An Editorial By Cyrax9: Why Older is Better.

Cyrax9 · 10-07-2002, 11:06 PM

WHY OLDER IS BETTER: BY CYRAX9

Why is "Older" Better, and more importantly, why is this in the "Computers" forum? I'll start off by saying this is in the Computers froum because it's about PC's Games, and Software, with that said, let's answer why "Older is Better".

Older is better for several reasons, on older PC's you could see what actually went wrong when you got an error message, on Older PC's if there was a problem it was easy to fix, and on older PC's, Windows wasn't a complete POS like it is today.

Here's a good example with GAMES : I was bored to death the other day, I have a stack of CD-ROm's sitting inf ront of my 1.7GhZ P4 running Windows ME, and not one game NOT ONE GAME is as good as the "Classics", "The Sims" may be he exception, but that's still playable on my P2 running at 300MHz. If you can see what's just sitting on top of my desk you'll ghet an idea of what I mean by REcent Games (Stuff that's less than 2 years old, anything before 2000 is counted as "Old") here's a small list:

1. "The Sims: Livin' Large"
2. "The Sims"
3. "Deluxe Star Trek:" Starship Creator"
4. "X-Wing for MS-DOS"
5. "Star Trek: Starfleet Academy-Straegic Command"
6. "X-Wing and Xwing Vs. Tie Fighter Flight School for Windows 95"

All of those games, with the exception of "The Sims" were made before 2000, they all have Sub-Pa Graphics by today's standards, the Sound is a pain in the @$$, and they are FUN! That's right FUN, F-U-N!

Why are games this old so much "Fun" when they don't have "Flashy Grpahcis" or "Catchy Sounds"? Because they all came with something today's games lack badly, Extras, Manuals made of PAPER, and something called GAMEPLAY!

I have a "Freeware" Copy of "Civilization", not "Civ II" or "Civ III" or "Civ Insert Nmae here", just "Civilization 1", and you know what? It's the best game I ahve on this PC!

"Civilization 1" agmne out around 1993, and since then we've seenM$'sa attempt at a Cive "Clone", it's called "Age of Empires", we've seen several other "Strategy Games" that aren't worth theirt weight in horse-d*ng, and we've seen games barnded "Staregy" that are easy enough for a 5-year old to beat. "Civilization" is not Fancy, there's no blood and guts spewing across the screen, there's no mosters/zombies etc. to kill, there's no amazing 3D FPS to clock and there's no amazing "Original Soundtrac", but y'know why it's FUN? Because even if the Grapjhcis are little Squares shaped like Windows Icons on a "Colored' BackGround, the GAMEPLAY is the best of any "Strategy Game' on the market, and as freeware, the "Soudn Bytes" are fun, even if teya re cheesy, and 256 Color "MS Paint" style grpahics are fine in this game, now I know you may think itsounds dull but once you're playing this thing, you won't want to stop, the reason? the GAMEPLAY is what makes this game good, NOT a bunch of Blood and Guts flying every whichway. In short an old game with 2D sprites is more "FUN" than ane game witrh 3D Pre-Rendered FX.

To Close this I will say, that in the past tow years more crap has been churned out by the gaming industry than anything substancial for the PC, download "Civilization 1", it's only 6MB and it's free, play it, and learn why Newer isn't always better.

In the Next" part of this sreis of Editorials I'l discuss Hardware performance and "Application SOftware", this is Cyrax9 saying "Goodnight, and have FUN".

Null · 10-07-2002, 11:25 PM

from the games you mentioned. i've concluded that

Newer games suck.....................when the originals sucked to begin with.

---------IMO-----------

GameMaster · 10-08-2002, 12:12 AM

Can you tell me about the Sims, I've been thinking about getting this game.

manasecret · 10-08-2002, 03:21 AM

Civilization better than Civ 3 or even 2? Hardly.

Yes, Civilization is a classic and, despite it's simplicity, is an enormously huge game that could be playable forever. But even with all the depth of Civ it has nothing on the depth of Civ 3; Civ 3 is Civ to the tenth. Exponential I mean. The diplomacy is huge, fighting is more strategic while still simple, and so much more.

And I know Civ, it's in my heart. It's pretty much the first game besides Mario 1 that I really played and loved. It is classic and was revolutionary without a doubt (which gives it that old nostalgic feeling); but Civ 3 is now king.

