So, one of my friends had a good comparison for modern gaming...

He said: "These days, they make games like POP music" and I pretty much said: "Yep, hit the nail right on the head". I have no idea how I never thought of this comparison, but it's extremely true. Most modern games being made now are mostly being mass produced to make money and please the masses, despite the fact that they are terrible/essentially copies of other games, as well as mediocre in every other way. I think this is mostly why I have turned to Indie games, because small companies really have to work hard to make something well-made and unique if they truly want to succeed. This is much like Pop music and actually, a large amount of music being produced as well: generic chord progression, and catchy, meaningless lyrics being thrown out all over in order to please the sheep of the world, when there are very few artists left out there that that really keep the "soul" to their music and produce art.

yuuup.

ive been having a blast playing Thief Gold. something about Thief just makes me so tense and gripped. the spiders look like shite (seriously, its a green blob with stick legs) yet i shit myself when i see them. no modern game has done that to me.

some modern games are masterpieces but there is a lot of shit out there.

Most popular games maybe.

Dark Souls being a glaring exception.

There was plenty of garbage titles in the "good old days" too. Nostalgia goggles fuck everything up.

Ante wrote:There was plenty of garbage titles in the "good old days" too. Nostalgia goggles fuck everything up.

Indeed

for everyone who ever complains about how all modern games are mass-produced gatbage:

http://www.reddit.com/r/IndieGaming/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_World

http://indiegames.com/index.html

that's how I feel too. With some exceptions like RDR,Dark Souls.

It's the COD crowd everybody always tries to go after....and in the process dumbs everything down and ruins franchises like Resident Evil,Silent Hill,even Dragon Age and Mass Effect >__>

hsgslktgshjk mass effect was not "dumbed down." the shitty ending does nothing to take away from the great gameplay of both 2 and 3.

There are many more mainstream titles that are shit now, then there used to be. The main games that used to be shit were those produced by more 3rd party companies. Now, most of the shit games are produced by EA, Activision, Nintendo, etc.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that you get a lot less bang for your buck these days; they make you pay full-price for a game, then $20 for DLC already on the disc...sometimes multiple times. That's fucked up, I don't care what you say. I paid $12.50 for an indie game like Minecraft that has continued to entertain me for years, and I have gotten every update free of charge. I was gifted TF2 when it was $20, every update, free of charge.

Video games in the 90s were the same price they are now, sometimes even more expensive. Accounting for inflation, a brand new SNES game would cost $90 to $105 today. People need to look at the past with a little objectivity, seriously.

Kitsune wrote:Oh, and I forgot to mention that you get a lot less bang for your buck these days; they make you pay full-price for a game, then $20 for DLC already on the disc...sometimes multiple times. That's fucked up, I don't care what you say. I paid $12.50 for an indie game like Minecraft that has continued to entertain me for years, and I have gotten every update free of charge. I was gifted TF2 when it was $20, every update, free of charge.

In the past the majority of games were only 2-4 hours long

LOL, games were cheaper, not more expensive, I remember when I was young, I saved up and bought N64 with my own money for $124.00, and games for it were around $50.

Nintendo/SNES games might only be 4-6 hours long, but a lot of them you would spend a lot more time on, because they were actually difficult back then. Even children's games could be difficult enough that you'd swear they were made by the spawn of Satan (Fuck the Lion King game for the SNES).

Also, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask, Goldeneye, Battletanx, Duke Nukem 64 (3D for the 64), Duke Nukem: Zero Hour, Turok, Turok 2: Seeds of Evil, Turok 3: Shadows of Oblivion, Turok: Rage Wars, Pokemon Stadium 1/2, Pokemon Puzzle League.

Original Playstation had shit like Crash Bandicoot, Parasite Eve, Resident Evil (not too familiar with the PS1 era)

That's not even nearly all of the games of that era. You also have the Gameboy, Gameboy Colour, and Gameboy Advance/SP near that time-frame.

There were a lot, and I mean a lot of games that had more than 4-6 hours of gameplay, especially impressive for the singleplayer era. All modern games that are huge, especially Call of Duty and Battlefield have fairly garbage singleplayer that is very forgettable. I can barely remember what happened in any of the Call of Duty games except for Finest Hour and World at War.

