Modern Gaming/Classic Gaming..... where's the dividing line?

[Atari_Worshipper]

The bottom line is a good game is a good whether it was released 25 years ago or released last month. I wouldn't doubt that 10-20 years down the road we will have people talking about how Xbox, GC, PS2 were the greatest systems, and everything after it sucked only because of their warm and fuzzy feelings playing them when they were younger.

 

That's goddamn right!

 

btw, welcome to the boards, Jay!

 

Rock and Roll is dead? I disagree with that on the video games front AND on the rock and roll front! (As a hardcore gamer and a solo musician, I feel stongly against that.) This resourceful corporation wouldn't be enron, would it?

[Cootster]

Any systam that does not have games released for it by major game publishers is classic.

 

Well, that disqualifies the 2600 . . . Activision, Sega, and Konami are definitely major game publishers . . .

[donkeykong1]

The way I see answer to the question is, Classic aming is what you can't buy in stores anymore ( except for the fact that there are a few DC games on clearance at TRU or other things like that) Moder Gaming is what is on the shelves now that is selling and is still being produced ie. PS2, X-BOX, Gamecube, and Gameboy Advance etc.

[Avid Fan]

Not that what I care matters. But I think of classic being 1993 or before. SNES, Genesis and even 3DO are considered classic to me, but N64, playstation, Saturn, and the virtual Boy are modern, but outdated.

[Outlaw X]

Hey,will some of you please try to understand why some of us eighties children are nostalgic for our games? I mean, they are one of the few things that have stayed solid and true...for example....

 

In the 80's: Ozzy was a metal madman who scared your parents to death!!

Modern day: Ozzy is a nice old man who occasionally hurls hams at his neighbors...

 

In the 80's: You could still buy a car with actual steel in it, that had room for your legs.....

Modern Day: I had toy cars when I was 5 that were safer than whats on the road now.....

 

In the 80's: I swore when I got over eighteen I'd get full sleeves of tattoos and be the biggest rebel ever!!

Modern Day: I have my tattoos..so do most the people I intended to be different from....trends...blah!!!

 

So cut us a break, ok? ( Just trying to lighten the mood!!)

[Atari_Worshipper]

 

In the 80's: You could still buy a car with actual steel in it, that had room for your legs.....  

Modern Day: I had toy cars when I was 5 that were safer than whats on the road now.....  

 

 

FALSE!!

 

Cars today use less steel, but that doesn't make them less safe.... I had this debate on a car forum back in 2003, so I'll use the same example:

 

Lets say a 1977 Chevy Silverado and a 2003 Chevy Silverado go headlong into eachother too fast, what happens?

 

The 2003 is totalled, the guy inside gets out, wipes his bloody nose on his shirt, gets his insurrance check, gets himself a 2003 Chevy Silverado, a new shirt, cause his last one got bloodied, and a hamburger, cause, well, why not?

 

The 1977 doesn't sustain a whole lot of damage... it will need a new grille, a new bumper, a new headlight, maybe a new quarter panel, a realignment, oh and one other teeny, tiny little thing: A NEW DRIVER!! Cause they're burying the guy tuesday!!

 

And that assuming that the 77 isn't rusty... if it's rusty, oh boy! A cloud of red dust, a motor, a corpse, and a less damaged 2003.

 

It is a common misconception that old cars are safer, cause passing by a wreck of the two, the new one looks to have taken it worse...but they don't take into account things like crush zones and airbags (I know airbags are actually the direct cause of death in a few cases, but they are also the direct cause of salvation of many many more... kill a few, save a multitude, you choose.) Crush zones are points in the cars where they are designed to collapse so as to absorb the brunt of the impact, ergo, protecting the passengers. The old ones that were solid steel didn't absorb much of the impact, so what did? The passengers!!! Well, the cargo too, but cargo can't die.