As for your main rant, AOE2 (and hopefully Age of Mythology) and WarCraft 3 are proof enough to me that fun games are still being made. And I could list more.

db

Cyrax9 · 10-09-2002, 11:58 PM

GameMaster, the sims is another one of those "Playing God" Strategy games, where you run (or ruin) the life of a "SIMulated" person, hence the nbame "The Sims", try tkaing away theri toilets and having some fun, or making them filthy rich, extremely rude (or extremely nice) and having fun, it's the perfcect way to contrl a "person" and I love it.

As for Civ II & Civ III having beter "Tactics" Manasecret, yes that they do, but I find that when swithcing between Civ II and Civ I, one a 1.7GHz P4, there isn't much fo a dirreance, and the entire layout of "Civ I" was too mucyh eye-candy and "MUltimedai CD-ROM" and less gameplay, that was my problem, it's not a bad game, in fact it's great, but it ain't the same, and MArio 64 Vs. Mario 1, *I always p[ut Mario Bros. 1 in a1st place hands down when comapriing those two, tythere's no contest, as far as SMS fgoes, I've got to play it and jude it more, I'
m less interestind in Controls that tkae a month to learn (not master, learn) and Graphics, than I am in Gameplaynad fun (I spend $50.00 on Fun, not on eye-candy), my point was that Strategy games are going 3 nowdays and it's hurnting them, AOE's nex "Rendition" should be beter tbu the classics will remain just that, CLASSIC.

manasecret · 10-10-2002, 02:19 AM

Yeah, Civ 2 was basically Civ with better graphics. It fixed a few of the bugs of Civ, but that's just about where the changes end (except it got rid of those stupid history questions early in the game). I still remember a couple of the bugs, one being moving a unit through a city on a railroad acted as if the city was connected by road, so it took 1/3 movement away; another was if you left auto-save on and the clock turned over from b.c. to a.d. then the game crashed or something.

But classic is something different from fun. It has to do with nostalgia. And since something can't be nostalgic until at least a few years have passed, classic I believe comes with time. When it first came out I wouldn't think of Half-life as being classic, but I sure as hell would now. I might have predicted it would be a classic, but it still wouldn't feel like a classic.

And I can predict games now that I think will be classic in a few years.

WarCraft 3 and Wolfenstein multiplayer, in a few years when something better or at least newer has come along, I will think of those games as being classic. And it's because you remember all the fun you had with them. But now I'm still having fun with them, so they aren't classic.

Etc. You get the point I think.

db

MasterMind · 10-24-2002, 01:50 AM

What about StarCraft? Diablo? I think those are classics.

Just kidding, I don't play much PC games, but those two are my favorites.

Mushlafa · 10-24-2002, 04:24 PM

Diablo is to simple... i played that game for a year.. basically its click click click click click click click.. and whoever is gets the luckiest and plays the most is the best.... and whoever isnt stupid enough to get scammed ...... lol *cough* shiz *cough*

Cyrax9 · 11-19-2002, 10:25 PM

What I should also mention is that older games, think of even games like Zelda for the NES, used to come with the nice "Extras", posters, coupons for another cgame, a pin, or some other knick-nack, you get the point, right?

New(er) games have basically "stripped' the box bare, and these "Book Boxes" for lack of a beter name are the worst.

I used to spend $30.00 play a game for a few months and get about 5 "Bonus" items in the box, now I buy a game, I get a CD-ROM with a Jewel Case, and if I'm lucky a Manual, made of this wonderful invention called paper (/sarcasm)!

Most of these "Book Box" games come with just a Jewel Case and a PDF Manual that YOU have to print out on YOUR Printer, how many people like printing their own Mnauals for a quick-referance when the ol' alt-tab idea crashes the game? I know I don't like this.

My point is older games were just as fun, if not more so, than new games, and the "Vboxed Extras" made you feel that you spent $30.00 on something that would last more than two hours. Now you get a CD-ROM with no printed Manual and have to pay $50.0 for the gamne!?! That to me, is a ripoff and if you like to complain about piracy here's a way to curb some of it, offer something the pirates can't!