Very few games I think are worth the money anymore...I just pass the time by getting co op stuff to play with friends. You can wait like 2 weeks now and most games have sales/used copies are $25-30

I kinda see the whole inflation thing, but as a kid parents just bought most of my stuff cheap used from pawn shops so price didn't matter to me,as I've gotten older I see all the bullshit in the game industry now days, just quick cash cows,which I don't see going anywhere because people gobble them up.

like on Black Ops 2,I bet they make millions each day off the new microtransaction bullshit

I prefer the original mass effect too,although it starts off slow to me. I think 2 and 3 were dumbed down 3rd person shooters to appeal to the masses. Many vets agreed on gfaqs forums back when they came out, although I don't really feel like writing chapter books arguing about it. ME2 and 3 were cool shooters, but they lost the rpg elements/were stripped down, not to mention the horrible ending

kinda like how as an action game I guess RE6 wasn't horrible horrible,but it was very sucky as a RE game.

Everything has to go all action to appeal to the most audience I guess,but in the process they ruin the series like Dead Space now

Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Borderlands, Borderlands 2, Saints Row 1, 2 and 3, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, The Witcher 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Bioshock, Tomb Raider, Far Cry 3, Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Metro 2033, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, etc.

Ante wrote:Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Borderlands, Borderlands 2, Saints Row 1, 2 and 3, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, The Witcher 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Bioshock, Tomb Raider, Far Cry 3, Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Metro 2033, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, etc.

The only games from your list I would say contend with old games are: The Fallout series, CoD4, Bioshock, FC3, Demon's/DarkSoul's.

I have no idea why you would think to put Skyrim, Borderlands, or Metro 2033 there (especially Metro 2033, that's just embarrassing).

Kitsune wrote:

Ante wrote:Skyrim, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Borderlands, Borderlands 2, Saints Row 1, 2 and 3, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, The Witcher 2, Assassin's Creed 2, Bioshock, Tomb Raider, Far Cry 3, Demon's Souls, Dark Souls, Metro 2033, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, etc.

The only games from your list I would say contend with old games are: The Fallout series, CoD4, Bioshock, FC3, Demon's/DarkSoul's.

I have no idea why you would think to put Skyrim, Borderlands, or Metro 2033 there (especially Metro 2033, that's just embarrassing).

Here's the magic answer: opinion. Your view on gaming isn't right, neither is mine. That's the beautiful thing about something like this, no one person is right or wrong. You calling my opinion of a certain video game embarrassing is just rude, however, especially considering at no point did I put you down for thinking the 90s were the best time for gaming. Hell, I fucking loved that period, myself. I'm just being a lot more objective of the history of gaming as a whole and realize each era has its strengths and weaknesses.

Yeah, objectivity can be a bitch.

I didn't see the big deal with the new Deus Ex...I got burned out by the time I made it to that club in china,I guess there was some bigger deeper meaning I missed *shrug*

I will note on one thing Kitsune said that i agree with, and thats more mainstream games are cookie cutter copies of one another. SNES and such had plenty of terrible games, but most of them didn't get the hype like there is now.

Almost everhthing in antes list I agree with.

I can barely stand to play older games anymor. Most haven't aged well s t all and are glitch ridden. Most of thr reason why games back then were so difficult was because they were filled with bugs and glitches and poorly programed.

Yes there is gems for sure. But all in all games these days do contamore content and gameplay then older games.
I never understand the whole argument that older games are better then current ones. Sure there are great games from that era but moet are clouded by nostalgia goggles. Like people who say the older gen pokemon games are better. Its all memory. Yeahh I wasted days playing red and blue. But you can not convince me they're better then white or black

Of course the more mainstream games are going to be designed to please the masses. That's why they are successful and got to be mainstream games.

But there are plenty of gems in recent generations, and plenty of developers who put a lot of hard work and creativity into their games. I've been having a lot of fun with it. As far as creative ideas go: there are loads of them in today's games. If you can't find them, you're not looking very hard.

The main thing I miss from the old days is the lack of DLC. Now I play a game and I get DLC shoved in my face two days after it's out. Games are constantly begging me to pay $10 for an extra half hours worth of content. Before if they came out with a little bit of extra content, like a few new cars in a racing game, you would get them for free. Or they would give you a shitload of content in a $20 expansion pack. $20 DLC now gets you a couple hours at most.

