RETRO VS. MODERN

[rjchamp3]

Ill start I think the old games are better in all aspects, but all comments are welcome please get as many people as possible to respond thanks guy's

 

I love the wii and ps2 but nothing beats atari or nes I think

 

Please be specific in your answer why this is more demanding then this why it's better etc...

Edited April 4, 2008 by rjchamp3

[nathanallan]

I prefer my retro, since they're most of the time easier to play, easier to figure out, less maintenance, minimum downloads necessary if any at all, and tough. Can you imagine throwing your 360 or PS3 controller across the room? After paying what, $50+ for it? My genesis controllers are scratched and bruised but they still work.

 

I'm not rally a fan of high graphics and all that, and not a fan of having so many buttons and a gajillion combos to use. If a game is fun then I'll probably play it. The most sophisticated game system in my place is a gamecube, and it tests my patience sometimes. I am considering a Wii but not quite yet. Plus I don't feel like forking over so much money for the games for these new systems. heck, I'm still playing SB Brawl and Mario Kart for GCN. Works for me.

[Reaperman]

we're on a retro forum, so we know where this poll is going, but I voted modern, primarily because of where the 'retro/modern' line fell. While I love the precision of retro gameplay, the quest for perfect technique didn't end with the 8-bit era. Actually looking at it, of my overall top 3 systems (gbm, neo geo and dreamcast), none of them are 8-bit at all, yet they all offer quite a few titles with very close to the same simple brutality I expect from older machines. Let's also not forget that there were limitations to gameplay that eased when increased power was added.

 

GBA offers incredible game variety, unequaled convenience, and plenty of power--I suspect it will be a long time before its fun/weight ratio is matched. Neo geo and dreamcast bring the full effect of two of the most popular arcade platforms into the home. There is no need to improve them, each was perfect at what it did--and how well did the 8-bitters really do with arcade games? (nes seemed to do the best of them)

 

Now as far as being a modern gamer, I'm not onboard with this generation at all, which is why I've been putting together my 800xl and c64 setups over the last few months. I'm not really a retrogamer either--I just want interesting games that I haven't yet played. and it turns out that the 8-bitters I grew up on kept evolving and look quite fun for now. Hopefully the current gen will be a short one.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Reaperman

[accousticguitar]

I do have a PS1 and I like it, but I play my 2600 a lot more.

[Lemmi]

i didnt vote from the choices

 

i will vote retro up to the Saturn/Playstation/N64 era

 

altho i love the DC as well but mainly for retro stuff like the emulators

my xbox and GC collection is manily compilations

 

the less complicated a game is the better for me, since i dont play game that much anymore i just want to play for an hour and then put it away and when i play it again in about a year i already know what the 2 buttons do (jump and attack)

[Rev. Rob]

I voted for both, especially since Genesis and SNES came after the TG-16.

[+remowilliams]

Both, no reason to choose one over the other. I wouldn't give up the twitch fun of yesteryear or the amazing experiences that powerful modern hardware delivers. Nothing beats my 2600, and nothing beats my 360 either.

[Breakpack]

I play them all,by golly.I've enjoyed games from the 2600 to the 360.It's all good.No vs. contest from me!I think the people that play the games are the REAL winners

[ApolloBoy]

I voted for both, especially since Genesis and SNES came after the TG-16.

 

Yeah, why up to the TG-16? Why not up to the PSX?

[elviticus]

i didnt vote from the choices

 

i will vote retro up to the Saturn/Playstation/N64 era

 

altho i love the DC as well but mainly for retro stuff like the emulators

my xbox and GC collection is manily compilations

 

the less complicated a game is the better for me, since i dont play game that much anymore i just want to play for an hour and then put it away and when i play it again in about a year i already know what the 2 buttons do (jump and attack)

 

So well said. I agree! I feel like games kind of "jumped the shark" after PS1 etc. Nowadays WAY too many games make me feel like I'm watching a movie, and occasionally doing something mostly inconsequential. Unlimited continues, save points etc. rob the games of any character. It's no wonder people trade in game so much now - once you've seen all the graphics, you're done!

 

This is my cantankerous old bastard feeling - I do know there are still some fun games. But, I really do feel that video games as a thing are kind of melding with other forms of entertainment a little too much.

[joeybastard]

I like a lot of modern stuff but never as much as my retro stuff. Old games are just more fun for me.

Edited April 4, 2008 by joeybastard

[Reaperman]

So well said. I agree! I feel like games kind of "jumped the shark" after PS1 etc. Nowadays WAY too many games make me feel like I'm watching a movie, and occasionally doing something mostly inconsequential. Unlimited continues, save points etc. rob the games of any character. It's no wonder people trade in game so much now - once you've seen all the graphics, you're done!

 

there's always been games like that, but I feel the change really happened the most at the ps1 level. That's when the 'giant supergames' tended to take over. Those games tend to have very broad appeal, and the ps1 was where games started to cost serious money to develop with their hundreds of megabytes of 3d graphics and complex 3d engines. Everybody wanted sell 'the next big game' but nobody wanted to make an expensive flop, so if they're going to make the game, damnit everybody should be able to see the whole thing.

That's a generalization made about today's 'super games' so naturally there are still titles that break the mold.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Reaperman

[+Ransom]

Based on the choices given, I couldn't vote.

