View Full Version : Rediscovering older games

16-11-2001, 14:25:03
I recently discovered how good System Shock 2 is - this game from 1999 is fantastic. Of course, best of all, it actually runs on my rather aged old hack of a machine, which modern games are unlikely to do these days. X-Wing Alliance is also a tremendous game that still gives me pleasure (sorry I still have it MikeH!).

I also flirted with Virtua Fighter the other day, which must have been out in about 1996. That was still pretty good too.

Are new games actually better? Or are we just believing the hype and thinking that each new game is the "best game ever" ?


16-11-2001, 14:28:03
You've got my X-wing alliance? :confused: I thought I had it. Oops.

16-11-2001, 14:28:50
I think most new games are worse. Either that or I've lost interest in games, I don't get excited by them anymore other than rare exceptions like ISS or Half Life.

16-11-2001, 15:04:35
There was a strech there for awhile when the new games were terrible. I think most of 2001 was a bad year for games. The game coming out now though appear to be quality games.

16-11-2001, 15:22:08
Try Outcast as well.

Alliance is great. Definately the "Best StarWars Game of All Time" IMHO

Would be playing it at the momnet but my flightstick is bust.

SS2 is also fantastic and I still cant complete the body of the many bit.

I agree about 2001 being generally poor esp the summer. I enjoyed IW2, but I'm waiting for them to fix a couple of bugs. Tropico gave me a few hours of fun but never really got me addicted.

OpFlashpoint was definately the game of the year for me. Cant wait for the russian campaign.

And I might be getting cable internet so online flashpoint beckons.

16-11-2001, 15:53:53
Perhaps it's part of getting older, that we don't get so excited by games anymore? God I hope not :(

16-11-2001, 15:54:35
I was speculating about that the other day. Then again I'm really, really excited about ISS and I've been playing that for a couple of years.

16-11-2001, 17:19:17
What the hell is ISS anyway. Or am I being really dumb and its really obvious

C.G.B. Spender
17-11-2001, 08:41:01
Something MikeH is addicted to.

17-11-2001, 19:50:05
I think it's International Superstar Soccer? I could be totally wrong though

17-11-2001, 21:33:22
There are *some* newer games that are great. But not very many of them and definitely not the CivIII type ones that proclaim their greatness before they are even released.

Like Mike and his football, I'm really looking forward to Warcraft3. Diablo2, for all its undeniably crap bits, is one game I have just about played more than anything else ever.

Baldur's Gate II - very good, once you get into it. And 1998 was probably the best year of my life as far as good games getting released goes - Starcraft, Halflife.

Unreal Tournament and AoK in 1999 were also pretty good:).

So I don't think the games are getting any worse. But the old game gods aren't the ones making the good new ones, generally.

17-11-2001, 21:39:24
P.S: Intergalactic Spaaaace Soccer!:D

C.G.B. Spender
18-11-2001, 09:08:27
Some older games I still play are (or played until Windows refused to load them)

Command HQ
Red Baron

No Civ style game, maybe except Colonization.

18-11-2001, 23:12:58
MoO2 is vaguely Civ style...

The Shaker
18-11-2001, 23:16:20
Moo Moo Moooooooooooooo i'm a big hairy cow with swinging udders


Resource Consumer
19-11-2001, 00:00:28
Being, sadly, one of the older posters here I don't think it is a question of age. I think, though, there is a genre weariness.

I still find a desire to play games to fill in spare time or to switch off from other things. However, I do not have the time to forensically replicate algorithms and play to the max. Some regard this as a statement of manhood - I just think it shows they have no life.

Enjoyment is important to me and if that is through clever gameplay, challenge or gratuitous eyecandy then fair enough.

I don't think the games have got worse but the marketing has got slicker and our expectations higher. Frankly, the strength of the former suggests that we should reduce the latter.

19-11-2001, 09:46:21
I like games that I can pick up and play for 20 mins or half an hour really get into and then leave for a week or two before I play again but that I will want to keep playing at that kind of rate for years. That's all I really have time and motivation for. I am too busy at weekends to play games and I'm too tired to concentrate in the evenings.

So I don't really have time to play stuff like AoK, much as I'd like to but something like ISS or Tony Hawkes is perfect.

19-11-2001, 11:23:26
got the MAME arcade emulator recently and played lots of Double Dragon- now THAT is a game! w00t!