But as far as gameplay goes, most games play a lot smoother and have controls and such done a lot better now in comparison to the 90's and before. Go back and play some Goldeneye multiplayer: it sucks compared to today's shooters. I couldn't stand playing the Source clone of it for more than 10 minutes. Although I do like how everything you shoot explodes, more games should do that.

Kitsune wrote:LOL, games were cheaper, not more expensive, I remember when I was young, I saved up and bought N64 with my own money for $124.00, and games for it were around $50.

Sorry, but games in the NES through Genesis/SNES days were much more expensive. $69.99+ with many of the popular titles being $79.99 on launch day and I can think of several that were $100.

It really isn't a matter of opinion. They were factually more expensive, and except for the rare exception, they had far, far less content.

There were also far more "bad" games as a ratio then there are now. If you think there are a lot now then there were metric shit-tons of bad games then (by percentage).

I agree with you that as lot of the indie or Live/PSN arcade style games we're seeing now are great though. A lot of their appeal can be because of a retro-nostalgia look.

I've owned nearly every console ever made and up until this generation (when I closed my Game Stores) I had owned nearly every, single game for all of those consoles and played (at least tried) the majority of them and I would say the last 2 generations of gaming have been a definite improvement over everything that came before. No question.

Metalzoic wrote:

Kitsune wrote:LOL, games were cheaper, not more expensive, I remember when I was young, I saved up and bought N64 with my own money for $124.00, and games for it were around $50.

Sorry, but games in the NES through Genesis/SNES days were much more expensive. $69.99+ with many of the popular titles being $79.99 on launch day and I can think of several that were $100.

It really isn't a matter of opinion. They were factually more expensive, and except for the rare exception, they had far, far less content.

There were also far more "bad" games as a ratio then there are now. If you think there are a lot now then there were metric shit-tons of bad games then (by percentage).

I agree with you that as lot of the indie or Live/PSN arcade style games we're seeing now are great though. A lot of their appeal can be because of a retro-nostalgia look.

I've owned nearly every console ever made and up until this generation (when I closed my Game Stores) I had owned nearly every, single game for all of those consoles and played (at least tried) the majority of them and I would say the last 2 generations of gaming have been a definite improvement over everything that came before. No question.

Boom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_64_games

Find the good ones.

1080 was the shit yo

1080 was sweet. We sold the import for $120 a copy and couldn't keep it in stock.

You obviously do not remember the N64-era well, and if I must, PS2/Xbox-era were great as well.

Ready for me to go through the list of N64 games that were good? Here we go (A-Z, because it's easier): Animal Crossing, Army Men: Sarge's Heroes, Banjo-Kazooie, Banjo-Tooie, Battletanx, Battletanx: Global Assault, Bomberman: 64, Duke Nukem 64, Duke Nukem: Zero Hour, F-Zero X, Goldeneye 007, Harvest Moon 64, Kirby 64: The Crystal Shards, LoZ: OoT, LoZ: MM, Mario Kart 64, Mario Party (rage-inducing, but fun, I admit), Mega Man 64, Paper Mario, Perfect Dark, Pokemon Puzzle League (it's actually based on some weird other puzzle game, but very fun), Pokemon Stadium 1/2, I liked Quest 64 but it wasn't that good of a game, Resident Evil 2, Sim City 2000 (Thought it's better on PC), Star Fox 64, Star Wars: Rogue Squadron, Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire, Starcraft (Better on PC), Super Mario 64, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater series were fun, though not that good, Super Smash Brothers 64, Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, Turok 2: Seeds of Evil (this game alone is enough to buy an N64 or get an emulator), Turok 3: Shadows of Oblivion, Turok: Rage Wars, oh,and one I didn't see was 007, the World is Not Enough.

Playstation is where you tend to see a lot more of the shitty games, though they are on every console, but PS1 had a few good ones: Crash Bandicoot 1-3, Dino Crisis 1 and 2, Doom (better on PC), the Final Fantasy series (I hate the games, but I admit that some of them are actually not half bad), The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Parasite Eve (very well made story wise, interesting idea for combat mechanics), the early Resident Evil series (also, very good), Silent Hill.

Xbox and PS2 I'm grouping together, because of the lack of good games percentage wise during this era: Call of Duty: Finest Hour, Halo: CE, Halo 2, Jak and Daxter series, Okami (suprisingly good, feels like it's made by Nintendo), Psi-Ops; The Mindgate Conspiracy (very good game for it's time, deserved a lot more popularity), Rachet and Clank series, Resident Evil series again), somehow missed the GTA series (very fun games), StarWars, Battlefront II.