 

I like *some* of the retro systems, and *some* of the retro games, but as with the modern systems, most of the stuff was pretty weak.

 

For me to buy and keep a system, it has to have a decent selection of games that are both fun to play and unique to the platform.

 

So I have an Atari VCS, an Intellivision, an Atari 8-bit computer, a TG-16, an NES, an SNES, a Lynx, a Jaguar, and a Playstation 2.

 

I expect to buy a PS3 and a Wii at some point in the future (no hurry).

 

I keep the PS2 around mostly for the great 2 player cooperative games by Snowblind Studios. My wife and I really enjoy playing those together.

 

I keep the Jaguar around because my wife likes the original Rayman, plus Cybermorph, Battlemorph, and Baldies. I've personally never been very enamored with the system.

 

I keep the NES and SNES around mostly for my wife as well. She likes the Mario and Link stuff, plus Rampart on the SNES. I like a few of the strategy games for the NES.

 

The TG-16 is kept for Military Madness, Galaga 90, and a few others.

 

But our main systems are the Intellivision, the VCS, the Atari 8-bit, and the Lynx. The vast majority of the games we own are for one of those systems.

 

So, we're primarily an 8-bit/retro family, but we support a number of other consoles that we have a dozen or so games for each simply because of a few very strong titles. I don't think we'd want to give up any of those systems if we had to choose.

[PressureCooker2600]

I voted for both also.

 

Video games are video games. They all kick ass!!!

[Atarifever]

If the first choice had went to Genesis, I'd have chosen that. I can't vote, because I really can't vote against the Genny, but I can't vote for modern gaming.

[Lord Helmet]

I play them all for the most part, though I find that I skip the NES era most of the time. I guess I'm burned out. I usually play my 2600/5200 or my Xbox 360

[Atari5200]

my most played systems are the 5200, Lynx, GP32, and Xbox 360. I haven't had as much fun in a generation with my 360 than I think the SNES era. But as much as I love my 360, my Lynx is sitting on my end table at all times, I play it almost every day, I can't say that about my 360. My PS2 and 5200 are in my bedroom. I can't remember the last time I gamed on my PS2, its usually for movies, but I play my 5200 often. I guess it's a tie for me.

[jboypacman]

I hate the term "retro" its just so over used i feel just like "old school" i like "classic" instead myself.

 

Here is my break down on this.......

 

"Classic":This is any game system that came out before the NES(besides the Atari 7800 which i put into the classic section because it can play 2600 games).

 

"Old School":(This can be called "New Classic" as well.)This is any system pre-PS1.

 

"Modern":This is any system PS1 on up untill the newest systems currently for sale.

 

There are several "odd-ball" or "niche" systems too that dont fall into any of the above......

 

3DO (Which i feel should even be listed as a game system)

Philip CD-I(This makes this list due to its status as a "Edutainment" device)

NeoGeo(More of a arcade machine than a home system)

Edited April 4, 2008 by jboypacman

[Atari5200]

Phillips CD-i (Which i feel should even be listed as a game system)

3DO(This makes this list due to its status as a "Edutainment" device)

NeoGeo(More of a arcade machine than a home system)

 

You have the CD-I and 3DO backwards, the 3do was the gaming machine, CD-I was more for educational purposes.

 

Neo-geo, I disagree, especially since it had a CD Version.

[+remowilliams]

You have the CD-I and 3DO backwards, the 3do was the gaming machine, CD-I was more for educational purposes.

Got that right, I don't think anyone has ever mistaken the CD-I for a game machine.

[Atariboy2600]

Wait you forgeting somthing, before the classic video gaming consoles where RETRO they where MODERN at one point. Come back in 10 to 20 years and the MODERN video gaming of today will become RETRO.

[jboypacman]

Whoops i flip-flopped thoses guys my mistake sorry.

[mimo]

i didnt vote from the choices

 

i will vote retro up to the Saturn/Playstation/N64 era

 

altho i love the DC as well but mainly for retro stuff like the emulators

my xbox and GC collection is manily compilations

 

the less complicated a game is the better for me, since i dont play game that much anymore i just want to play for an hour and then put it away and when i play it again in about a year i already know what the 2 buttons do (jump and attack)

Totally agree with you, if I was a 16 year old that had loads of spare time then maybe the modern stuff with a gajillion button combos to memorize and 3 weeks solid just to learn the game would be for me.

As it is, I am a 40 year old dad of 2 with a mortgage and 2 jobs, little gaming time so if I can switch on a console, the game appears and I can mash away at 2 buttons for half an hour I am happy.

oh and great graphix and soundz does not equal great game play

[mimo]

Wait you forgeting somthing, before the classic video gaming consoles where RETRO they where MODERN at one point. Come back in 10 to 20 years and the MODERN video gaming of today will become RETRO.

nah, they will all be land fill, the Xbox 360 can't make one year of use never mind 30

[Rik]

I never owned any console other than the Atari 2600,7800,400/800,Intellivision,ColecoVision.Have no interest in ANY modern gaming systems,never will,dont appeal to me to the slightest degree.Todays modern will be tomorrows retro,its all relative.

Edited April 4, 2008 by Rik