WHY OLD GAMES ARE TERRIBLE, AN OBSERVATION

Post by **Shad** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:47 am

Indigo_Dingo wrote:Nearly all games made before 2000 suck by todays standards.

That is stupid. You are stupid.

Indigo_Dingo wrote:And Ocarina of Time is not the #1 game of all time. Thats Shadow Of The Colossus.

No, it isn't.

Decker wrote:Majora's Mask was terrible are you stupid

No, it wasn't.

Plasma wrote:HalfLife is still good, Starfox64 is good albeit just because nobody's made a proper spiritual sequel, and SM64 and SMW are still good. The rest are certainly not compared to games of today!

I mean, I certainly don't think anything pre-2000 is sucky, but for some reason you decided it was a good idea to have ALL of your list be games that got a very popular modern sequel (save Starfox)! Why did you think that would be a good idea?

It's not because the sequels are (or are considered) better that the originals aren't good.

Indigo_Dingo · Post by **Indigo_Dingo** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 9:50 am

Plasma wrote:
Badfish wrote:
Indigo_Dingo wrote:Nearly all games made before 2000 suck by todays standards
FALLOUT 1, 2, AND TACTICS; STARCRAFT, HALF-LIFE,TEAM FORTRESS, WARCRAFT 1&2, ELDER SCROLLS 2, SUPER MARIO WORLD, STARFOX 64, SUPER MARIO 64, PUNCH-OUT, SO MANY OTHERS.
HalfLife is still good, Starfox64 is good albeit just because nobody's made a proper spiritual sequel, and SM64 and SMW are still good. The rest are certainly not compared to games of today!

I mean, I certainly don't think anything pre-2000 is sucky, but for some reason you decided it was a good idea to have ALL of your list be games that got a very popular modern sequel (save Starfox)! Why did you think that would be a good idea?

....you're claiming Starcraft isn't good?

And yes, the sequel being better means the originals aren't considered as good. If the sequels improved things, the bars been raised and the original falls smack dab under it by todays standards. I really don't see what the problem you guys have is.

Post by **Shad** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:02 am

Indigo_Dingo wrote:And yes, the sequel being better means the originals aren't considered as good. If the sequels improved things, the bars been raised and the original falls smack dab under it by todays standards. I really don't see what the problem you guys have is.

You have a problem. You play old games and evaluate them with today's standards. This is stupid.
When I watch Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, I'm not going to say "Meh, it's not up to today's standards, it's a black and white silent film!".

Indigo_Dingo · Post by **Indigo_Dingo** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:16 am

Le Great Handsome Oppressor wrote:
Indigo_Dingo wrote:And yes, the sequel being better means the originals aren't considered as good. If the sequels improved things, the bars been raised and the original falls smack dab under it by todays standards. I really don't see what the problem you guys have is.
You have a problem. You play old games and evaluate them with today's standards. This is stupid.
When I watch Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times, I'm not going to say "Meh, it's not up to today's standards, it's a black and white silent film!".

Which is why I said, and I'm quoting my own post here, "By todays standards". That means exactly what it says.

I don't really see why thats stupid. I can observe them fine as quaint oddities in the same way one would observe an antique car, but I'm not gonna be foolish and say a Model T is as good as the new Mercedes.

Plasma · Post by **Plasma** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 10:53 am

Indigo_Dingo wrote:....you're claiming Starcraft isn't good?

Yes, actually. I could never really see WHY it's considered so great, at least compared to Warcraft 3 and Dawn Of War. But that's probably just me.

Post by **Shad** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:05 am

Indigo_Dingo wrote:I don't really see why thats stupid. I can observe them fine as quaint oddities in the same way one would observe an antique car, but I'm not gonna be foolish and say a Model T is as good as the new Mercedes.

Really? To me, they are only different.

Crawfish · Post by **Crawfish** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:53 pm

I do think you guys are being a liiiittle unfair to Indigo, considering he's like...well, him. While it's not true that "every game made before 2000 sucks," I do actually think graphics are important to a game. I mean, are you going to play Mario 64 when you have Mario Galaxy or Mario 64DS? Are you going to play Pokemon Red when you have FireRed? This was just sort of the recent issue I had with New Super Mario Bros. Wii, which doesn't look at all different from its DS predecessor.