Gamecube (not much here): LoZ: WW, LoZ: TP, Metroid Prime 1 and 2 (amazing games for their time), Super Smash Brothers Melee.

360 games (I honestly cannot say much for PS3): Alan Wake (decent, though very short), Batman Arkham Asylum/City, Call of Duty 4/World at War, Dark Souls, Fallout series, Farcry 3, Gears of War series, Halo 3, didnt' see Mass Effect, but that series does belong there, Bioshock series, Dead Space 1 & 2

Also, to be fair, especially on prices, think of this: I paid $49.99 for N64 games (not including tax), Xbox/PS2 era it went up to the $59.99 mark, but here's the thing: You got EVERYTHING the game came with; I didn't have to pay $15.00 here, and $15.00 there to get things already put on the disc, if you look at how much bullshit you have to buy DLC nowadays to get what you want, that's already pre-locked on the disc (especially by money-grubbing assholes named EA), you usually end up paying $15.00-$30.00 for things already on the disc.

Yet another problem with today's games, is the huge lack of originality. Most games that are "mainstream" now fall into one of two categories: Shooting people from a first person perspective with regenerating health, shooting people from a 3rd person perspective from conveniently placed chest-high walls everywhere with regenerating health. I seriously can not even say how happy I am every time I play a game WITHOUT regenerating health (I wish it wasn't even in CoD4/WaW). Is it really that hard to invent a mechanic that you have to heal yourself every so often, and/or have a designated medic option in a multiplayer game? Oh, and al of this post-MW2 garbage: +25 for avenging a teammate, +25 for having a decent aim and killing somebody far away, +50 for jacking off in your face, +100 for turning off this game and finding something better to do. Do player REALLY need points for everything they do that isn't even meritable? Even back in the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era, there was still a lot more originality, and differences between games. Each game had a unique feel and "soul" to it that a lot of newer games lack. As much as I dislike EA, one game I do like from them (and Bioware) is the Mass Effect series. It's one of the very few games that I actually give a fuck about what's going on in the story anymore because of how well the dialogue is done. If developers actually want to put a single-player experience in a game, I don't want it to be the tacked on bullshit, that is so bad, I feel almost insulted to play. BC2/BF3 (BC1 was fun, and entertaining, and tried to be) and ALL modern Call of Duty games I have played have had the most forgettable stories, and laziness I have seen in a long time. And seriously, boss fights nowadays all being quick-time events? One of the most disappointing and insulting parts of FC3 I felt, though I really loved the games, was how lazy the boss fights were. Skyrim had promise: it had amazing environments, but it was really compromised by also an incredibly lazy quest system (everything is a goddamn fetch quest in that game, I swear), bad voice acting (it's always bad though by Bethesda so I forgive that), and very, very grind heavy to the point that it's almost as un-enjoyable as playing an MMO. I was too bored to play past lvl 20, and I'm surprised I made it that far. After playing a modern-day, over the top looking military shooter, just get on your computer, and try to play an older shooter that's been around for awhile like TF2 on a no-crit, highlander (one of each class, special rules) server, that is actually a skill-based class based experience, or even a newer shooter that's good like NS2, and realize how much skill has been removed from most games, and you'll actually feel accomplished when you do good, not from some stroke of luck, or when the game rewards you for something mediocre. It's like getting off of drugs or something, you realize how shit today's shooters/games have become, you do, you really do.

If you really want to look through a list of all the games, before attempting to try to "find the good games" for the N64, or any other game, make sure you try to "find the good games" on the other consoles as well, you'll be surprised as to how many bad games are out there on any console, but more so today.

/rant

My point with "find the good ones" was to point out that there was a lot of shit on the N64.

They've just been forgotten in place of the good ones.

Go back even further and everyone remembers Pong, and...

Vanquish had crazy rocket knees gameplay, much like DMC1,3,4 and MGR:R.

Nier had an insane backstory that you need to beat the game at least once to experience.

Armored Core has ridiculous customization options and (mostly) insane high speed gameplay.

Monster Hunter has thrilling hunts that you can't button mash your way though.

SMT (including the Persona series) has many games that have fairly deep stories.

Of the few that I have mentioned, 3 are actual franchises that are around today, and 1 is a spiritual successor to one of the darkest games in it's time (Drakengard).

