Have at it.

[dcm]

I'm sick of these terrible "but the graphics are better!" arguments. Gameplay is the only thing in a game that should really matter.

[Chickensuit]

They asked for responses on their site, it seems that most are pulling for the retro!
One poster put it this way...

"The problem with new games is the time investment needed (a) to understand the game, its controls, and the goal of the game and (b) how long it takes to simply "turn the game on and start playing".

Old school -- you bet I am... not to reveal my age but I was pretty young when the pong machine got hooked up to the TV. Then there was Atari, Intelivision, and Nintendo. You could pretty much just turn those on and start playing.

Once Game cube, Sega, and the like hit the scene ... your time investment rose somewhat making it harder to sneak away for a quick 30 minute "duck hunt" or "mortal combat"... but still doable.

Today? Forget it!

Give me on button, some simple controls, and a simple game. I don't care about graphics and I don't need a game to occupy me for hours, days, and weeks.

If you want more realistic graphics or game play, put away the plastic drum set and push button guitar and pick up the real thing. Swing a tennis racket and not a Wii controller.

I need a diversion... not a lifestyle "


WELL SAID!

[General Chaos]

The only one that was actually true was #4, and that was basically a gimme.

3D graphics are obviously more technically sophisticated, but I often prefer 2D-sprite based graphics. I don't doubt that it takes skill to model 3d images (though I suspect there is a lot of stock-image use), but nothing compares to an original hand drawn sprite booming with personality (at least in my opinion).

[Dylan]

3D graphics are obviously more technically sophisticated, but I often prefer 2D-sprite based graphics. I don't doubt that it takes skill to model 3d images (though I suspect there is a lot of stock-image use), but nothing compares to an original hand drawn sprite booming with personality (at least in my opinion).

I absolutely agree. I always thought that sprites were impressive based on the limitations that had to be worked with. That's What makes them artistic, the less you have to work with, the more creative you must become. Graphics and music in games sometimes paradoxically become worse once they reach a higher cap, because the creativity that was an absolute requirement is no longer necessary.

[Reverend]

I love how they mentioned better controls and showed a WiiMote/Nunchuck.

[dcm]

Funny how they print this article now when I'd honestly say this is the worst generation of consoles ever.

[enderfall]

In defense of the author's point that modern games are cheaper, he's using the inflation price point for games when they were brand new. His point is that although games are nearly the same base rate as they were 15-20 years ago, they have remained stagnant when discounting inflation. Assuming inflation was added to the $50 price point in 1994, we could reasonably expect to pay $70 (or more) nowadays. Since new games are still $50-60, they are thus cheaper.

But just about everything else in the article would be average for a 5th grader.

[Jrecee]

Better controls?

When I push the A button on my snes controller the character jumps.
When I flail the wiimote around like a retard the character sometime jumps.

[weasels]

I CANT STAND IT. actually i saw the headline and clicked it off. i really feel sick from this. i cant stand this type of biased opinion. even if everyone should have the right to believe what they want to. i will never forget and i still haven't forgotten the games that i found fun in the past and still find them great today (most are still better than new games). actually today was a reminiscing day for me so this couldn't of come at a worse time.

[(-_-)]

That was kind of painful.