older games better

Games these days are VERY easy. I mean, even Ubisoft tried bringing Prince of Persia back from the grave, and even that was pretty easy and forgiving. The thing about older games is, even though you have to restart often, it's most likely worth re-playing.

No... there are hundreds of bad and ok old games but we only remember the good ones, the classic ones.

When your living in the moment you see and experience all the bad games first hand and listen to other people bitch about them.

In 15 or 20 years you won't hear about the bad games today and people will be looking back at our GTAs, Wii Sports, Metal Gear Solids, Halos etc. and talking about them the same way we talk about old games.

See, what you don't realize, is that graphics have always been a battling point. It's just that in comparison to today's games they look like utter crap, so it makes you think that they didn't try to do good graphics.

That's called brand loyalty, and nothing more.



Once again, Brand Loyalty. Besides, the Jaguar and 3DO were a joke. Same with the Neo Geo CD. And the N64 was not capable of producing better visuals than the PS1 due to its dependency on cartridges.



See above with the exception of the "were a joke" comment.



Ok, well here's the proof that you didn't understand what I was saying. First off, I don't think a 3 million difference is close between 360 and Wii. And besides, it's not like $250 price tag versus the $400 price tag hurts the Wii. I never meant to imply that graphics are the only thing to sell games. My point was more of a counter to you saying that graphics don't matter. If graphics didn't matter, this is what Mario would have looked like.



So to say that graphics aren't important to you, that's great. You have an opinion that many of the overly nostalgic gamers have. However, if you try and tell me that they don't matter, or that they aren't important at all, then you better not be playing anything other than the Atari. Because they do matter. Without graphics mattering, all games would look like my depiction of Mario. You may say that if the game is just white squares on a black background, and the gameplay's good that it'll be fine, but if all games were like that there wouldn't be much of a game because you'd have no idea on what even to do, or even who your enemies are.

I can imagine (most) newer games being easier due to being able to move around in a fully 3D world.

Actually the Nintendo 64 was known to have better graphics than anything out on PS1. The cartridge dependency made it so not as much game could be fit on it (thus no Final Fantasy's or big RPG's) but did not effect the graphical output. Playstation was a 32 bit system compared to the N64's 64.



And how do you know why people stuck with NES and SNES? You were in diapers! How can a company have brand loyalty built when they had only one system out, and how can you say anything about brand loyalty when Genesis kicked SNES's ass for the first few years the system was out. All of these "loyal" NES owners had no problem hopping on the Sega system.

I see what Brian's saying, but I definately don't agree with the whole "brand loyalty" subject, people chose the SNES and NES mainly for Mario, and how good it looked in 16-bit, as to the Sega consoles, they were just pure fun. Not shooting atcha' or anything, though.

I have to agree with one thing though:

Graphics are overwhelming gameplay these days. I mean, one fine example is Rockstar's choice of "Quality over Quantity", since I read in some blog or gaming site that Liberty City had been made smaller for prettier effects. Take it with a grain of salt. though.

Like I said before, games back then were awful hard, but it was worth restarting over and over again.

That makes less than no sense.

Most modern gamers have little or no attention span, so the games have to be easier, and include save features.

Also, while a lot of older games didn't have a save feature, they did have the next best thing, in passwords.