I've heard that Persona was pretty good, I'd completely forgotten about that one; I still need to try it though.

Kitsune wrote:You obviously do not remember the N64-era well, and if I must, PS2/Xbox-era were great as well.

Are you talking to me? I remember the era's pretty well considering I bought sold and priced thousands of dollars worth of games (for every system) on a daily basis for more than 12 years over 4 generations.

just my main store grossed over 1 million annually buying and selling all these games new and used. I would imagine that from 1991 through 2004 when I closed my business I probably sold through more than 10 million in games (on the conservative side).

I also had a huge import selection and ran a wholesale side supplying other stores.

Honestly, you would be hard pressed to find anyone more qualified to talk on the subject than me.

Kitsune wrote:
Also, to be fair, especially on prices, think of this: I paid $49.99 for N64 games (not including tax), Xbox/PS2 era it went up to the $59.99 mark, but here's the thing: You got EVERYTHING the game came with; I didn't have to pay $15.00 here, and $15.00 there to get things already put on the disc, if you look at how much bullshit you have to buy DLC nowadays to get what you want, that's already pre-locked on the disc (especially by money-grubbing assholes named EA), you usually end up paying $15.00-$30.00 for things already on the disc.

You're right, game prices dropped from the standard $60-$80 range during the PS1/64 gen (which is what I was talking about earlier, games started to cost less). Many N64 games were only $49.99, but not all of them. They also equally ranged from $59.99 up to $70 (Zelda was $69.99) with a few going even higher. Hell, the Turok game you mentioned actually retailed new for $80.

Also don't forget this isn't accounting for a decades worth of inflation. You also aren't taking into account that you have Live/PSN/Indie games these days that run $9.99 to $20 which weren't even an option in previous generations (giving even lower priced options now as compared to then).

True we have DLC these days (love it or hate it), but it is completely optional. Consider that back then if you wanted more of a game you loved you had to wait for the sequel and then pay full price for it. You didn't even have the option of adding content for less than the price of a full game back then.

Kitsune wrote:
If you really want to look through a list of all the games, before attempting to try to "find the good games" for the N64, or any other game, make sure you try to "find the good games" on the other consoles as well, you'll be surprised as to how many bad games are out there on any console, but more so today.

/rant

If N64/PS1 was your favorite gen and you feel it had the best games then that's cool with me. That's a perfectly valid opinion.

However from an actual "critically reviewed" standpoint the PS1 had far more highly regarded/reviewed titles than the N64.

The 64 only had roughly 350 games released in NA in total I think and while it was a great system and did have some of the best games (Zelda, Mario, Goldeneye etc...) that gen, it really didn't have many hits overall. Few enough that it only needed half or less of the shelf/marketing space that the other systems needed. It was actually pretty well known for having far more mediocre games than good ones.

By comparison the 360 has over 300+ games just with an 80% or higher average review score (counting Live/Indie games which you said you prefer).

The PS2 had over 300+ highly rated games as well.

That is a massive difference compared to the PS1/N64 gen and the preceding gens.


Errr.... I forgot what the point of this was? Oh well, I can see how it would be easy to look back and remember it differently than it actually was, and if you prefer those gens that's cool, but overall I think it is pretty hard to make any factual case that gaming was better back then.

I would never trust the opinions of critical reviews made by "professional reviewers". They are almost always paid off, or are casual gamers that think they know something they know nothing about. For instance: I remember a magazine had a review giving DJ Hero a 10/10, and Super Smash Brothers Brawl a 9.25/10. Anybody with eyes can see that's fucking retarded. DJ Hero was a typical music game, but not even, just awful.

Also, a sequel is FAR different than DLC, nowhere near close. A sequel usually changed many gameplay aspects, as well as adding a new storyline, adding new aspects to the game, etc. A DLC is usually $15.00 for something already on the disc at launch, that money grubbing assholes like EA put on there to rip people off, and usually consists of something that does nothing/little to change the gameplay, such as a few new maps, and maybe a new weapon or two. For instance, just look at Dead Space 3: To give the scavenger bots a voice, $5.00. Does that even do anything for the game? No. And the only game that I remembered retailing for $70 was Hey You, Pikachu! because it was trying to introduce a mic to gaming ( and failed miserably, I might add).

