So apparently "Retro Games" suck..........

[littlecallen]

I hate the way this generation has become in that people seek nothing but a graphical breakthrough that apparently automatically makes a game incredible. I play a mess ton of games that span all across gaming history and I have to say that if left alone on an island with Call of Duty MW2 I'd enjoy it, sure, but after a while I would be looking for fun and/or entertaining ways to commit suicide. If left with The Legend Of Zelda, however, I would not stop until i had conquered the game, pressed forward by an unnaturally developed addiction for the 8 bit temptress. This way I am no longer afforded the option of suicide because then, after beating the game, I would be driven back to conquer the came once more, leaving me in a perpetual cycle of not island death.

Classic games rape the modern and Legend of Zelda saves lives.

[Krooner]

The retro games video is the same bullshit. He gets an argument no one is making and trounces it. That's it. But then people who actually identify as retro gamers and are not completely stupid might appear and take offense to that. The argument is practically designed to do that.

Of course it is, if it doesn't polarise then no one talks about it. yes he's ultimately being facetious but that's the point, it's a debate starter not a sermon. I think he's top class, he's nicely filled the hole left behind when 'Rev Rants' stopped.

...Anthony was an incredibly forward-thinking enthusiast of video games' potential to affect on deeper levels than we expect them to, and the potential ways which developers could go about realizing such moving experiences in games. He got gamers to to talk on a higher level about games than they were accustomed to, and was ultimately a great thing for the community at large. Jim just says a bunch of bullshit that even he probably doesn't believe 70% of the time so he can get cheap hits. I'm not impressed by a person's ability to get hits if he's just doing it by stirring up controversy and nothing else of worth... even if he gets twenty times as many hits as Anthony, that doesn't mean he's done an effective job of filling the hole left by Anthony's departure... they're different holes entirely. Hint: Jim's type of hole starts with an "A."

I agree completely that the angles are poles apart, but the end result is to get people talking. The site needed that.

I wouldn't say Jim is really stirring it for the sake of it, while he obviously enjoys winding up the "lerp a derps" (as he would put it) The points he's making are completely valid and alot of the time true, whether you enjoy how its presented is academic really. He's not pole-axing retro games and gamers, (a point which some of the posters on this thread seem to be missing) ultimately he's saying it's not really any different then and now. We've always had shit games.
The off-shot of retro gamers who're insisting that it used to be better deserve the lambasting, it didn't. While you can argue simpler games were more fun, as far as delivering narrative or an experience on the whole, we're at the forefront now.

Don't get caught up in his sensationalist hyperbole. Brass tacks, the point is a good one.

[sonix]

Objectively speaking, modern games are better in almost everything than retro games. Visual and audio quality being the most visible aspects that have improved. Nowadays games look, move and sound better, give players more possibilites, can actually be realistic when they need to be, have bigger lastability, and the overall standard quality has risen. Of course all of the above points are debatable but let's agree for a moment that in general games nowadays are actually better, pretty much substantialy.

But are they more fun?

Not necessarily. That's the question which causes the old "old-school was better" vs "retro games suck, next-gen rules" wars, conflicting answers in particular. Gamers who prefer retro titles or are unimpressed by shiny graphics basically find old games more fun, and what's more important than the entertainment factor when it comes to games? Nothing. Problem is it's the most subjective one, you can't deny that e.g. Fifa 11 in HD looks better than Sensible Soccer, you can't say that Super Mario Bros. offers more content and play time than Super Mario Galaxy. But you can always say you prefer SS over FIFA, SMB over SMG or Outrun over Need for Speed and basically noone can tell that you're wrong because that's your personal opinon, based on your personal feelings regarding those games. The other party can say otherwise and stay by their next-gen games. Nobody's right nor wrong. It's that people for some reason tend to convince others that their taste is better no matter what, nobody cares for "de gustibus non disputandum est". The discussion will always be open, but it shouldn't be based on "self-proclaimed" facts as in this case, as always when people's personal tastes get into fight, they pretty much don't exist.

[Inazuma]

I agree with Sonicx's post above mine. Today's technology is better, but are today's games actually more fun than retro games? I'm not so sure, to be honest.

I watched the video and while the guy does have a few good points, he is mostly comparing today's best games with shitty retro games. He should at least be more fair and compare good games with good games. Yes, there were tons of shitty retro games. But there are also tons of shitty modern games.