 

Yes, the new cars are less resiliant in a wreck, but having to lose the car and not your life is definitely the lesser of the two evils

 

Actually, since we're mentioning the 80's, in this respect at least, the 80's were about as bad as it got, cause they were smaller and lighter, but didn't have the safety features.. so they basically were small steel boxes that had the safety disadvantages of their older, bigger sisters, but lacked the safety advantages that came with sheer mass. Now, I don't think all 80's cars were garbage, I really think very few of them were, in fact, as many many many of them are still on the roads. I actually have a 1989 Lincoln Towncar in my garage to be restored. I do my day to day driving in a 2003 Ford Taurus. (It's silver! )

[Atari_Worshipper]

 

Hey,will some of you please try to understand why some of us eighties children are nostalgic for our games?

 

 

Now this, I can relate with entirely. I am almost entirely ruled by nostalgia. And I'm a bit older than some of these others, I'm 24 so I can understand the feelings of removal from the newer games cause I'm beginning to lose my ability to relate with them, but that doesn't make the new games garbage, or even a step down, it just means the beginnings of the "getting old" process have begun on me. The only diff between me and you is whereas the Atari 2600/5200/Colecovision were your systems, mine were the NES/Genesis/SNES, but I hold them in the same worship-like state of reverence that you hold your systems.. and I am a huge fan of your era as well, I enjoy the era before mine more than the eras after mine, but I still like the new ones.... But don't be offended, we aren't targetting you or your generation, we are simply retaliating in defense of the new from some of the "group think" things that your generation, and some of mine have been saying about them... that's all

 

 

So cut us a break, ok?

 

 

 

I have a hard time not correcting what I perceive as mistakes or falsities or misconceptions..... it drives my wife crazy!!

[Outlaw X]

Well, my daily driver is actually a '79 Buick Electra 225..not quite an '80s car but close enough. I'd drive it into a war without hesitation!!!...ok, no I wouldn't because I'd scratch the new black paint job and I might damage the rebuilt engine..but otherwise I'd show no mercy!!! I'd agree with you somewhat at least on mid eighties cars leaning towards crap..but I still stand behind 1975-1985 GM's as good cars....now, if your talking VERY desirable cars, then we're talking '69 Camaros, '57 Bel Airs, 71' Monte Carlos...I could go on and on..but anyways on to games. I'm coming up on 30, so I'm past the "getting old" process, I'm just old, lol. Maybe stuborness comes with getting old too..who knows I might buy an Xbox and love it...but another thing that comes with age is being cheap..and I ain't about to shell out no 200 bucks!!! When the price comes down, I might buy one, by then the Super Ultra Expando Xbox will be available for the meer price of $575, lol.

[Atari_Worshipper]

 

That Electra is a great car! Black is real nice! What sized engine did you say is in there? I'm a fan of the "Boat" cars. The rear wheel drive full frame V-8s Like the caprice or the Fleetwood Broughham or the Grand Marquis, or, of course, the Towncar. In fact, my identity on that car forum is "The Boat Car Man" As far as it not being an 80's car, GM boatcars changed from the hulking monster-barge 70's style to the smaller but still huge 80's style in 77 so yours is an 80's car dispite the year... that, or all the 80's boats are actually 70's cars run late?

 

The 60's Camaro's are cool, no doubt, but when we're talking about a car as a collector and not a commuter, the most important thing in my mind is the cosmetic. Why? Cause you can do almost anything to boost the power, or the handling or the exhaust note, etc. etc. etc. But you're pretty much stuck with the styling. That being said, that puts most of my desirables into the late 70's, early 80's. For example. I think the later C-3's are the coolest corvettes. I also think the 75-81 camaro is the coolest looking. a 71 Chevelle would be mighty nice though. For your sports cars/muscle cars, I prefer GM over Ford, but as far as boatcars go, I prefer the Ford makes.

 

I'm actually thinking about trading my 89 Lincoln for a 79. I know that the 89 is the better car. It's more powerful (definitely more zippy, at least) and it's got like, double the gas milage, and I actually prefer the interior cosmetics of the 89 to the 79, but I think I prefer the exterior cosmetics on the 79, that, and I like the fact that is THE biggest car put out in the past 70 years. The 89 is over a foot shorter and almost 1000 lbs lighter.

