Im talking about post 90s arcade games and todays 3dFPS, RPGs ets. I played games like PrinceOfPersia, Hitman2, vietcong, NFSU.... But they never give me such excitment as those 2d arcade games (using emulators)do. I really feel my self into these arcade games and feel comfortable while playing them. On the other hand todays games make me unconfortable. Controls, bizar levels etc. I know they look great and real but I think 3d games take mis-use of extra dimension. Actually they problem is not tech. the problem is gameplay which inherits some problems from it. So is this just my personal choice and/or im making wrong comparisions?

Maybe they lack of hack-n-slash feature?

The nostalgia factor ?

quote: Original post by DirectXXX
...[Am I] making wrong comparisions?

Among other things, yes.

The key difference is imagination. Old "arcade" (alternatively called "old school") games are more "fun" to play because their limited graphics and simple premises require the gamer to employ his own imagination to fill in the blanks. Today''s 3D games do so much more in terms of visualizing the virtual world that the gamer is drawn to the inconsistencies and breaks from the conceptual model. Add to that the constant focus on "realism" (search for threads that espouse more "realism" in games in this forum alone to see what I mean) and you basically have games losing their charm and replacing it with "grit."

Fun is subjective, and everything about a game contributes to the notion of whether or not it is fun. Old school games were fairly transparent, so what you saw was a clear indicator of what was going on (your mind then embellished that to provide the extras) - partly because the math for 2D worlds is a heck of a lot simpler! Any little flaw in a 3D simulation breaks our suspension of disbelief. These orthogonal issues (ie, not actually gameplay) affect our perception of the game, and the notion of "fun."

Aslo keep in mind that there are loads of people who consider today''s games more "fun."

I agree with Oluseyi. Think about it. If you see a very realistic game, yet something in it is very unrealistic (like running full speed into a wall in a racing game leaves no dent in the wall, or not being able to blow a hole in the ground with a grenade, etc.), the unrealistic thing really stands out. You start to wonder why you can''t do a certain thing, or why you can do a certain other thing, and you get distracted from the gameplay.

great reply Oluseyi & guys. It will take me time to understand it more.

Means it will be very easy to find holes in HalfLife2/D3 unless they distract me by their gameplay.

[edited by - DirectxXx on March 8, 2004 4:24:24 PM]

Then why are so desperately trying to achieve the realistic level if the simple design works just as fine? We know that would take years to accomplish, even the current technology is not enough to simulate them all, and I don''t know when it will.

I truly understand DirectXXX feeling... great old games...
I do have the impression than before the game equation was balanced differently, i mean.

gameplay - immersivenes (if such a word exists) - responsiveness - graphics - realism

while now is more (roughly) like

graphics - realism - gameplay - responsiveness - immersivenes

I think because is more easy, cheap and obvious (for corps) to enhace the graphics and realism or physics simulations than the creative side of games (any new tetris or pacman around?)

But still starcraft or unreal are not old at all and still they really rock!

-Mat

PS: Now i need a good session of ghost''n goblins!

quote: Original post by alnite
Then why are so desperately trying to achieve the realistic level if the simple design works just as fine?

Because it''s easy to convince people that they need to buy a product that includes a seven-syllable technique. Because the new graphics techniques obviate perfectly good hardware, and thus sustain an entire industry (Do you have any idea how flat PC sales are in general? Do you know how vertical high-end/gamer PC sales are? Do the math...) It''s the lure of filthy lucre, patron!

[We''re a weird bunch, humanity. The societal organization method that has worked best for us is capitalism, yet it''s a system that eventually consumes itself. We incessantly demand "growth" and "improvement", causing "recessions" just to level things a bit. Yes, I - die-hard capitalist - am faulting capitalism (for once).]

quote: Original post by matias suarez
...immersivenes (if such a word exists)...

Immersion.

quote: ...(any new tetris or pacman around?)...

Tetris Worlds
Tetrisphere
PacMan World 2

quote: PS: Now i need a good session of ghost''n goblins!

Maximo versus The Army of Zin (just had to)