Grimrock

Greco wrote:...

there's a reason they don't make games like they used to.

don't imagine that humans never make progress or learn to do something better, even in purely artistic pursuits.

the music of past centuries is actually quite less sophisticated than music produced today, the same with cinema, for another example. and so, too, games. we've learned to make better, more appealing games. not by throwing out everything that has been done, but by keeping only the good parts (hopefully).

it's both insulting to modern game designers and hopelessly naive (even outright stupid, if you ask me) to suggest that new games can't be as good or better than the games you happened to form fond memories of while you were younger.

LoG has its good points. it certainly does manage to evoke a sense of dangerous adventure and mystery mixed with "old school" dungeon crawling. but it also has its bad points. for example, the majority of "old school dungeon crawlers" that LoG captures is the infuriating class imbalances, mindless combat and frustrating burden of knowledge (a term referring to the need to research via external sources to not "gimp" your characters at creation, for example). it also introduces one of the absolutely worst boss fights i've ever experienced in all my years of gaming. the final boss was like playing Doom3 without the benefit of a flashlight, but with an annoying walk back to the teleporter every few seconds because of stumbling around frantically at high speeds and falling into the damn pits which you can't see because it's so dark. the pits did thousands in damage to me total, but i was never in danger from the actual boss itself.

the good things about LoG will remain, certainly, but i won't be recommending this game to anyone i know until the glaring problems are fixed.

I think Legend of Grimrock is a good mixture of both

NakedGranny wrote:

Greco wrote:...

there's a reason they don't make games like they used to.

don't imagine that humans never make progress or learn to do something better, even in purely artistic pursuits.

the music of past centuries is actually quite less sophisticated than music produced today, the same with cinema, for another example. and so, too, games. we've learned to make better, more appealing games. not by throwing out everything that has been done, but by keeping only the good parts (hopefully).

it's both insulting to modern game designers and hopelessly naive (even outright stupid, if you ask me) to suggest that new games can't be as good or better than the games you happened to form fond memories of while you were younger.

LoG has its good points. it certainly does manage to evoke a sense of dangerous adventure and mystery mixed with "old school" dungeon crawling. but it also has its bad points. for example, the majority of "old school dungeon crawlers" that LoG captures is the infuriating class imbalances, mindless combat and frustrating burden of knowledge (a term referring to the need to research via external sources to not "gimp" your characters at creation, for example). it also introduces one of the absolutely worst boss fights i've ever experienced in all my years of gaming. the final boss was like playing Doom3 without the benefit of a flashlight, but with an annoying walk back to the teleporter every few seconds because of stumbling around frantically at high speeds and falling into the damn pits which you can't see because it's so dark. the pits did thousands in damage to me total, but i was never in danger from the actual boss itself.

the good things about LoG will remain, certainly, but i won't be recommending this game to anyone i know until the glaring problems are fixed.

I think your wrong about that granny. As an earlier poster stated and I agree. They have taken puzzles out of games. Most likely because they just take to long to develop, and are to costly. What is a game like Mass Effect 3. It is mostly just an FPS shooter that routes you from area to area where pre setup battles are presented to you. Along with quests, and hours of conversation, that s all it is. There is very little intelligence or thought required to play that game to the end. Almost all modern games have taken the same routes, because most teens these days do not have the patience to spend more than a minute or two on any task.

NakedGranny wrote:

Greco wrote:...

there's a reason they don't make games like they used to.

don't imagine that humans never make progress or learn to do something better, even in purely artistic pursuits.

the music of past centuries is actually quite less sophisticated than music produced today, the same with cinema, for another example. and so, too, games. we've learned to make better, more appealing games. not by throwing out everything that has been done, but by keeping only the good parts (hopefully).

it's both insulting to modern game designers and hopelessly naive (even outright stupid, if you ask me) to suggest that new games can't be as good or better than the games you happened to form fond memories of while you were younger.

LoG has its good points. it certainly does manage to evoke a sense of dangerous adventure and mystery mixed with "old school" dungeon crawling. but it also has its bad points. for example, the majority of "old school dungeon crawlers" that LoG captures is the infuriating class imbalances, mindless combat and frustrating burden of knowledge (a term referring to the need to research via external sources to not "gimp" your characters at creation, for example). it also introduces one of the absolutely worst boss fights i've ever experienced in all my years of gaming. the final boss was like playing Doom3 without the benefit of a flashlight, but with an annoying walk back to the teleporter every few seconds because of stumbling around frantically at high speeds and falling into the damn pits which you can't see because it's so dark. the pits did thousands in damage to me total, but i was never in danger from the actual boss itself.

the good things about LoG will remain, certainly, but i won't be recommending this game to anyone i know until the glaring problems are fixed.

My friend, I don't know your age. I had lived the evolution of gaming industry (pc gaming mainly) from the very beginning (late 80s). Modern games are for sure less challenging than old ones, they do have better graphics but this does not make a good game? Novelty is a rarity in modern games, they all seem the same, just like modern movies. Too much CGI, too much violence, but does this make a good movie? You probably understood that I strongly disagree with your opinion. Modern games, just like modern movies just have a better packing (graphics, sound), but inside they are empty, imaginative (they all seem like FPSs) and produced with only one purpose: to satisfy the masses but not the demanding players!I don't say they are all crap, but good games are so rare like a drop in the ocean!

A lot of old gamers should consider one of the reasons we find modern games easy is because we're older gamers. After X number of years, you become kind of good.

Drax wrote:A lot of old gamers should consider one of the reasons we find modern games easy is because we're older gamers. After X number of years, you become kind of good.

Experience plays its role evidently but will new gamers find old games easy when they grow up. I doubt so.

Greco wrote:

Drax wrote:A lot of old gamers should consider one of the reasons we find modern games easy is because we're older gamers. After X number of years, you become kind of good.

Experience plays its role evidently but will new gamers find old games easy when they grow up. I doubt so.

Who's to say? I'd love to introduce people to some gems they might've missed from say pre-2000. I don't think everyone will struggle.

Like someone else said...new school games require very little critical thinking because the moment people can't figure something out they use the internet. Also there are so many games now a days with easy access so developers are not putting as much content as they used to since new gamers generally want to rush through the game so why bother?

Metroid Prime.

Drax wrote:A lot of old gamers should consider one of the reasons we find modern games easy is because we're older gamers. After X number of years, you become kind of good.

an absolutely brilliant point.

i know it's fashionable to hate on modern games, extolling the virtues of "the good old days" of gaming... you could say that Sudoku is the best game ever made, citing that it's a deep puzzle, infinitely new and extraordinarily difficult for humans to engage with. but would you be correct in your evaluation? no. Sudoku is not a great game as an art form.

it's a mental exercise, it's a task requiring the development of a rigorous algorithm for solution, but it is not a GAME. it is not a task which engages the user with feedback, risk and reward. it isn't entertainment, even if it does occupy your time. Sudoku is, qualitatively, not a game, it is merely pointless exercise.

i haven't played Mass Effect, so the attempts to assail its virtues and thereby assault the merit of "modern gaming" as a whole is even more obviously stupid.

modern games have clear advantages over games in the early '80s. they're capable of being serious art, telling serious stories. the systems for engaging the user's attention have become more sophisticated, more rewarding, less frustrating -- as they should be! sure, modern games cover a wider spectrum from pure entertainment to art form, but modern games have become better at being fun. you know, the fun? the thing which makes them games?

i'll cite the fact that game creation, as an industry, has absolutely exploded since the '80s. games dominate and pervade modern culture in a way that cinema and radio never did. if modern gaming just isn't as good as "old school" gaming, how do you explain this?