 

What I'm trying to do is justify having both!

 

 

How did we start talking cars on the video game forum?! We never started talking video games on the car forum! Though it'd've been nice.

[Atari_Worshipper]

I should add that I only just got the Taurus, like, 3 weeks ago. Until then, the Towncar was my daily doer too. I think I might be more excited that I can now start restoring it than I might be about having the 2003 Tuarus, I don't know. The Taurus rocks!

 

But I'm just so excited to be able to get started on the towncar. I'm gonna have the pleather top replaced in black, pull off all the body panels and paint them black after a good sanding/scrubbing, then I'm gonna replace the gears with a much more power-minded set, I'm gonna put in dual exhaust, put underdrive pulleys on the motor, replace the CPU in the car's computer, replace the wheels and have the rims restored. I'm gonna put chrome all along the lower side panels like the signature series had, but I'm also gonna put it up and over the wheel well bulges. The last two things I'm gonna do to it are redo the interior in grey (1989 stock, though, it'll look just like the original except grey and not tan and, of course, in better condition) and put in a good stereo system wid lotsa bass for da boom. Then that'll be my weekend/special occasion cruiser.

 

Next I'll go for a late 70's Camaro and do the same type of thing to it... only, I may actually replace the engine in the Camaro... I want it to really tear up the pavement....

[Outlaw X]

It's got a 350 under the hood, bored .40 over during the rebuild. It's a two door also, which I found out they only produced 5,000 two doors in '79!!!! I love the road boats too...one of the best I ever had was a '77 Malibu Classic, it fell somewhere between boat and performance car after I shoved a 454 into it and added nitrous. I wrecked that one back in my younger days though, it unfortunately lies at the bottom of an ozark canyon. The towncar sounds like it will be pretty slick when you get done, you should post some pics!! Oh, sorry to the moderators for getting off into car talk...errr...ummmm....I estimate I could haul over 1500 Atari VCS units in the trunk of my Electra...(yes, it's a weak attempt to add video game talk to this post, but at least I tried!!)

[Atari_Worshipper]

smooth save.

[desiv]

You (people who don't understand classic gamers) are missing the point.

 

It's not about flashier and fancier. It's (or should be) about gameplay.

 

And anyone who understands "gameplay" should realize that it has nothing to do with bits or bytes or textures or polygons.

 

Pacman is great because it's a great game. Tetris (not my fav, but addictive) is so, because it's gameplay.

 

Now, that doesn't mean all modern games suck. (If people wouldn't take parts of my message and quote it, they'd see I said that..)

 

But, there's an heir of redundancy in todays games.

 

Something works (DOOM), and everyone else has to make the same game over and over and over.

 

How is Unreal Tournament better than doom? Because it looks better?

 

The gameplay is the same.. Get things too complicated (trend nowadays.. look at the controllers..) and you're taking away from the basic premise..

 

It should be fun. Period.

 

I have just as much fun playing Pole Position as I would playing some modern 3D polygon/textured racing game. It's the concept that's fun.

 

I like some modern games, but only as much as the originals they were based (or stolen) on. And frequently, the originals are easier to get into and have better playability.

 

It's not about when or how much.. It's about fun..

 

Classic games are fun...

 

IMHO

 

desiv

[Atari_Worshipper]

 

You (people who don't understand classic gamers) are missing the point.  

 

It's not about flashier and fancier. It's (or should be) about gameplay.  

 

And anyone who understands "gameplay" should realize that it has nothing to do with bits or bytes or textures or polygons.  

 

Pacman is great because it's a great game. Tetris (not my fav, but addictive) is so, because it's gameplay.  

 

Now, that doesn't mean all modern games suck. (If people wouldn't take parts of my message and quote it, they'd see I said that..)  

 

But, there's an heir of redundancy in todays games.  

 

Something works (DOOM), and everyone else has to make the same game over and over and over.  

