Your journey into retro games?

[oxymoron]

For a native speaker, you sure have problem grasping the English language. If there's one thing I've made abundantly clear during my stay on this forum, it's that I hate modern

I understand what you are saying about modern games but a lot of the extra gameplay you get with them ends up being filler. Personally, I'd rather play a game that is shorter and but has no filler. Sure you can get more bang for your buck with the PS3/360 but you can't find the variety that you can with other systems such as the SNES, N64, etc.

[Menegrothx]

That's how I like most of my games. Paying 30-40 dollars, in some cases 70-130 dollars, for a game that I complete in an hour or two (or even 15-30 minutes) as soon as the game arrives isn't all that uncommon for me. Hence my comment, retro gaming can get expensive quickly when you start going after some of the best&most sought after games some systems have to offer. The situation is better on disc based systems, though there are some really short and sweet games on PS1, Saturn, Dreamcast etc.

[BoringSupreez]

For a native speaker, you sure have problem grasping the English language. If there's one thing I've made abundantly clear during my stay on this forum, it's that I hate modern

I understand what you are saying about modern games but a lot of the extra gameplay you get with them ends up being filler. Personally, I'd rather play a game that is shorter and but has no filler. Sure you can get more bang for your buck with the PS3/360 but you can't find the variety that you can with other systems such as the SNES, N64, etc.

I'm sorry, but even if the N64 is my favorite console ever I can't let this go without comment. That simply is not true. The N64 was very heavy on 3D platformers/action games, shooters, and wrestling. Not much else. The PS3 has everything as far as I know, and the lack of region locking opens up even more choices most of us don't even consider. Just because a game is old does not mean it is longer, and retro systems don't necessarily have more variety.

[Menegrothx]

Though you can find certain kind of variety from N64 you can't find from anywhere else, or atleast from modern consoles.

[oxymoron]

For a native speaker, you sure have problem grasping the English language. If there's one thing I've made abundantly clear during my stay on this forum, it's that I hate modern

I understand what you are saying about modern games but a lot of the extra gameplay you get with them ends up being filler. Personally, I'd rather play a game that is shorter and but has no filler. Sure you can get more bang for your buck with the PS3/360 but you can't find the variety that you can with other systems such as the SNES, N64, etc.

I'm sorry, but even if the N64 is my favorite console ever I can't let this go without comment. That simply is not true. The N64 was very heavy on 3D platformers/action games, shooters, and wrestling. Not much else. The PS3 has everything as far as I know, and the lack of region locking opens up even more choices most of us don't even consider. Just because a game is old does not mean it is longer, and retro systems don't necessarily have more variety.

But when you retro game you usually have more than one console. Sorry, I should have said that.

[oxymoron]

That's how I like most of my games. Paying 30-40 dollars, in some cases 70-130 dollars, for a game that I complete in an hour or two (or even 15-30 minutes) as soon as the game arrives isn't all that uncommon for me. Hence my comment, retro gaming can get expensive quickly when you start going after some of the best&most sought after games some systems have to offer. The situation is better on disc based systems, though there are some really short and sweet games on PS1, Saturn, Dreamcast etc.

That's the case when you have been collecting as long as you have. I just started (as you previously stated ) and atm good games rarely cost me 30-130 dollars. It's very true that down the road it does get expensive but for the beginning it's relatively cheap.

[isiolia]

But when you retro game you usually have more than one console. Sorry, I should have said that.

Even with that, the modern systems, particularly if you include direct-download titles, offer a fairly wide variety of games.

Plus, if you're counting multiple consoles, why not modern too in that mix? There are great games from every generation.

[oxymoron]

But when you retro game you usually have more than one console. Sorry, I should have said that.

Even with that, the modern systems, particularly if you include direct-download titles, offer a fairly wide variety of games.

Plus, if you're counting multiple consoles, why not modern too in that mix? There are great games from every generation.

I think it isn't fair to put modern and retro gaming head to head and debate which is the better. Both sides has their positives and negatives and serve to different tastes.

[dsheinem]

@Menegrothx

Why are you trying to justify that modern games are the Aryan race?

What the hell?

Yeah---so we're cool with no explanation for this? just wanna see what the temperment is like here these days...

a bunch of the newer posters are, apparently, bringing bad habits from other gamer forums with them here. shit needs to stop.

edit: i see he did it again...wtf?!

[oxymoron]

@Menegrothx

Why are you trying to justify that modern games are the Aryan race?

What the hell?

Yeah---so we're cool with no explanation for this? just wanna see what the temperment is like here these days...

a bunch of the newer posters are, apparently, bringing bad habits from other gamer forums with them here. shit needs to stop.

edit: i see he did it again...wtf?!

What did I do that's so wrong?