 200 days. When the Playstation 4 and Xbox devolution come out, I will happily point out that the ps3 outsodl the Xbox 360...

 

Someone unfamiliar with the Dreamcast?


Which was the whole point of the discussion at hand, since someone compared the 360 to the Dreamcast...

But I guess you just didn't have the time to read all that!

And of course the PS3 will wind up outselling the 360 worldwide in the end. Regardless of the fact that the Japanese wouldn't support the 360 if it came packaged with a year's supply of used panties, Microsoft has been digging their own grave for the past 2.5 years or so.

Hell, I predict Microsoft may just leave consoles all together once Kinect flops on its ass.

 

I'll say if there was something that took people's attention away from the X360 was the Wii after TGS right before launch.

The DC on the other hand was doomed from day one, nobody cared about it and even a lot of former SEGA fans were too angry after the Saturn to consider getting yet another dead-on-arrival console (and at the end they were right). Add the sony hate machine and no money from SEGA to counter it and you have the whole picture.

Back to the X360, if you ask me the problem was that it went from leak and rumor to actual console in the store in very little time, so there was no time to build up enough enthusiasm.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20100813/tc_pcworld/xbox360wasbestsellingconsoleinjuly

 

Yeah, for the first time since 2007

 

2007 was a damn fine year for the ole' 360. Really had me rooting for MS.


Then MS not only dropped the ball, but lit it on fire, pissed on it, attached a rock to it via a chain, and tossed it into the Atlantic.