 

How is Unreal Tournament better than doom? Because it looks better?  

 

The gameplay is the same.. Get things too complicated (trend nowadays.. look at the controllers..) and you're taking away from the basic premise..  

 

It should be fun. Period.  

 

I have just as much fun playing Pole Position as I would playing some modern 3D polygon/textured racing game. It's the concept that's fun.  

 

I like some modern games, but only as much as the originals they were based (or stolen) on. And frequently, the originals are easier to get into and have better playability.  

 

It's not about when or how much.. It's about fun..  

 

Classic games are fun...  

 

IMHO  

 

desiv

 

 

Man, I've got so many complaints against what you've posted here... I will try to address them all, but there's so many I may miss something...

 

it's not about flashier and fancier..........., I agree. I had said that the subjective was a far more important thing than the objective, it's just that objectively, new games are better.... period.

 

and anybody who understands gameplay........ Again, I agree. But you are the ones misunderstanding us. We're not saying that old games are crappy, what were doing is defending new games from people who mindlessly assume that they're garbage just because 1)They can't relate with them and 2) their peers say they're garbage. I'm taking sociology class and that is called "Group Think" The textbook definition of group think is: conforming to the narrow, uneducated and un-thought-out beliefs of the group you are in.

 

And if you'll recall, I said I actually prefer classic games. Because I can relate to them more....I just realize that it's not games that are getting worse, it's me that's getting worse... I'm 24 and I feel like I'm getting old.

 

Pacman is great..... agreed

 

....heir of redundancy in modern games..... Yes, there is a problem with redundancy. But that was also true with older games... in fact, I will say the same old, same old, or copycatism is no more a problem and no less a problem than it was in the old days... if anything, things are better that way, for while two games are similar, the new twins are more complex than the old twins leaving more room for subtle differences.

 

Something works (DOOM).... happened back then too... There were Super Mario clones, Contra clones, Ninja Gaiden clones, etc.

 

How is Unreal Tournament..........Unreal is better than doom cause it is deeper, it's landscapes are more advanced (tactically) and the action is faster. Also, while there certainly was multiplayer modes for Doom, Unreal tournament is set around multiplayer direct battles while Doom was more a hunt down the key, then the exit fetch missions.

 

Get too complicated and it........ makes the fun more engaging, less mindless. While there's merit to the simplicity is genius idea, the new forces you to go deeper into the game.....

 

 

It should be fun......... it is.

 

Classic games are fun.......absolutely agreed. Well, actually, I totally agree with the expressed statement, but disagree with the underlying implication.......

 

But remember, I prefer old games to new ones....

 

 

But I do owe you a bit of gratitude for getting us back on the topic of games and off cars... outlaw X and I could've gone on forever. Hey outlaw, wanna start a thread in the general non-gaming forum on this site?

[desiv]

First point.

 

You say you disagree, then you basically agree with most of what I said..

 

OK.. :-)

 

Then, where you disagree, you make the same mistake.

 

I said: Now, that doesn't mean all modern games suck. (If people wouldn't take parts of my message and quote it, they'd see I said that..)

 

and you're response: "what were doing is defending new games from people who mindlessly assume that they're garbage just because 1)They can't relate with them and 2) their peers say they're garbage.."

 

I never said all new games suck.. "In fact, in my original message, I said: OK, I admit there are some modern fun games"

 

I believe what you're stuck in is something called "group think" :-).

(We had Sociology when I went to school too, tho it was hard scratching notes into those stone tablets..)

 

My main point isn't that all new games suck. Didn't say that. It's that modern games (en masse) are just flashier re-hashing of older (not even always that old) games that might be fun, but can tend to actually decrease the important part, the gameplay.

 

When I mentioned Doom vs Unreal, your response: Unreal is better than doom cause it is deeper, it's landscapes are more advanced (tactically).

 

And to that, I don't have any argument per se.. I just disagree. I suppose if you're talking just single player Doom shareware levels, yeah. But there's some pretty advanced WADs out there that I think are every bit as advanced and fun as Unreal or 007 or whatever FPS you've got now.

