Is There A "Too Old" Cut-Off Point on Games For You?

[pankakes123]

I just can't go past the SNES/Genesis personally. A few NES games I enjoy, but for most of them I just can't get into them.

[isiolia]

I have fairly little interest in consoles predating the NES, since I never had them growing up, nor did I play any of them when they were remotely current.

In terms of computers, the first I really used was the Apple II - really the first machine I gamed on.

That said, my interest is probably more focused on early-90s and on (DOS, 16-bit era), as that basically corresponds to when I started reading gaming magazines, selecting and buying games for myself, and so on. A lot more nostalgic feelings for that era than for stuff prior.

[AppleQueso]

no

Same here, pretty much.

Cutting off at the NES? So many fantastic arcade classics you're flat out ignoring! The late 70s/early 80s is probably the greatest, most creative period for arcade games ever.

Not to mention that Atari 2600, Odyssey 2, Colecovision, etc have some of the most pure gaming experiences around. And I'm not just saying this because I grew up with them or something, far from it. I'm only 22, I was born the same year as the Genesis.

[foxhound1022]

I can honestly say ther isn't for me. Keystone Kapers on 2600 is still one of my all-time favorite games. Couple that with Donkey Kong, Berserk, and Super Breakout; classic goodness. Also love me some Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

[J T]

I guess when you go pre-Nintendo or early DOS, then I am much less likely to play anything that isn't considered a classic or highly unique, but after that I'll try pretty much anything.

[BoringSupreez]

Consoles: Anything before the NES and SMS is a no-go for me. I've played plenty of 2600 and it just doesn't appeal to me. The games are way too simple.
Handhelds: Nothing before 2005 unless it's made by Nintendo.
PC: 1990 is the farthest back I go. 80s PC games are typically very ugly (what's with color schemes that use nothing but shade of blue and purple?), hard to get running, and frequently user-unfriendly.

[cookie monster]

No i don't really have a cut off point other than price i collect from pong systems and atari up to the new stuff. I just enjoy buying stuff i never had as a kid.

[hashiriya1]

My first system was a 5200. So anything before does nothing for me. I tried, but couldn't get into it.

[o.pwuaioc]

I don't care too much for the 2600, although I think that's more because I find the ratio of bad games to good games much higher than I'd like. There are a few good games on the 2600, but overall, I'd much rather play the arcade versions via later ports or compilation disks. This doesn't, however, always translate over for me on later systems, so that I e.g. often will prefer to play Gradius III on the SNES rather than on the PS2. Unfortunately, I haven't played any other pre-NES (i.e. pre-1983, so technically pre-Famicom) console, so I can't comment on them.

For arcade games, I'm not that big on pre-1980 games. I don't know everything that was released before 1980, but I think nothing interested me except Breakout and Asteroids, although to be fair I haven't played that many of the dozens of games that came out. Even with Space Invaders and Galaxian, I tend to just skip the two and move straight onto Galaga, which I find much more appealing. Pac-Man, Donkey Kong, Ms. Pac-Man, Galaga, Centipede - I'll take the early 1980s games any day, but I tend to just not have a connection with anything earlier. Maybe that'll change, along with the Atari 2600 and other early consoles, as I discover and play more games, but seeing as I already have a huge backlog and not that much time to sit and play for hours, who knows?

[MrPopo]

I'm in the same boat with regards to the 2600. I'd much rather play the far superior arcade versions of many of the games considered good for that system. With PC titles of the era I'd definitely be more discerning; lots of games of the era hadn't figured out good ways of controlling your character and that'd be a big stumbling block for me.