Wyrmlord
Arcane
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2008
- Messages
- 28,904
I am having continuous disillusionment with these people. :D
How is it that games that were shit back then and are shit now suddenly become masterpieces in the eyes of these revisionists who think any game older than them is the Second Coming?
Let me give you some specific examples:
http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/ishar_1_2
Positive ratings for one of the biggest mediocrities among old games out there, which has nothing going for it other than some fancy 2D graphics that look worse when you play it on its real resolution. It was terrible back when it was abandonware, and to think people would willingly pay money for that crap.
Look at all the games that get positive 4+ reviews on this site:
Messiah, Stonekeep, Spellforce, Stronghold, Combat Chess, In Cold Blood the videogame, Teenagent, Pro Pinball, MDK2, and so on. And I didn't even have to cherrypick, just a quick run through their catalogue shows you all you need to know.
But hey, it's always been like this. Top rated games of Abandonia:
Starflight
Albion
Moebius
Windwalker
Buck Rogers
Blood Omen
Moonstone
Betrayal At Krondor
Lands Of Lore
Ultima 6
Ultima 7
Wasteland
Buck Rogers 2
Anvil Of Dawn
Conan The Cimmerian
Eye Of The Beholder 2
Nethack
It's only a little less depressing than the Underdogs list.
A large number of people who visit these sites are not real gamers; they are just people who willingly believe that these games are somehow good, because they were "good for their time". People who stick to modern mainstream games are still better than them.
And they willingly herd behind the banter of "Modern games are shit!" and interestingly, system requirements end up being their main complaint. System requirements? If you were playing these games back then, you needed a good computer too. If you are playing these games simply because you don't understand hardware and do not want to upgrade, you are not exactly doing justice to either old games or new ones.
How is it that games that were shit back then and are shit now suddenly become masterpieces in the eyes of these revisionists who think any game older than them is the Second Coming?
Let me give you some specific examples:
http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/ishar_1_2
Positive ratings for one of the biggest mediocrities among old games out there, which has nothing going for it other than some fancy 2D graphics that look worse when you play it on its real resolution. It was terrible back when it was abandonware, and to think people would willingly pay money for that crap.
Look at all the games that get positive 4+ reviews on this site:
Messiah, Stonekeep, Spellforce, Stronghold, Combat Chess, In Cold Blood the videogame, Teenagent, Pro Pinball, MDK2, and so on. And I didn't even have to cherrypick, just a quick run through their catalogue shows you all you need to know.
But hey, it's always been like this. Top rated games of Abandonia:
Starflight
Albion
Moebius
Windwalker
Buck Rogers
Blood Omen
Moonstone
Betrayal At Krondor
Lands Of Lore
Ultima 6
Ultima 7
Wasteland
Buck Rogers 2
Anvil Of Dawn
Conan The Cimmerian
Eye Of The Beholder 2
Nethack
It's only a little less depressing than the Underdogs list.
A large number of people who visit these sites are not real gamers; they are just people who willingly believe that these games are somehow good, because they were "good for their time". People who stick to modern mainstream games are still better than them.
And they willingly herd behind the banter of "Modern games are shit!" and interestingly, system requirements end up being their main complaint. System requirements? If you were playing these games back then, you needed a good computer too. If you are playing these games simply because you don't understand hardware and do not want to upgrade, you are not exactly doing justice to either old games or new ones.