 

Yes, there were clones back then, but it wasn't as bad as it is today. Game developers back in the day called the shots. Today, marketting calls the shots. Fear of sales keeps many a creative idea from emerging. Now, there are reasons. It costs millions to develop a game today. Much more risky to bet on some crazy developer. But the result is you get what you have with the movie industry. Very rarely do the studios take the chance.

 

Case in point. VIB Ribbon. Incredibly creative game for the Playstation!! Totally out of left field in control and play. Simple graphics and sound, yet addictive gameplay!! Where was it in the U.S.? Didn't get distributed because it didn't fit the image of a Playstation game. (Yeah, there were music rights issues.. They could have addressed those and released it. They didn't.) Instead, we get Goldeneye, SOCOM, and a host of other similar games.

 

Just because a system can do great 3D doesn't mean EVERY GAME HAS TO USE IT!!!

 

I was psyched when I heard they were coming out with a new Dragon's Lair game!! Guess what it turned out to be? Yep, Dragon's Lair 3D. What a shock..

 

I heard there's a new Full Throttle coming out.. Wanna bet if it's 3D? (Don't bother, it is..)

 

Now, I like 3D to a point. Mario 64 was fun. Even the 3D Sonic for the genesis was fun. Doom, Descent, Duke, Redneck, Unreal, etc., etc., etc.,

 

I loved the TRON movie. And the Arcade games. And I heard there was going to be a TRON game.. Even got great reviews.. And I'm sure I'll get it.. when it's bargain bin.. But what about it is worth $50???

Will it be fun? Probably.. So is Pacman.. Dig Dug... I don't know how many times I've played Dig Dug and it's still fun...

 

How many new games are good enough to get you thru the honeymoon phase? How many new games are creative and fun and will last? That's the test...

 

In 10 years, I just bet that Pacman is still going to be fun, and SOCOM will be boring..

 

IMHO..

 

desiv

[sigma]

I hope and pray for the day that games are judged on their own merits and not when it was made, what system it was on, and what came before it.

[Atari_Worshipper]

the discrepency of agree, disagree was for two reasons. 1) I agreed with some of your facts and disagreed with others, but of the facts you made, I disagreed with most of the spins you put on them... and 2) I want to come off as not simply attacking you, that I had some common gruond.

 

Also, when you read my post and got to the group think part of it and heard me bashing people who blindly despise new games, did I say at any point say that I was referring to you? No. I realized that you were being opne minded to a degree about new games... I was refering to the people who blindly say, in essence, "If it's past my time then it sucks!" about anything, not just video games. And there are a lot of those people out there.

 

There are two types of fun in games, Simple, mindless fun, and and deep, immersive fun. Kind of like the difference between playing chess and watching TV. One requires your complete attention, the other you can tune in and tune out.... A lot of older games you can play with half your mind on something else while few of the new games allow you that luxury. When I'm playing a lot of older games, Half of me is playing the game and the other half is reliving the memories associated with that game... the sights, the sound, the events... when I'm playing an older game, I'm going back in time. When I'm playing a newer game, I'm enjoying the here and now.

 

I disagree. I feel that the clone issue is not necessarily worse than it was then. However, you are sadly right, in that programmers don't call the shots as they used to.

 

just because a system can do....... when the NES and SMS came out they completely abandoned text based graphics for bitmapped graphics...by your logic, one might say... just cause they can make bitmapped graphics doesn't mean they always should. In other words, why are you complaining that 2D is so rare on the 3D systems when you probably never even thought about complaining that there wasn't a text based game released for the bitmap based systems. the answer is in maximizing the system's potential. That, and times do change.

