Top 5 reasons modern games beat retro ones

paquitox

Thread Junky
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
770
This was taken from MSNBC home page, though it was interesting to post.

They're cheaper


Inflation stinks ... unless nominal price stays the same. In that case, a product actually sells for less, which is precisely what has happened to video games. For example: The cost of a console game in the mid-1980s and early 1990s? Often $50 or more. The cost of a console game launched in recent years. In some cases, modern games are even priced between $30 and $40. Although still more expensive than movies and music, and despite a $10 "high definition" tax for select Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 games, retail video games are more affordable than ever.

They have better multiplayer features

Like all good games, video games are rooted in multiplayer action. But for much of their history, multiplayer features often played second fiddle to single-player – especially in the '80s and '90s. Not anymore. Over the past five years, there has been a resurgence in party, cooperative, and massively multiplayer games. What's more, online gaming against "live" opponents is practically standard now. It's good to play together – as an evening playing “Rock Band 2” with your friends will prove.

They have better controls

In their nascent years, video games often had only a joystick and a single button to dictate play. Fun but not ideal. In their adolescent years, games often required that a player consult the instruction manual to learn complex button presses. Fun but, again, not ideal. Today, there are more options than ever to play games. The Nintendo Wii recognizes full motion and pointer controls. Nintendo’s DS and Apple’s iPhone prove that “touching is good.” And realistic peripherals further blur the lines between gameplay and reality. More than ever, you can play the way you like.

They have better graphics

Video games are only fun to look at for so long. They either have it where it counts (the gameplay) or they don't. But marry arresting gameplay with good looks, and you're in for a lasting treat. Though blocky pixels will always have a special place in my heart, today's games are more fluid, more artistic and more elaborate — in short, they're downright gorgeous at times.

They're more captivating

I played Atari 2600 and NES as much as the next guy — for entire Saturdays even. Addicting games will always have that kind of appeal. But today's games bombard the senses on all fronts. They control better. They sound better. They look better. And they tell better stories. It's no wonder "immersive" has become the most overused adjective in modern game reviews. I dare you to casually walk away from a game of "Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare." It demands your attention.

I do think some of it its absurd.
here's the link : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31896311/ns/technology_and_science-games/wid/11915829?GT1=40006
 
Last edited:
These people obviously don't know about video games.

The cost of a console game in the mid-1980s and early 1990s? Often $50 or more. The cost of a console game launched in recent years. In some cases, modern games are even priced between $30 and $40.

Thats called a discount, most games are $50-$60

Like all good games, video games are rooted in multiplayer action. But for much of their history, multiplayer features often played second fiddle to single-player – especially in the '80s and '90s. Not anymore. Over the past five years, there has been a resurgence in party, cooperative, and massively multiplayer games

A bit unfair, internet was not a big thing in the 80s-90s as it is now
 
I agree with Beta, the writer is not a gamer at all.

Yar.

I'm sure he plays video games, but people who sit down and play Halo for four hours a day aren't really gamers in the sense most of us hold ourselves to.

It sounds like he's comparing something along the lines of Halo 3 to E.T. for the Atari. Sure, new game beats the super-retro.

Compare Halo 3 to Chrono Trigger. It isn't a landslide competition anymore.
 
What I'm about to say was discussed in another thread but new games are focussed less on the story. For example, in my opinion, Final Fantasy 7 (which has horrible graphics) is one of the best games I have ever played and no game I have played since can even come close to it when it comes to single player game play.
 
Well, the only reasons I would say they are better are the advancements in tech/internet.. They're awesome games in their own right. Shouldn't be compared IMO... some of them might be simple but they're fun as hell.
 
I reject his opinion!

The quality of of retro games compared to technology available to use, is greater for retro game imo

Which is kinda why Capcom decided to make Mega Man 9 in original 8 bit artwork type. If this man was right... then how come we still play tetris, pong, space invaders, etc.
The Reason... retro games are and forever will be great.

As for Cheaper most console games still $50-60 :E
And more captivating.... ..... ..... ..... I've pulled more all nighters with my NES/SNES than Comp/recent consoles

Compare Halo 3 to Chrono Trigger. It isn't a landslide competition anymore.

Yes it is CT >> Halo (I'm not bias. Pay no attention to my avatar, or to what OSVG stand for.)
 
Last edited:
Why do regular news people try and review game things? They usually have someone that is just taking a shot at what they think. Not real gamers.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top