Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@Chrysaor686
My comments are only my perspective on the current market, they weren't directed at you so take a chill pill.

I'm visiting older games at the moment because there is not anything that really flashes my fancy in the current market. Nowhere did I say in my post that the quality of older games are better, quite the opposite in fact as I stated in my first paragraph, I simply stated that the variety in the current market is smaller as you appear to partially agree with your statement in your second paragraph.

If your game is not a 'mainstream game', your company goes bankrupt, because the current generation requires that you invest millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours into development. Trying to be a so-called 'underground gamer' in this age is about the least efficient thing you can do

It is for this reason that older games become a viable alternative, not *the only choice*. You yourself state that some older games are timeless and thus are playable.

I never said that the previous generations didn't have anything good, and I'm not denying that some games are timeless

Looks like we both agree that there's nothing wrong with playing a timeless classic . My belief is that if you're looking to play a game, there is nothing wrong with considering an older game, if at the end of the day, it gives you a good experience. Games are meant to entertain, there's no competition in playing the l33test game on the market.

You're a staunch supporter of the current market, I'm cool with that but don't flash your personal opinions as facts and neither is your opinion greater than mine.

candy.man wrote:@Chrysaor686
My comments are only my perspective on the current market, they weren't directed at you so take a chill pill.

I did not intend to sound irate or offended, but it did seem as if your post was a direct response to mine,

I'm visiting older games at the moment because there is not anything that really flashes my fancy in the current market. Nowhere did I say in my post that the quality of older games are better, quite the opposite in fact as I stated in my first paragraph, I simply stated that the variety in the current market is smaller as you appear to partially agree with your statement in your second paragraph.

While there's nothing wrong with that (in fact, hindsight is 20-20, and you can enjoy all the greatest old games without having to wade through the trash), there is something wrong with actively campaigning against the current generation. The amount of effort that developers put into making a game has increased exponentially, and nostalgia junkies who seem to feel that they are entitled to their every desire are extremely disrespectful (or at least irrationally ignorant) of the incredible amount of effort that's put into every facet of a game's design. They don't take the minimal amount of effort to figure out that the previous generations weren't really as great as they made them out to be, and that most disinterest that they now have in the medium is actually due to a legitimate change in their brain structure.

I am lucky, in that I can see the draw in every single genre. There are some genres I lean towards, but none that I refuse to participate in, or hate on principle. I don't automatically discount something as stupid and mindless because it is a *insert genre here*, and I actually take the time to note the intricate differences in every single game that I play. I can place value in anything that I need to in order to enjoy a game. I can still tell the difference between a good game of a certain genre and a bad one (mostly based on technical issues), but I still give the bad ones credit for trying. When you're of my disposition, it's extremely difficult to feel that the industry is in a state of decay, or that there is not a plethora of variety contained within. I don't tend to generalize anything unless I can potentially prove that it is plagiarism.

If your game is not a 'mainstream game', your company goes bankrupt, because the current generation requires that you invest millions of dollars and thousands of man-hours into development. Trying to be a so-called 'underground gamer' in this age is about the least efficient thing you can do

It is for this reason that older games become a viable alternative, not *the only choice*. You yourself state that some older games are timeless and thus are playable.

If someone is content with living in the past, and completely ignoring any potential genius out of either lack of initiative/effort or automatic bias against something they've never even experienced (especially if that bias is founded on the principle: 'This game is popular, so therefore I must hate it'), then that's perfectly fine. Just don't crusade against what so many of us are busy enjoying, and try to bring technology to a halt in the process.

It's not like you have an aversion to mainstream games. Final Fantasy is one of the most popular series of all time, Diablo 3 is probably the most anticipated game of all time, and Guild Wars is one of the most popular online RPGs of all time. If you can concede that it's possible for something popular to be good (at least in the realm of videogames), then it will make your life a whole lot more enjoyable. You might have to do some searching and some trial and error to find games that you'd potentially enjoy, but it's totally worth it.

I never said that the previous generations didn't have anything good, and I'm not denying that some games are timeless

Looks like we both agree that there's nothing wrong with playing a timeless classic . My belief is that if you're looking to play a game, there is nothing wrong with considering an older game, if at the end of the day, it gives you a good experience. Games are meant to entertain, there's no competition in playing the l33test game on the market.

Actually, my two favorite games of all time are from previous generations, but only because an amount of effort equivalent to (if not greater than) the effort put into current-gen games was poured tenfold into these games, even if all of that effort had to be applied in different areas. Those games are Silent Hill 2 and Final Fantasy Tactics, and I still play both games regularly.

You're a staunch supporter of the current market, I'm cool with that but don't flash your personal opinions as facts and neither is your opinion greater than mine.

Part of having a good debate is being able to separate opinion from fact yourself. If I had to tag every opinion with 'In my opinion', every post would become entirely too convoluted and disjointed. The truth is, most of what I've said so far in this thread is factual, if sometimes exaggerated due to lack of specific figures. Even if I may have slanted my argument at times to prove my point, most of the defining points of my argument remained neutral and completely based in logic. Here's a way you can look at it: You can enjoy a fingerpainting more than a Rembrandt, but that doesn't mean that the fingerpainting required more talent or skill to produce.

Note that most of this post isn't directed at you, and I hope you perceive no ill will from it.

DoW2 is the first true hybrid of 'RPG' and 'RTS', it eschewed many common elements of the RTS in favor of actual strategy, and even if you hate it, it is completely unique to itself.

Wait... your suggesting there's strategy in DoW2? Let me go check my dictionary... DoW2 is only an RPG hybrid in the SP. In MP it plays as an almost pure tactical game and there isn't much strategy in either mode (Generally this is true of all RTS games but DoW2 more than others completely abandons anything remotely akin of strategy).

I don't understand the claims that CoH is DoW1 with WWII skin. I don't see it. I certainly see similarities as a result of being made by the same developer, and in the basic set up, but the nitty gritty of CoH is nothing like DoW1. CoH has more in common with DoW2 than DoW1.