 

The honeymoon phase? Well, that's a good point. But my experience is that video games are like anything else, but I'll actually use cars as my example... A 1973 Lincoln Continental.... when it was new, it was something to behold..... after it turned, say, 5 or 6, it got old and was more or less forgotten by mainstreamia (I know, I just made that word up. ) but then, when it started to get into the 15, 20 year mark, interest started to revive in it a little and by the time it turned 25, BAM! well, now it's something to behold again... it's a classic, they don't make cars like that anymore (for better or worse) My point is: It's cool when it's new, it'll be cool when it's a classic, during the in-between, it's just old. And that's kinda true for video games...except, not necessarily when it's new to the world, but when it's new to you..... you play the hell out of a game when you first get it, then you put it down after you wear it out, then after a time, you rediscover it and pick it back up again...... true, there are games that never go out of style, but there's exceptions to every rule.. afterall, no era of corvette is ever out of style. But like the corvette, the games that break that rule know no particular era, it's chronologically universal.

[Outlaw X]

AW, I'd be more than happy to carry on our car talk over at the general forum

 

Once again, the Outlaw will attempt to lighten the mood with humor..observe as I take on the role of "Angry Old Man" first portrayed by Dana Carvey on Saturday Night Live...ahem...ahem......

 

" Back in my day, we didn't have any newfangled 3D graphics or Xbox thingamabobbies!!! We had Atari!!! We had games like Adventure, where a knight was portrayed by a little box, and you had to use your imagination..and we liked it!! Your mother would point at the electric bill and yell about how your video games were the cause of it being high, and then yell about how they left impressions of space invaders on the TV screen ....you'd get grounded for three, no four..no five weeks!! And we liked it!!"

 

Thank you,thank you...I'm here all week!!

[tyranthraxus]

That was a pretty good breakdown of the years. Though I would

personally stretch the classic era to 1985 because the leftover 2600s

were still being sold and that year hadn't been dominated by the NES.

And most of the launch NES games were still very old school in style.

 

I think the 3D takeover really marks the begining of the modern age.

Arcades started to really suck when 3D dominated. I think the early 90s

were the last great age of the arcades. The games were very colourful

and still offered a different experience from home games.

 

78-85 Classic

86-94 Golden Age

95-?? Modern 3D

 

I don't feel the current gen consoles really have much of an advantage

over the last gen. A PS2 game is pretty much the same as a PS1 but

with smoother graphics. Its not like comparing a PS1 game to SNES.

 

It seems a normal for every 3rd generation for the games to break

away from the last. 2600-5200, NES-SNES, PS1-PS2. I'm looking

forward to seeing what we'll be getting in a couple years.

[desiv]

I accept you've got some possibilities with some of your arguments...

 

And as for spin.. Well, it's hard for me to tell when you're disagreeing with my "spin" and when you're disagreeing with "old school gamers who hate all new games." Points get confused when you're intermixing both.

 

Besides, my generation (The 80's) was the ME generation, so I assume it's all about me! :-)

 

But I still don't think flashier and more depth make better games. When I want to think (Which I try to avoid as much as possible.. :-) ) I play chess. It's a pretty old game.. And hasn't changed much... Yeah, there's 4 way chess and tri-dimensional chess, but the original is (IMHO) the best, and I keep going back to it.

 

Personally, I wish newer systems had fewer clones and more innovative games. And by innovative, I don't mean a new 128 bit pixel shader and glow effects. I mean something different..

 

Of course, it's possible I'm being too hard on the industry.. Maybe it's just too late.. Maybe all the best original game designs have already been done. And so they just pretty up the older stuff.. Doesn't mean they're not fun. I'm not saying that. I just think it's a different type of gaming.

 

I missed most of the game stamping of the industry, even in the early days.. I got away from gaming just before Nintendo (NES) hit.

(Got into programming and Greek and Roman literature.. It was a weird time for me.. :-) )

 

Part of the problem might be also that there are good new games, but they just get buried by all the repeat junk on the shelves. I might just be missing it.. I don't have any newer systems. I see what's in the stores and advertised in commercials and why my friends say their kids have. Most of that seems pretty redundant..

