Does it always have to be about the new games?

[LunarWingCloud]

On some forums I see so much attention paid to 2010, 2010. You don't see anyone talk too much about games from years ago. It's a bit sad sometimes. I understand the old days are gone, but in this new age where so many games lack inspiration, that we see the same material over and over, I like seeing discussion of the great feelings classics could provide, and I'm perfectly fine dusting off the PS2 to play some games. It's a weird but satisfying feeling when I would be playing a game released 7+ years before. My still-favorite game was released in 2003, in fact.

Do you find yourself playing old games or reminiscing about them?

[Riotsword]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

Hell, that's all I do. I don't own any console from this generation, just a PS2, a Gamecube I can't play because we're missing a memory card, and an aging Super Nintendo that needs a rubber band to hold the AC adapter in. I mean, I want a 360, but money's the issue. I get all my current-gen play from going to a friend's house.

[Denmo]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

said it before.

http://pavilionboards.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21582

All you guys spending money out the wazoo on the newest games, the newest machines, the fastest computers-

I'm better than you.

I have less games, less systems, less computing speed. I'm about 5 years behind on technology.

You guys empty your wallets on every piece of crap that comes out, as soon as it comes out, because you believe the hype. You want to be up their with your friends, experiencing the same things they are, at the same time. Every new $60 game that comes out that you want, you buy immediately.

You bought your systems because you believed it would work out, despite everything bad they said about them. You bought them because there was one, single, shiny game out of piles of crap that you wanted to play.

I'm totally better than you.

I sit back, I relax. A new game coming out? Neato.

I'll just wait until it's a bargain. Why? Because by then not only is it cheaper, by then I'll know for sure, thanks to you guys, whether or not I should even touch it.

I get to enjoy the classics of the generation, while you guys have to sift through the ****wads for me. And I'm saving money.

So I just want to say, thanks guys. Thanks for wasting your money for me. I appreciate it.

[Perversion]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

I bought my 360 because my buddy had one, and it was less expensive than the PS3 at the time. The games I had seen at the time looked good. Mostly, I was interested in the XBLA stuff. I loved my original Xbox, and at the time, I liked the direction they were going with the 360. There was no one game I had to buy it for. In fact, my first two games were Viva Piņata and Top Spin 2.


I bought my first PS3 because about 8 months after they had gone out of production, I found one brand new at Sam's Club. I knew I'd eventually want to get one, and I knew I wanted a 60 gig. So I took the plunge. I did not buy it for any particular game.


I bought a Wii just because I had extra money, and liked the idea of the Virtual Console stuff, now that I no longer had my NES, SNES and N64. I did not buy it for any particular game.


My 360 has not been turned on in over half a year now. Actually, I take that back. I turned it on a few times in the last half a year to stream music from Last.FM.

My Wii gets turned on usually 6-15 times a year since I purchased it.

My PS3 is on every day, be it for internet browser, Blu-Ray/DVD player, MP3/CD player, retail games, or downloadable games. If I had to do it again, I'd have just purchased the PS3. Both the other systems have certain games I enjoy and have their perks, but the PS3 has more than provided me with entertainment relative to the price I paid for it. Two of my top five (maybe even three) games of all time came out for the console last year.



As for the topic at hand, usually 3 times a year here, a topic will come up discussing (or it'll get diverted into discussing) older games. Sadly, those older games are almost always Final Fantasy titles. Also, I think there might be a social group that Riotsword possibly started with the express purpose of discussing games prior to the current gen.

[Jeroak Nelave]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

I'll be honest, if i had to do it again, i would not buy the 360 when i did. I would have waited until it was down to the price it is now, and i'll have known not to buy certain 360 exclusives that i could have waited a short time and purchased on the PC for a helluva lot cheaper.

But the PS3 and Wii i wouldnt change a thing, especially not the PS3. I enjoy the PS3 way too much, and even though i dont play my Wii as much, since i get to actually have fun with my friends, family and roommates with Wii sports and stuff, it was worth it.

[Alzar]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

i have a lot of money so i don't care

[DK]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

Yeah, pretty much.

[Sampson]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

I've since moved on past the point of buying a game and sitting in a dark room playing alone for 30 hours.

90% of the games I buy now are for the multi player, which in the vast majority of cases, is time dependent.

Further, $300 for a brand new console is a bargain. Really, I wonder about people's sense of money or how they live if they find the price of new consoles to be earth shattering.