I am one of those retro gamers who actually believes that retro games are more fun than today's games. Of course there are still many great games coming out all the time, but overall I prefer retro games because they are just more fun for me.

[AmishSamurai]

I agree with Sonicx's post above mine. Today's technology is better, but are today's games actually more fun than retro games? I'm not so sure, to be honest.

I watched the video and while the guy does have a few good points, he is mostly comparing today's best games with shitty retro games. He should at least be more fair and compare good games with good games. Yes, there were tons of shitty retro games. But there are also tons of shitty modern games.

I am one of those retro gamers who actually believes that retro games are more fun than today's games. Of course there are still many great games coming out all the time, but overall I prefer retro games because they are just more fun for me.

Of course he wouldn't make it a fair comparison. He's a troll- it's like how Yahtzee reviews games we all know he'll hate just to rile up the fans, or he'll judge a game after playing the tutorial.

The best part about retro games is that while new games stop being new, retro games are always retro. So 10 years from now the retro community can claim that GOTY as their own.

[daito_kid]

Must be nice to essentially make your living as a troll.

That's pretty much all he's doing with this article, but because he's arguing against retro games his argument is biased to the point of propaganda, hence the quote of taking what he says with a lot of salt.

He has his point with shitty licensed gamed are made to trick kids, and that hasn't changed, but he addresses all the technological leap forwards, instead of game play. For me, both new and retro games have a treasure chests full of great titles, and a pile of shit=titles that each treasure chest sits on top of, but my biggest problem with the new gaming craze is that it's expensive to enjoy a console from the first launch day, and now with extra add-on content, and small avatars being charged at ridiculous prices on the xbox live marketplace and sony's online network, it seems like everyone in the gaming industry now is trying to squeeze every last penny from their audience.

That's all I have to say.

[AppleQueso]

I agree with Sonicx's post above mine. Today's technology is better, but are today's games actually more fun than retro games? I'm not so sure, to be honest.

I watched the video and while the guy does have a few good points, he is mostly comparing today's best games with shitty retro games. He should at least be more fair and compare good games with good games. Yes, there were tons of shitty retro games. But there are also tons of shitty modern games.

I am one of those retro gamers who actually believes that retro games are more fun than today's games. Of course there are still many great games coming out all the time, but overall I prefer retro games because they are just more fun for me.

Of course he wouldn't make it a fair comparison. He's a troll- it's like how Yahtzee reviews games we all know he'll hate just to rile up the fans, or he'll judge a game after playing the tutorial.

The best part about retro games is that while new games stop being new, retro games are always retro. So 10 years from now the retro community can claim that GOTY as their own.

Yahtzee's made plenty of fair and even pretty positive reviews of plenty of games. Usually the stuff he reviews that he knows he'll hate he does so because he caves to fan pressure (see: SSBB).

[J T]

Jim Sterling may be a bit of a troll, but I quite enjoyed his tirade on videogame piracy:

http://www.destructoid.com/the-jimquisi ... 3721.phtml

[Inazuma]

Jim Sterling may be a bit of a troll, but I quite enjoyed his tirade on videogame piracy:

http://www.destructoid.com/the-jimquisi ... 3721.phtml

I agree with his main point about piracy. A lot of people are like that. However, not all of them. I am one of the exceptions who doesn't lie about it and make excuses. When I say I pirate a game because of DRM, that's the truth. I would have absolutely bought the game if it had no DRM.

I recently bought a flash cart for the Mega Drive, yet I continue to buy physical games for it all the time. I also recently bought a DSi flash cart so I can try out games before I buy them. If there is a DS game I want, I will buy the real thing because I prefer it that way, and I actually like to support people for products I like.

[corn619]

You what I love about retro games over todays games? Its the simplicity factor. I love when I fire up my SNES that I don't have to download a new security update followed by a game fixing patch that takes 20 to 30 mins. I love that after 20 years, my SNES works the same as the day I bought it. I love that I can fire up my SNES and play for 10 to 15 minutes and have fun since my gaming time is limited these days. After 10 mins with a new console, I've barely made it past the first loading screen.

Another thing I've noticed is that older games usually have a tighter focus of the game creators original vision, mainly due to smaller dev teams. Games these days have way too many people working on them. I think that the original idea of the game can get muddled due to the many hands and suits in the pot. And the main reason I love 2D over 3D? No fucking camera issues. Theres nothing I hate more when the gameplay is crippled by the stupid camera. Although this issue has gotten a little better this console generation.