 

Then again, these are my opinions, and I love the Spongemonkeys (From the Quizno's ads), so you know my taste.. :-)

 

desiv

[Atari_Worshipper]

my wife loves the spounge monkeys too... I am beginning to enjoy them just for their sheer bizarreness, but really, if those horrendous things made it onto the commercials, then what other horrors do they have lurking back in the quiznos kitchens that aren't portrayed in the commercials?

 

Thank you outlaw for diffusing the situation with humor... it was a slap in the face for us getting out of hand...... and I liked it!

 

 

tyranthraxus: You're right that there are transition periods between the generations. The 5200 and CV could do bitmap, but they were rudimentary and text still dominated. and the 7800 still pumped out some text as well so there's that crossover. The N64 is the crossover in the 1 Mod Gen and 2d Mod Gen and the crossover between classic and modern was the grandest of all cause you had 2D and 3D coexisting, both in total validity for 4+ years.... that was a really great time in games as well.

 

The 1st mod era spelled teh beginning of the end for the arcade, but the arcade is really what separated the 1st and 2nd mod gen. the first fell short of the cade, and the 2nd beat it.... so that's the big diff, that and we may be looking at the beginning of the crossover from the 2nd real era of games (3D) into the 3rd (full out online) as the other big distinction between the PS1 and PS2 eras is this is the first time online is being taken seriously...

 

But the reason I think 2nd class gen started w/ the invent of the NES and not the demise of the 2600 is because that's when the new became.... and not when the old breathed it's last.

[Zaxxon]

I think the 3D takeover really marks the begining of the modern age.

Arcades started to really suck when 3D dominated. I think the early 90s

were the last great age of the arcades. The games were very colourful

and still offered a different experience from home games.

 

IMO arcades started to suck the day they started charging .50 for a game. There was a small resurgence in the arcades from Street Fighter II in the early 90's but mostly they were still dead or limping along since the first early-80's arcade crash.

 

78-85 Classic

86-94 Golden Age

95-?? Modern 3D

 

I'd have to say the modern 3D era started earlier than '95. VF1 was released in arcades in '93, the Jaguar was released in late '93. I think the 32X came out shortly after in '94(?). The PS1 came out in JPN in '94 if you want to count JPN releases.

 

I don't feel the current gen consoles really have much of an advantage

over the last gen. A PS2 game is pretty much the same as a PS1 but

with smoother graphics. Its not like comparing a PS1 game to SNES.

 

Agreed. What have they done on the PS2 that they couldn't have done on the DC? There's only a slight, incremental improvement over DC. Maybe on paper it's impressive but graphically the new consoles are nothing special. Where's the Toy Story quality graphics they promised us with the PS2? Things still look obviously blocky and polygony. I don't know that we'll ever see the kind of leap we saw with the PSX/Saturn again.

 

The SNES,Gen,TG-16 cannot be called classic. Just like geologists have different eras for dating fossils; Ceozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, there is no argument between geologists about when a certain era began and ended based on when a particular geologists was born. It's a fixed period in time and isn't something that can slide up depending on what system you grew up with. Maybe the NES can be considered classic, but only if you were raised in Japan. It was released here in N.A. way post-crash and didn't take off in popularity immediately. The 7800 was technically made before the crash but it wasn't released till way after so I don't consider it classic. I guess you can call the NES part of the Golden Age or whatever but it can't be lumped in with other true classic systems.

[Atari_Worshipper]

Don't get hung up on dates, Zaxxon.

 

Whats important here is what significant changes there were. Dont compare the PS2 to the DC if you're wanting a generational comparison. Compare the PS2 to the PS1.

 

NES, SNES, Genesis can too be considered classic. They are 2D. Do you not agree that the biggest change to video games barring the invention of video games is the change to 3D? If not, state your case, if so, then the big 4 (NES/TG16/SNES/GEN) ARE ARE ARE classic

 

I do agree that the 3D transition happened before 95. 93. You said 93 and I believe you are right on the nose, but not because of what was happening in the arcade, because of what was happening at home. The 3DO and Jaguar.

