It is in first person and you shoot a projectile. Maybe it hasn't aged well because of what we have now, but the fundamentals are there. It is a vice to fully trust Wikipedia, but its not as inaccurate as some claim. http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
Yet uni professors use it all the time! Wiki is a reliable source of information on science topics that aren't controversial e.g. it's perfect for Physics, Chemistry and Math, quite nice for Biology and poor for Political/Historical stuff.
I would never advise using Wikipedia as a reference, or anything that can be edited by members of the public, I'm surprised to hear University professors advocating its use. Next time you're in a lecture make some funny edits before class for shits and giggles.
Terminator: Future Shock, Shadow Warrior, Redneck Rampage, and Red Faction have some edge over Halo with controllable vehicles but to be fair, Halo did do it in a way that clicked a bit better than the aforementioned titles.
I never played Terminator: Future Shock, or Redneck Rampage, are they still worth playing today? Actually, I don't think I've played any Terminator FPS (I did play a Terminator 3rd person shooter on the PS2 or original XBox, but I didn't like it much), are any of them good and still worth playing?
Probably Commodore 64 games (mostly for the graphics, because the sound is still amazing). A lot of N64 games hasn't aged well, but most of the NES games are still nice to play.
I wish had played more Shadow Warrior I first heard about it in of all places a Support group I had no business being in as teenager. Fuck knows why I was even going. But none the less it was an interesting place to first hear about a game. I've been curious about the more PC reboot.
I had a video gaming sesh at mine on Saturday and everyone got excited for Goldeneye 64, until it was fired up and there was a chorus of 'eh! How the hell did we see anything back then?!' I dunno, I can still manage quite fine, but yeah it does look like a smudged mess. Of all the 32-bit era, the Saturn's line of games has aged the best, I think. Which is ironic given how poorly the machine sold back then. It has more and better 2D games and a fair number of games where 3D graphics and polygons are used more subtly than a full-on 3D world (such as its range of schmups). I guess SEGA get the last laugh!
No, games are subject to ageing, like anything else. Or rather, as time progresses, gaming aspects (especially graphics, but also controls, A.I., and (sadly much, MUCH slower) playability) does improve, so that the older games are worse by comparion. This doesn't happen to all games, and it's very subjective anyway, but there are lots of games that were great when they came out, but in the years since then they have been surpassed to the point that those games are no longer worth playing to many people who used to love that game. Complaining is not "crying", and your words show how you can't understand how others feel. And bad (by today's standards) controls are not thrilling. If they were, then if the controls for RE 0 to RE 3 were made less accurate, and also a 'feature' added whereby every time you moved forward then there's a 5% chance that the game would end with a "You tripped and died" message, then that would make the game more thrilling. But it wouldn't.
Goldeneye is still a fantastic game, but the graphics (especially the now ghastly faces of some enemy guards), the frame-rate, and of course the low resolution would serve to put someone off who wasn't used to it. If they persevered then they'd find a first class game underneath, but people are spoilt by such amazing graphics nowadays that it must be really difficult to go back. It's also very often the case that 3D games tend to age quicker than 3D games. And it's mostly 3D games that when you look at, you think "I can't believe I use to think that game looked great, almost state of the art".
There are many games from the 90s, both 2D and 3D games, that I think still look beautiful today. Graphics aren't just about technical prowess; it's an art. The fact that more complex, technically superior graphics are now possible doesn't make me love those older games any less. In the past, developers had to work under greater technical limitations than they do today - but many of them were great artists, so even with those limitations they were able to make games that were beautiful and fun to play.
Because it's being upscaled and through a shitty connection. Your old TV displayed it in it's native resolution. It's just like if you took a regular sized picture and blew it up in photoshop, it gets fuzzy. That's why I still have a CRT
Just had to make a note on you guys "bashing" Wikipedia. It has sources for a reason. Not doing your research by analyzing multiple sources is the fault of the individual, not Wikipedia. Was playing both Motor Toon Grand Prix 's yesterday... I'd rather just have the good memories of it from my childhood. I seem to feel that way when playing a handful of PS1 titles that I used to love.
a lot of NES games have a strange scrolling glitch on the right side of the screen. Mario 3 has it, why didn't they just chop off that side of the screen a bit!
