Anyone else feels bored by the new titles?

[Bugg]

Im not shallow.

Have you watched all black and white movies and poked a dead rat with a stick or whatever the children did for fun "back in the old days"? Before 2000.. even before 2004 or so was just before my time.

Right. you are not shallow.

Post constructively. Infracted.

[Deleted]

Right. you are not shallow.

Yep, glad we got that established.

Post constructively. Infracted.

[May90]

I dont want to try something that was made before my time and is clearly inferior when compared to the more recent releases.

No offense, Lizbeth, but not having tried old games and claiming that they are "clearly inferior" is stupid. You can't claim that games you have never played are "clearly inferior". Well, you can, of course, but don't expect people to buy it.

Do you also call Star Wars: Episode 4 clearly inferior to Episode 2, I wonder? Or Alien clearly inferior to Alien vs Predator? Or Terminator clearly inferior to Terminator 4? And also, actually, Chess was made WAY before, say, Hearthstone. Chess is so terrible compared to it, huh?

[Deleted]

No offense, Lizbeth, but not having tried old games and claiming that they are "clearly inferior" is stupid. You can't claim that games you have never played are "clearly inferior". Well, you can, of course, but don't expect people to buy it.

Do you also call Star Wars: Episode 4 clearly inferior to Episode 2, I wonder? Or Alien clearly inferior to Alien vs Predator? Or Terminator clearly inferior to Terminator 4? And also, actually, Chess was made WAY before, say, Hearthstone. Chess is so terrible compared to it, huh?

If they aren't inferior, why are they cheaper than new games? Some are ever given away for free..

Obviously, if they were as good as new ones, the companies that made then would be after profit and would charge as much money for them. So yes, they're clearly inferior to new games. It's just that some people don't like to talk about it because of nostalgia or other reasons.

Oh and Chess isn't a computer game, its a board game that has also been adapted to be played on a computer. It doesnt exactly compare to computer games.

[Crissi]

If they aren't inferior, why are they cheaper than new games? Some are ever given away for free..

Obviously, if they were as good as new ones, the companies that made then would be after profit and would charge as much money for them. So yes, they're clearly inferior to new games. It's just that some people don't like to talk about it because of nostalgia or other reasons.

Oh and Chess isn't a computer game, its a board game that has also been adapted to be played on a computer. It doesnt exactly compare to computer games.

Inferior graphics does not necessarily make for inferior story or inferior game play. Thats what makes some older games superior, but the inferior graphics and older system requirements are why they are cheaper, unless they remaster them like they did for FFVII.

[May90]

If they aren't inferior, why are they cheaper than new games? Some are ever given away for free..

There are a few reasons. First of all, there are many people who have never played these games and, yet, like you, do not even bother trying them and call them inferior in advance - all of that doesn't really help these games sell. Then, many of the old games have sequels, and it is economically better to support these games with patches and new content, rather than 15 years old predecessor. Also, old games are owned by many people already, and it is simply easier to just borrow a CD from some of your friends or buy it for next to nothing on E-Bay - no one will buy Doom 2 for $20 if he/she can buy it for $2 on E-Bay, or even simply download it illegally, since no one will care about law violations with relation to 20 years old games.

Obviously, if they were as good as new ones, the companies that made then would be after profit and would charge as much money for them. So yes, they're clearly inferior to new games. It's just that some people don't like to talk about it because of nostalgia or other reasons.

Well, Balgur's Gate 1,2 Enhanced Edition and Age of Empires 2 HD sell quite well. Because these games were just so much superior to the modern games that even being 15 years old with all the problems I described above didn't prevent people from buying them. Games that are just as good or slightly better than similar modern games won't be bought by anyone, not because they are worse, but because they are old, and it is not "cool" to play old games anymore. People who really loved that certain old game already have it and play it, and those who didn't or who haven't tried it won't this time either for the same reason as before.

Take me, for example. I have all the old games I like on my CDs. Why would I buy Age of Empires: Rise of Rome for $30 if I already have it? What is the potential players base then? People who have never played the game before. People like you, who don't care trying old games whatsoever and call them "clearly inferior" nonetheless, and people who for some reason didn't like the game back in 90-s or now when they watch it on Youtube or played on friend's computer. Either of these categories won't buy this game for clear reasons.

Oh and Chess isn't a computer game, its a board game that has also been adapted to be played on a computer. It doesnt exactly compare to computer games.

But it is an old game anyway, right? Very poor old game graphically and technically. What is the point playing 500 years old game when you can play Hearthstone which is a few months old and, hence, by your logic, "clearly superior"?

---

Now, I don't try to offend you - sorry if it seems that way. But, you have to admit, calling the games you have never played "clearly inferior" is not very persuasive, right?