Also still playing Pokemon now that i have pokemon stadium 2 for my old N64 - don't laugh, i love my Snorlax :o

Greg W
21-11-2001, 00:22:40
IMHO games these days rely too much on flashy graphics and multiplayer rather than good solid game design. There are the odd little exceptions to this rule, but they're not as common as they used to be. The big publishing houses I think are pushing this - they don't want to know you unless you're well known, or have a flashy name or title. Heck, title these days don't count for much - witness LoTR MMORPG getting canned. :(

Older games I still play occasionally:
Darklands (best ever RPG imho - better than BG2 (which I finished))
Ultima IV, V, VII
Wizardry (went back and played some of them again - some of the first games I ever played)
UFO: Enemy Unknown (the first XCOm game, forget what it was called in the states)
Wing Commander: Privateer

Though to be fair most of my time is taken up playing Dark Age of Camelot - cool game. :smoke:

21-11-2001, 09:48:20
Old games had great multiplayer, and some new games too.

ISS Pro Evolution and Tony Hawkes 2 are great multiplayer games... actually you know what? The place where really good fast fun games are coming out are consoles. It's like the old computers developers develop on one system for 5 years and really develop the hell out of a platform, get every tiny drop of power out of it. PC game makers are trying so hard to keep up with the latest graphics card etc that they never get to push the machine. Consoles rule the genre of multiplayer gaming where you have a couple of people in your living room or bedroom playing games together and having a laugh.

Where the PC should rule is the kind of in depth strategy game where it can use extra memory and the hard drive for good AI and storing data that affects the way the game plays. Stuff like Diablo 2 and Civ never works on consoles, the other area is FPS and RTS which are best played multiplayer where PCs networking and internet connections can get people together to play easily and patches / updates / mods / new levels can be downloaded etc.

In the old days all these things were on one machine. On the 64 you could go from Silent Service straight into IK+ on the same machine, today these things are a lot more specialised.

I'm going to be writing about this in an article for this site at some point but I'm still trying to clarify my thinking on the subject.

21-11-2001, 13:16:33
Ultima 7 still resides on my machine.

21-11-2001, 22:49:22
Consoles have always struggled with the more in-depth games, possibly due to not having a mouse. Playing any RTS without a mouse is very difficult indeed. Again, FPS games could quite easily be produced now on any of the current consoles, they're all powerful enough and they're starting to get internet connections, but again it's the interface problem. The mouse/ WASD interface is so intuitive for FPS, a keypad just basically isn't.
Strange, as for years, people have moaned that the mouse and keyboard was the worst thing about PC games.

Of course the PC has lots of RAM, the HD and everything, but again, consoles now all have memory cards for storage and very powerful graphics - I'd bet there isn't anybody who owns a pc who is not impressed by the PS2 graphics produced recently?

So, what is it now that actually separates PC games from Console games (and I suppose more deeply, PS(2) games from Nintendo games)?

Resource Consumer
22-11-2001, 20:15:34
Or, dare I say it, XBox games?

22-11-2001, 21:06:56
I've actually been playing a bit of Mutant League Football on the Genesis lately.

C.G.B. Spender
22-11-2001, 22:13:56
That sentence sounds totally bizarre, like something someone from the future would say in a bad scifi movie

C.G.B. Spender
22-11-2001, 22:14:26
with the outfit of my avatar

23-11-2001, 00:06:12
I still replay the old LucasArts classics now and again.

30-11-2001, 10:11:00
Wow, a lot of old games that I like are mentioned here. And I was beginning to think I was the only person that still remembered them!

Wasteland? Great game!
Darklands? Best RPG ever on a computer, Period. Nothing else I've ever seen on a computer has ever come close.

Oh man... you people are making me nostalgic. I think I'll go out for some spam, and try to forget when more then one game every 2 to 3 years was seriously fun...

30-11-2001, 13:40:08
I'll be damned if I can remember Darklands... must have been during my four years in college with no computer of my own.

30-11-2001, 15:38:36
Transport Tycoon was my big time-sucker at university, that and Championship Manager 2, then Command and Conquer.
Before then, I was totally engrossed in the X-Wing/Tie Fighter series of games. I bought all the expansion packs for both titles. Plus the awesome Doom/Doom2, and the fantastic Civilisations (the original one!).
My how those were good times. All new games seemed to be original, new genres sprung up, people were happy, the sun shon, babies smiled, free love, cheap alcohol, football in the park, jumpers for goalposts...

30-11-2001, 15:40:41
Isn't it. Hmmm?

30-11-2001, 15:54:39
I would love to get Super Soccer from the Super nintendo if anyone knows where I can find an emulator for that?

30-11-2001, 16:07:36
Dare I say it ? SMAC :gasmaske: