206
rate

Gaming: then vs. now

February 01, 2009 in Blog comments 17

In this Sunday editorial piece, the Siliconera staff asks and answers the question: "Was gaming better in the good ol' days?"

Most should be able to agree there are advantages and disadvantages to then and now -- but which do you prefer and why?

When most of us were growing up, there wasn’t much in terms of games and consoles. Usually it’s either Nintendo or Sega Genesis. And there certainly weren’t as many must-have games back then. Even so, we still played the heck out of them. Who do you think has it better? The kids of yesteryear with their smaller game library, or the kids of today who have hundreds of games to choose from on a given system?
chautemoc via siliconera.com »
Favourite this article Add source
| More
Report!

Comments

Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 0
    Big A2 Feb 1, 09
    Oh. great another one of these articles.

    Can't we just admit that gaming was better before developer's started aiming for realism?
    • 4
      Killosity Feb 2, 09
      quote Big A2
      Oh. great another one of these articles.

      Can't we just admit that gaming was better before developer's started aiming for realism?
      No, considering not everyone shares YOUR views on how the game industry/gaming in general has become.
      • 0
        Big A2 Feb 2, 09
        Well, each article seems to come to the same conclusion.
      • 2
        Seeker X Feb 2, 09
        quote
        Can't we just admit that gaming was better before developer's started aiming for realism?
        You know, this whole retro shit about "90's games always being better" is getting pretty goddamned tiring. If it was THAT good, why don't you stay with whatever archaic console/games you got and don't even bother with modern games? It really makes no sense.

        "Gawd, nowadays, games just can't compare...I'm gonna go play some Wii/PS3/360"
        • 0
          HisServant77 Feb 2, 09
          Haha, well some do still play the classics

          But . . . I think some also are simply remembering the good ol' days when they were young, had video games, and little to no responsibilities as compared to now when they are older and have responsibilities and so can't enjoy the games like they used to.
        • 0
          Seeker X Feb 2, 09
          I would totally understand that...but to have the cojones to say that 90's games (unanimously) beat whatever games are coming out nowadays...it's like a slap to the face. There's no problem if people prefer older games, *bleep* that's great, it's another story to try to label it as a well known fact...which retro people have a bad habit of doing.
        • 0
          Murray3 Feb 2, 09
          quote Seeker X
          If it was THAT good, why don't you stay with whatever archaic console/games you got and don't even bother with modern games? It really makes no sense.
          Retro gamers don't really have a choice about what games we play, most retro gamers haven't had anything new to play for several years, I've played an entire NES worth of Nintendo titles, it's not like suddenly the NES will start getting games again!

          Megaman 9 was a nice addition but it's only one game...

          I play new games, and right now I can confirm the 7th generation is my least favorite gen. My favorite game came from 6th (Wind Waker), and most of the rest of my top ten from the fifth (starting with Donkey Kong 64). When comparing my favorite series of old to new I have: Wind Waker, Majora's Mask and a Link to the Past easily crushing Twilight Princess. Donkey Kong's Beat games not even comparing to his exploring days. And the huge variety of Mario games are just getting worse...

          Sony and Microsoft aren't really old enough to compare their classics to modern games, Sony maybe, but they don't have any first party support.
    • 0
      Murray3 Feb 2, 09
      Phrased better: Realism over Gamplay.

      Case in point: In a platformer enemies shouldn't have to hit you to damage you (in most cases) just collide with you, Sonic Unleashed did the opposite, making it nearly impossible in the day stages for enemies to even hurt you.
      • 0
        HisServant77 Feb 2, 09
        In Sonic Unleashed, no . . . Think about it, if moving at those speeds even a bug hits you you get hurt really bad! It'd be like hitting a brick wall or a bullet. Therefore those with superspeed abilities such as Flash and Sonic even . . . need to be invincible like Superman in order to run at those speeds. Lol
  • 1
    Stefan Feb 1, 09
    no we cant, because some people play games solely to do things they cant do in real life but want to, i.e be in a warzone, play for there favourite team, or be a formula 1 driver, etc.

    just because they ran out of ideas for mario doesnt mean gaming isnt as good.
  • 1
    HisServant77 Feb 2, 09
    I think it was more fun back then because devs didn't worry more about competing with other gaming devs that they forget to make better games. Back then devs focused on making a good game, instead of the competition.
    I know that doesn't seem to make sense ("Focusing on the competition will make devs work harder to make a better game") But in real life and in all complete honesty, devs make better games when they focus on their own work instead of trying to outdo another. Look at the great devs today . . . most of the time those devs don't worry about competing with other devs, but even some are friends with each other!

    But no . . . most lose themselves to money and competition instead of fun. I guess that's the trade off. When gaming was young, not much competition so the games were pretty nice. Now that it's grown . . . it's almost too big for it's own good in light of that way of thinking.
  • 0
    Taker4ever Feb 2, 09
    Am I the only one who doesn't buy into retro gaming at all?

    Gaming has just gotten better and better as far as I'm concerned. Longer games, more varied gameplay, engaging storylines, better graphics, online and multiplayer capabilities etc.

    If someone offered you a choice between a SNES and a PS3, I highly doubt you'd pick the SNES.
    • 0
      HisServant77 Feb 2, 09
      You would if SNES was a rare find, you liked the games on SNES better, you already had a PS3, or you wanted to play SNES games more!
    • 0
      Murray3 Feb 3, 09
      PS3 or SNES is a no brainer, 2 5-star games versus an entire catalog of ace titles, not a hard decision at all.
  • 0
    kokushishin Feb 3, 09
    A lot of older games haven't aged well, and some people have gone over the edge nostalgiawise to the point where fixing a bug would be considered "tampering with the spirit of the game" or some other tripe.

    On the other hand, a lot of the current generation seems to want a pretty-looking hack 'n slash or feel that we need another 10000 FPSes.
  • 0
    Bri Feb 3, 09
    I'd say out of my older gaming collection, maybe one...two games have aged well. Yes, they were great games, I'm not denying that at all, but I've played games in so many generations - SNES, PSX, PS2 and PS3, and I've seen the progression in the last fifteen years. I would definitely give the edge to modern games. They look real, and honestly, they have a lot more depth than anything from the 8-bit, 16-bit hell, even 64-bit era.
  • 0
    1 Adam 12 Feb 4, 09
    Ah the old days I have to admit I still own a NES still sadly I don't play it anymore but sometimes I sit down and play SMB3 from time to time any one else? I had an Atari 2600 back in mid 80's then got the NES in early 90's that shows you that video games certainly changed over the years that I have been playing them.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.