The Video Game Critic

I prefer old games. I don't have a long attention span and midway through the 5th generation worlds started getting way too big. I thought games like Banjo Kazooie and Goldeneye were the maximum size for me. In fact, I would have liked if there were more 3d games like that.

Yeah, I don't mind bigger games, but if they are going to be big, they have to be linear. Those "sandbox" style games are painful to me.

Voor,
I think you make a good point. In the early 2000's sandbox games were like the holy grail. The idea of being able to explore the world freely was a dream! But that novelty seems to have worn off at some point. Even in games where I have the option to explore like GTA or Skyrim, I tend to just follow the storyline now. It's as if games have gotten TOO big.

jon wrote:I prefer old games. I don't have a long attention span and midway through the 5th generation worlds started getting way too big. I thought games like Banjo Kazooie and Goldeneye were the maximum size for me. In fact, I would have liked if there were more 3d games like that.

Great use of Banjo Kazooie as an example. It's big enough that there's a lot to explore, but it never overwhelms you with time consuming filler, a mistake Banjo Tooie ending up making.

Anyway, I prefer classic gaming, but prefer newer arcade style games to older ones, as I find them a lot more exciting (Excitebots and Sonic All Stars Transformed). The mid-late 90s had a nice balance between arcade style and realistic games in my opinion, and you don't see that today really.

And of course, 2D has aged like wine. But if there were much more arcade style games today (2D or 3D), and wasn't hostile to offline gamers, I think it'd be a lot closer.

I would explore more if there were interesting things to find in most sandbox games. They give you a 12 square mile game world, but only a tiny percentage of that is interactive in any way. Its mostly just space really.

I guess I mostly play older games. What is the cut off? I don't have any new consoles, so the newest I play is PS3. I'd say about 80% of my gaming this year is pre-2003. Like 98% pre-2010.

Old games rule. It's funny how even updated remakes aren't necessarily better than the originals. I didn't even really want to play the 2012 downloadable NFL blitz, but I had credit leftover, so I figured why not. It's mildly entertaining, but it just makes you wish you were playing the original games. Also, not a remake, but I played Tony Hawk 5. There is a ps3 version, released quietly late last year. The Xbox one/ps4 versions had a lot of glitches I guess, and the ps3 version has no performance issues, unless you call uninspired gameplay a performance issue. Maybe I just need to play it more, but the whole thing feels lackluster. The goals are mostly the same for every level. The game just seems to lack the personality of the older games, like THPS 1-4, even up to American wasteland I could argue.

I'm also a big sports gamer, and I love the old games. Something about seeing a grainy screenshot of a ps1/n64 era sports game that makes me want to play it. The realism in those games was fine with me. I remember reading the critic's review on 2006 FIFA world cup for 360. he talks about how they took all the fun out of the game by making it so realistic. Also, this is probably a personal preference, but the field in newer soccer and football games seems really big, thus being more unappealing than the older games. This also might sound lazy of me, but players don't seem to move as easily. Maybe it's analog control, maybe it's part of the realism/the way programmers intended it to be. I don't have that problem in older games, and it is just something I've noticed.

CharlieR wrote:This also might sound lazy of me, but players don't seem to move as easily. Maybe it's analog control, maybe it's part of the realism/the way programmers intended it to be. I don't have that problem in older games, and it is just something I've noticed.

Yes I agree, it's almost as if games have to cycle through that many frames of animation to look realistic they lose the instant control of older games.

all I know is I played FIFA 2001 before bed last night, and the players zip around the field, making it more fun.

I also wanted to point out, not necessarily about sports games, but remakes of old games (like I pointed out about NFL blitz,) you'd think the games would be better on a hot new console with better graphics, but it's the opposite.

Sut wrote:

CharlieR wrote:This also might sound lazy of me, but players don't seem to move as easily. Maybe it's analog control, maybe it's part of the realism/the way programmers intended it to be. I don't have that problem in older games, and it is just something I've noticed.

Yes I agree, it's almost as if games have to cycle through that many frames of animation to look realistic they lose the instant control of older games.

Bingo! I've hated this with modern games. Most of the beloved games from Our youth have instant responsive control. Any kind of delay ruins a game for me.

Wow. Thats a neat insight about responsiveness. That would be fun to explore more.