 

The arcade's highest point was before the early 80's crash but they remained strong until the late 90's, but it wasn't til the DC came along that console gaming was finally able to slip the knife in. Arcades were a viable presence until the DC. People who say arcades lost something after the crash were right, people who said they were pretty much dead were wrong.

 

Arcades used to lead consoles, and I'm not talking just in terms of power.. games came to arcade and then were ported... now consoles lead the arcades, and are more powerful...

 

I will admit this is a bad thing. The arcades were the pleasure domes for your generation (the atari generation) and mine. (The NES Generation). We have truely lost something grand in losing the arcade...

 

but look at the upsides, we don't have to pump money into a cabinet away from home to get the performance of the arcade.. we can just turn on a console in our PJs in our living rooms... and, in this day of technoloy, we can download our entire arcade heritage onto our PCs as Roms and play them using the MAME emulator, and they're just as good, except for the ambience...

 

but to help that, some people have gotten clever, designed an arcade cabinet, used a 24" CPU monitor, and an arcade stick or two and using MAME and Roms made their own arcade machines.... it'd make for one hell of a shop project.....one that I one day plan on undertaking.

One that you, mourning the loss of the arcade (I assume) should undertake as well.

[Atari_Worshipper]

now, zaxxon, I will give you that classic and modern can be further sub-divided. You could say early classic and late classic. Or pre-crash and post-crash or, most accurately, pre-bitmap and post-bitmap (I had not til now considered that pre-crash/post-crash coincides almost perfectly with pre-bitmap/post-bitmap. That's ironic. but it's also just coincidence, cause it's the technological revolution and not the poitico-social revolution that makes the difference, truely.

[Zaxxon]

Don't get hung up on dates, Zaxxon.

 

Whats important here is what significant changes there were. Dont compare the PS2 to the DC if you're wanting a generational comparison. Compare the PS2 to the PS1.

 

I wasn't making a generational comparison. I just don't see any big difference between most DC games and newer ones on the PS2,GC. I think the PS3 and Xbox Next will only offer the same slight incremental graphics upgrade. Nothing that makes me feel compelled to buy a new system.

 

NES, SNES, Genesis can too be considered classic. They are 2D. Do you not agree that the biggest change to video games barring the invention of video games is the change to 3D? If not, state your case, if so, then the big 4 (NES/TG16/SNES/GEN) ARE ARE ARE classic

 

No, they aren't classic just because they're mainly 2D. The fact they're 2D doesn't even factor into whether they're classic or not. If Sony started putting out all 2D games on the PS3 that won't make it classic. The classic era was 78-84-ish. Don't get all hung up on 2D. I've already stated my case in the post above.

 

 

The arcade's highest point was before the early 80's crash but they remained strong until the late 90's, but it wasn't til the DC came along that console gaming was finally able to slip the knife in. Arcades were a viable presence until the DC. People who say arcades lost something after the crash were right, people who said they were pretty much dead were wrong.

 

Then you're too young to remember how it was in the early 80's. I've been to arcades in the mid-late 90's, the few that were still around. You think that those sad, pathetic, nearly vacant arcades were strong? Back in the day there were much larger arcades all over the place. There were easily 10x more arcades in business that were much larger too. Not only that, arcade machines could be found everywhere; drug stores, grocery stores, barbershops, hotels, McDonalds, the Sears by me even had a great arcade. You didn't have to drive an hour to the nearest arcade to find a decent game.

 

 

 

I will admit this is a bad thing. The arcades were the pleasure domes for your generation (the atari generation) and mine. (The NES Generation). We have truely lost something grand in losing the arcade...

 

I don't really mourn the death of arcades now. For me, arcades died a long, long time ago. The death of the arcade can be traced back to the release of Dragon's Lair, causing all game prices to be doubled and the debut of Karate Champ, the first of the endless onslaught of shitty fighting games polluting arcades and driving out all other genres except racers and light gun games. Arcades have sucked sinced the mid-80's with very few exceptions, mostly pinball machines.