We have software Pirates on P2P networks who essentially "pirate" what you buy in the box, and half the time the people wjho Dl these pirated Items don't like them, the reaosn? It's not the same as "buying" a game with a ton of "goodies", the little "pins" and posters that used to come iwth Games were liket he "prize" ina Crackerjack box, tehy aren't there anymore so people try something different.

My point is, game companies need to offer more than code stuck on a CD-ROM and easily pirated. Things like POsters, Pins, and Colored Manuals need to be put back in the Box, the Box needs to be a "Normal" size, and games need to last more than a couple hours, even without cheat codes some games are hopeless, if you use cheat-codes the game should still be hard, you should still be able tohave to play awhile longer even if you "Cheat", in DooM I could beat the first Episode in less than an hour, Doom II took forever and some games got so frusteratng you just stopped playing untuil you found cheat-codes. My point is you shouldn't need "Cheat Codes" and if you do the game still needs to present a good challeneg, more than jsut a "clone" of an old game, somehting fun.

That's my $0.02 for now.

Happydude · 11-20-2002, 02:24 PM

Cyrax...you got a lot of time on your hands, don't you?

lol

anyway, i think you have a point, older games are much more fun, and don't get boring after like an hour of play, like some of the new ones, AOE2 for example. i liked the first one better...becase it was new back then, and it introduced aot of new stuff into the PC gaming world.
in AOE2, most of the gameplay revolves around AOE1, all they did was add a couple of new classes, which mnd you, dont have much of a difference from the other classes, and improved graphics (i think, can't remember).

right now im hardly playing an PC games, i got a snes emulator, and im into snes games now, Megaman X1,2,3; Super Metroid;Chrono Trigger. those games are fun...
i'm willing to bet that Metroid Prime (the new metroid commin out for GC, if some of you didn't know) is not going to be as much fun as Super Metroid because:
1. it's probobly not going to have half the amount of power ups.

2. it's going to be really hard to see whats going on around you, as ineither then where your looking.

and 3. it's an FPS...what i mean by that is that there are a ton of FPSs out there allready, whats the point of bringing out another one? just becase it's on a console? what about all the people that don't have a GC, me for one, wouldn't just be easier to release the game for PC because almost everyone in the entire world has one? but then again what would be the point with all the other FPSs out there now?

anyway, my wrists are starting to hurt, so ill just end this by saying...

cyrax...where is your hardware and software reveiw????

Cyrax9 · 11-21-2002, 02:17 AM

It's coming happydude, I intend to do M$ Office nex to rant about "Product Activation" and how Office XP runs fine...as long as you don't use Windows XP wit it

GameMaster · 11-21-2002, 02:41 AM

When you say Product Activitation, are you talking about key codes and registration numbers that software requires of you in order for you to use your software and prevent piracy even though we freely distribute are key codes online and have even gone to the extent of creating generator applications that can create valid codes for you to input?

Happydude · 11-21-2002, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cyrax9
It's coming happydude, I intend to do M$ Office nex to rant about "Product Activation" and how Office XP runs fine...as long as you don't use Windows XP wit it

but i got win XP, and office XP, and they both work great, i haven't had a single problem in these almost 2 years that i had them.

Null · 11-21-2002, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by happydude666
but i got win XP, and office XP, and they both work great, i haven't had a single problem in these almost 2 years that i had them.

prolly you never will. they work VERY well with each other

manasecret · 11-30-2002, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by happydude666
anyway, i think you have a point, older games are much more fun, and don't get boring after like an hour of play, like some of the new ones, AOE2 for example. i liked the first one better...becase it was new back then, and it introduced aot of new stuff into the PC gaming world.
in AOE2, most of the gameplay revolves around AOE1, all they did was add a couple of new classes, which mnd you, dont have much of a difference from the other classes, and improved graphics (i think, can't remember).

I think you and Cyrax's problem is that you're too busy complaining to see the good games coming out.

I'm kidding around, but really I have found plenty of games coming out now that I love, and y'all can't find any? It's like you're being blind to what's out, or acting like old people who are always saying how things were always better in the good 'ol days. Yeah well things change, and you didn't follow along and instead stuck to what you first knew.

I'm busy playing Age of Mythology and WarCraft 3 and Civ 3 and MOH: Allied Assault and Battlefield 1942 and you can't find anything fun?

db