kosie99 said:
Let's face it, these games may give you the freedom to do whatever you want in a nice non-linear way and may have meaningful dialogue options, but it looks and plays like shit.
Well... if you're going to list it as an either/or alternative, then which is more important to you?
I can get past simple graphics (I also play wargames, which aren't especially known for their blistering 3D renditions of stuff), and I find that I can adapt to most types of user interfaces with a little time. (Excepting some wierdo stuff from the early/mid 1990s where everyone wanted to use a mouse all of a sudden, but nobody was sure quite how to do it.)
Nostalgia may be a factor, but I find that I still download and try out games from a bygone era that I never played the first time. I think what happened is that "realism" insofar as graphics and sound were concerned was a non-issue -- woah, 16 psychedelic colors and AdLib sound. Let those MIDIs roll! Thus, game programmers had to spend more time on creating an experience that would engage someone. My guess is that in the early days of PC gaming, bigger competition came from non-computer avenues. Why would I play a crappy-looking computer game instead of watching a movie in my own home whenever I wanted on my brand new Video Cassette Recorder? Graphics and sound were at the mercy of the hardware (I had an IBM PC compatible computer, one friend had a Commodore 64, another had an Apple IIe, another had an Atari 800...), but once you committed to a platform as a player, the playing field was more or less equal.
Nowadays, computer games are more of a commodity... everyone thinks they can be a programmer, and the Internet has opened up distribution channels. Thus, the games have to compete against each other. For most of the TV-watching simpletons, flashy graphics and sound are an easy way to catch their eye and lead someone to thinking that game A is "better" (whatever that means) than game "B", because it has better graphics and full 932-channel digital stereo surround sound.
(As an aside, I have two little kids and see an interesting parallel in the way that toys for toddlers are designed and marketed; the ones with the brightest lights and loudest or most annoying music tend to captivate the 3-year-olds more quickly. What I've found, though, is that more playtime tends to be spent with the venerable wooden blocks or toy trains than with the new Elmo that can sing and dance and poop and grow hair.
But I digress.)
Sure, playing the games I used to play reminds me of what a great childhood I had when I played them the first time around. These were also the days where you could actually buy a game without having to read the "minimum required specs", and without having to download updates/service packs/patches every few months. The games just worked, and were a lot of fun.
But they're still fun today, and there are new generations of people who have yet to experience the greatness that can be found if they're willing to take a look at what exactly they're looking for in a game.
Checkers and cards are like a zillion years old, but people still play them. It can't all be nostalgia, now can it?