[Kickbuttmario]

Now, I don't try to offend you - sorry if it seems that way. But, you have to admit, calling the games you have never played "clearly inferior" is not very persuasive, right?

Don't bother. He is nuts!! Almost all of his arguments have been crazy and filled with making me facepalm!!

[Deleted]

If you happen to have a controller try Dark Souls or Red Faction: guerrilla.

Both games are horrible pc ports but the games are just too good.

[Deleted]

But it is an old game anyway, right? Very poor old game graphically and technically. What is the point playing 500 years old game when you can play Hearthstone which is a few months old and, hence, by your logic, "clearly superior"?

---

Now, I don't try to offend you - sorry if it seems that way. But, you have to admit, calling the games you have never played "clearly inferior" is not very persuasive, right?

Well, I guess you can reason like that sure but a "timeless" game would have to be completely separate from graphics and gameplay mechanics then which is just not likely and to be honest I don't know of any game like that. Even the ones that "age well" still age and cant keep up with times and technology.

If you take a game like chess, the hardware doesnt really factor into it at all. It was designed around people manually moving the pieces and the graphics and things like that dont matter at all here. I guess a computer game analogue would be solitaire or minesweeper. Or card and board games in general because they don't rely on graphics and computer specific features at all.

On the other hand, games that do have a graphic component or any hardware or software dependent component that could be improved upon and that would change the game for the better do age and are inferior to newer games.

[May90]

Well, I guess you can reason like that sure but a "timeless" game would have to be completely separate from graphics and gameplay mechanics then which is just not likely and to be honest I don't know of any game like that. Even the ones that "age well" still age and cant keep up with times and technology.

They are timeless, but only for people who don't mind old graphics, mechanics and such. For me Doom 2 is timeless: I played it 20 years ago, play it now and will, probably, play it 20 years later. For some people it is different: a game with new graphics came out - and they never come back to the older games.
Like with music: for some people Jackson's songs from 70-s are timeless and they listen to them all the time, while other people don't want principally to listen to anything older than 5 y/o.

I understand your reasoning: modern technologies are better than old ones and, so, the games based on them should be better as well. It is not completely true. Sure, James Bond from 2010-s has much better special effects, video camera, sound positioning and so on than James Bond from 1960-s. But is it better a movie? Certainly not. Special effects cannot cover shallowness of plot and acting.
You see, modern technologies can be used to create masterpieces. But they can also be used to create cheap products and sell them for big cash. The better the technologies, the easier it is to produce a product. And if it is so easy to produce a product, then why bother trying to make it of high quality? People will buy it anyway, if you advertise it well enough.

If you take a game like chess, the hardware doesnt really factor into it at all. It was designed around people manually moving the pieces and the graphics and things like that dont matter at all here. I guess a computer game analogue would be solitaire or minesweeper. Or card and board games in general because they don't rely on graphics and computer specific features at all.

OK, Chess is probably not the best example. But it does show that it is possible to create something that will be the best of its genre even 500 years ago: how many clones of Chess have been made in this time, and yet they all were completely crushed in competition. Why don't you think the same can be said about games? Why can't there be games that will be the best in their genre even 30 years after the release? There are many, actually. How many clones has Diablo 2 seen, and yet even active Diablo 3 and Path of Exile players admit that that game is the best Hack'n'Slash game of all time. And there are many such example. It is a pity that many people, including you, do not even give these games chance because they were released before 200x year.

On the other hand, games that do have a graphic component or any hardware or software dependent component that could be improved upon and that would change the game for the better do age and are inferior to newer games.

Why do you assume that improving graphical component leaves alone other components? You can't work over everything. If you want to create a game on limited budget, you have to either develop it for dozens years (and it will become outdated during development already), or to focus your efforts on a few properties, while sacrificing others.
Take 2 games, each is developed for 2 years. You can focus on the gameplay diversity and longevity, leaving the graphical component behind: the game won't look as great as some other games, but it will be interesting to play. Or you can focus on the graphics improvement, sacrificing gameplay diversity and longevity: the game will look great in Youtube trailer and in public demonstrations, but it will become boring very soon because no one will play a game that offers nothing more than shiny graphics.
Now, surely, with time graphics is constantly improved, and you need less and less time to keep it on the same level as before, and that frees a lot of time for improving other properties. But do developers necessarily use this time to make the games even better than before? Or do they instead grow lazy and use the freed time to browse Facebook and Youtube videos, degrading in terms of resourcefulness and originality of thinking? I don't think many sane people would prefer the first option. Really, if you can make more money than before for less effort than before, what is the point not putting less effort than before?