Think about it this way: A night out drinking will cost you $20,30,50+ (depending on what city and your tolerance) for a few hours of entertainment. Going to see a new movie will cost you $10 for about two hours. Going on vacation will cost you hundreds or thousands of dollars for just a few days. You'll get thousands of hours of entertainment out of a new computer or new console for just a few hundred dollars. That's a deal.

What I do think is stupid is buying games at launch. At least wait until you try it out, or a couple months until the price drops or you hear more about it.

[Wavelength]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

I just got my PS3 and Wii in the last three months; before that I was happily playing my PS2 and Wii. And my current favorite games are all from the 2000-2005 window. (Edit: OK, Persona 3 & 4 were recent.)

But there are a lot more people with interesting talk to make over a new game than one of the thousands that came out nine years ago, you know?

[Big Rick Cook]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

Think about it this way: A night out drinking will cost you $20,30,50+ (depending on what city and your tolerance) for a few hours of entertainment. Going to see a new movie will cost you $10 for about two hours. Going on vacation will cost you hundreds or thousands of dollars for just a few days. You'll get thousands of hours of entertainment out of a new computer or new console for just a few hundred dollars. That's a deal.

The idea behind the cheap nights out for a few hours' entertainment is that you can still do those without having to buy an expensive piece of home equipment every three years just to keep up. And they're an excuse to get out of the house when you're bored with staying in and playing or watching **** from your couch-potato vantage. And the vacation correlation has almost no bearing on the rest of the comparisons. And people more commonly (and I'm referring to "people" as a blanket term meaning the general population that this economy and country are built upon) have $30 of extra cash after a work week to blow on instant gratification than have $300 they had to save up over a month or two (in some cases this extra savings takes people over a year from their garden variety jobs).

[Wavelength]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

I actually like the vacation analogy.

By no means does walking through a video game match the amazing experience of real travel, to see it with your own eyes, and feel it with your own skin.

BUT, it does at least offer a shade, a tease of the same joy that you get from travelling. That wonderful feeling of seeing new and different places, and interacting with them, and opening up your mind.

World of Warcraft was a good example for me. Azeroth was a stunning, delightful place to run around, to just explore and take in the ambience. And it really made me appreciate the aesthetics of places in a way that even visiting the Grand Canyon never did.

Persona 3 was another one. I was already fairly interested in Tokyo but running around and living in a fictional rendition of it, it seemed like such an interesting, engrossing, amazing place. And when I finally visited it last month, it was way more of an experience than I ever could have gotten through video games, but the joy, the feeling, that I had was of a similar nature (if of a much greater magnitude) to the one I felt playing Persona.

And of course, exploring in a video game is ten times quicker, a hundred times cheaper, and a thousand times easier than taking the time off and spending weeks in a strange, awesome place.

[Hrafn]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

I'm also one who stays behind the curve; I got my 360 in the fall of '08 (and similar late dates for other gens, aside from my PS2, which was a Christmas gift). And my average amount spent on a game this gen is probably $15 or even less (only two were bought at the full $60 price: Fallout 3 and Dragon Age).

As for the old stuff, I still play a few of my Xbox 1 games which have not found a proper replacement this gen (Phantom Dust, KotOR, Star Wars Battlefront 2, even Red Dead Revolver on occasion). Up until about a year ago I was a heavy SNES player still, especially the various classic RPGs I have on it (CT, Evermore, EarthBound, SMRPG, various others; not all the big hitters, but a respectable amount), but having my cable run through it was blurring the signal, so I unhooked it, and haven't had a strong enough urge for the old games to go to the trouble of plugging it back in temporarily. Now that my nephew's showing an interest in watching games, I may rethink that. Or I may just rethink it anyhow to wander through Magicant once more.

[John Mora]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

I played Phantasy Star for most of 2009. :B

Also, Persona 4!

And I just got Albert Odyssey for the Saturn!

[Riotsword]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

As for the topic at hand, usually 3 times a year here, a topic will come up discussing (or it'll get diverted into discussing) older games. Sadly, those older games are almost always Final Fantasy titles. Also, I think there might be a social group that Riotsword possibly started with the express purpose of discussing games prior to the current gen.

Not me. I believe it was Chuck who started that group.

(after looking) Yep. It's called "Generation Gap".

[djutmose]

Re: Does it always have to be about the new games?

I personally invested $350.00 in a PS3 so that I can eagerly await the release of "PSOne Classics" on PSN. New tech, old games...

Well seriously it is odd how excited I got when Grandia came out on PSN. When FFIX is released people are going to have mass fits of ecstasy. So in a way it is making old games new again.