Graphics shouldn't make a game, but they should definitely complement it. If a game plays without any kind of graphical hitch and manages to avoid making you go "That looks sort of ugly," then that makes it infinitely better.

Miss Starseed · Post by **Miss Starseed** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:13 pm

My god, Indigo is going to grow up and become the CEO of some kind of big business corporation. He's talking exactly like them.

Kalekemo · Post by **Kalekemo** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:31 pm

Miss StarSeed wrote:My god, Indigo is going to grow up and become the CEO of some kind of big business corporation. He's talking exactly like them.

CEO's can be quite evil D:

Decker · Post by **Decker** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 4:37 pm

Sloth wrote:
Decker wrote:I don't give a flying shit about shadow of the collossus.

Majora's Mask was terrible are you stupid
I'm going to have to disagree with you here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCO-oShaWe4

Miss Starseed · Post by **Miss Starseed** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:20 pm

Kalekemo wrote:
Miss StarSeed wrote:My god, Indigo is going to grow up and become the CEO of some kind of big business corporation. He's talking exactly like them.
CEO's can be quite evil D:

That was the point.

Although in Indigo's case it's more like either insanely stubborn and self-assured or simply misinformed but still stubborn as all hell.

Indigo_Dingo · Post by **Indigo_Dingo** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:49 pm

Miss StarSeed wrote:
Kalekemo wrote:
Miss StarSeed wrote:My god, Indigo is going to grow up and become the CEO of some kind of big business corporation. He's talking exactly like them.
CEO's can be quite evil D:
That was the point.

Although in Indigo's case it's more like either insanely stubborn and self-assured or simply misinformed but still stubborn as all hell.

That was a really low blow man. Really low.

Plasma wrote:
Indigo_Dingo wrote:....you're claiming Starcraft isn't good?
Yes, actually. I could never really see WHY it's considered so great, at least compared to Warcraft 3 and Dawn Of War. But that's probably just me.

Actually...no. I agree with you. Gimme a choice between Warcraft II and Starcraft, I'll pick Warcraft III everytime. I thought I was the only one.

Le Great Handsome Oppressor wrote:
Indigo_Dingo wrote:I don't really see why thats stupid. I can observe them fine as quaint oddities in the same way one would observe an antique car, but I'm not gonna be foolish and say a Model T is as good as the new Mercedes.
Really? To me, they are only different.

Well, where does the Model T outperform the new Mercedes? Thats my point, the old games aren't as good as the new ones because the new ones build upon them and raise the standard, thus making the old ones fall below said standard. And yes, I do have proof, anyone heard of Daikatana?

Post by **DarkSurfer** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:52 pm

At least its not a pointy haired boss.

Indigo_Dingo · Post by **Indigo_Dingo** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:54 pm

The Big Cheese wrote:At least its not a pointy haired boss.

In his early days, PHB was more sadistic and evil than retarded. He was also bald

Miss Starseed · Post by **Miss Starseed** » Thu Dec 17, 2009 7:47 pm

Indigo_Dingo wrote:
Miss StarSeed wrote:
Kalekemo wrote:CEO's can be quite evil D:
That was the point.

Although in Indigo's case it's more like either insanely stubborn and self-assured or simply misinformed but still stubborn as all hell.
That was a really low blow man. Really low.

You don't care if people call you retarded, an asshole, a troll, etc. etc. but someone calls you stubborn and self-assured (note: self-assured =/= arrogant) or misinformed (misinformed =/= wrong or stupid) and it hurts?

Or did you skip over where I said in your case you WEREN'T evil and instead you were more like someone who strongly believed their own opinions and were hard to get to open up to other's ideas?

That sure is hurtful. I better not tell anyone they seem self-confident, albeit stubborn or misinformed, ever again. Unless I'm intentionally trying to be a douchebag. Which, for once in your case, I wasn't. Oops.