Today's market nothing more than a bunch of copy-pasting devs looking to grub some money, instead of making art. As I had said before, the only place you can even find anything good these days are Indie games and developers that stem off from the mainstream. Single-player aspects nowadays are also beyond disappointing in most games; as I said before, BC2 and BF3 were two of the most insulting single-player campaigns I have had to play, and I think they should have just cut them from the game completely.

I would also like to add how disgusting the skill equalizers are for "casual" gamers in most games. If somebody wants to play a game, and they want to get good, it shouldn't be: "hurr durr, I'll just use this no-skill bullshit overpowered weapon or vehicle, and do well" If you're not good, you should get cocklestomped until you learn how to properly play the game. So many games allow for spray and pray and everything being extremely low on the skill tree, that I find it almost embarrassing that they allow it.

I've got a 360 library of over 50 games and I loved every one but a couple. My Steam library is getting pretty large as well with current generation games, and so far I've loved them all except for Tomb Raider: Underworld which was pretty mediocre. And there are shitloads that I skipped out on, at least for the time being. I've been gaming on a budget up until recently.

Really it seems like you're targeting a very narrow amount of games and ignoring the rest. Sure there are some games with no originality, but there are plenty with it. Hell, we've created a new medium for playing video games this generation.

No, I just have a very high standard for what is good.

Impartially, I say Bob won this. Just because he beat Art in his block-o-text.

Yea no offense Kitsune, but I am not reading all that haha.

Pariah wrote:Impartially, I say Bob won this. Just because he beat Art in his block-o-text.

You can't really win an argument based on opinion. I actually wouldn't even constitute this as an argument, so much as a discussion.

John Redcorn wrote:Yea no offense Kitsune, but I am not reading all that haha.

He made a couple of really good points there dude. Might wanna try.

You can't even compare that to Art's (that's a complament to you Art.)

chunckylover53 wrote:You can't even compare that to Art's (that's a complament to you Art.)

that one was longer than any of Art's.

Im going to keep this short and sweet

IMO

-Gaming back in the day was more expensive. I vividly remember games costing 60/70/80 bucks. Remember im in my late 20's. Seen more than a my fair share of gens.

- Games on average in those days were shorter. They were also much harder, so there's that. But they did this on purpose. Of course there is going to be exceptions to every rule. Like rpg's.

IMO games are much better these days in most ways. Go back and play those older games, alot of it is nostalgia glasses.

The only thing I think where current games have a disadvantage is the current business models.

Most single-player campaigns today are 3-6 hours (6 hours pushing it). If you can beat any of the LoZ games within 6 hours on your first attempt, or the Turok series, Duke Nukem, etc., etc., I will give you a cookie.

Kitsune wrote:Most single-player campaigns today are 3-6 hours (6 hours pushing it). If you can beat any of the LoZ games within 6 hours on your first attempt, or the Turok series, Duke Nukem, etc., etc., I will give you a cookie.

Your just cherry picking games man.

I already addressed this in my post.

If your only playing FPS then yea thats what your gonna get....

So new FPS shouldn't have single-player stories longer than 6 hours like the older predecessors?

But those older games didn't have nearly the fleshed out, deep multiplayer experiences you get in alot of FPS these days.

You mention COD, and BF as having horrid SP's. They do yes. Not saying I like them. But Doom, Doom 2, Duke Nukem, Hexen, Doom3, etc didnt have nearly the same MP experience(or any in some cases) that those games have.

Lots of awesome old skool FPS had rather shot SP. Hell I was able to beat Golden eye in a very short time, same with Perfect Dark.

Yes, but GoldenEye and PerfectDark, while they had a shorter overall experience for the singleplayer, were also significantly harder on the hardest difficulty. Your very first time through them would almost always have to be on a normal difficulty in order to learn how the game works/feels/plays in order to play it on a higher difficulty, and it would take significantly longer to complete the game on higher difficulty as well. Playing CoD/BF on the highest difficulty now days, now only adds a few mere hours to the clock, as opposed to older CoD games and previous FPS, in which playing on a harder difficulty could be downright rage inducing. For instance, let's use Halo 2 for an example; even knowing what you're doing, that game on Legendary, is far and beyond more difficult than Halo: Reach or Halo 4 could ever hope to achieve nowadays, yet Halo 2, imo, offered the best overall multiplayer experience (possibly shared with Halo 3) of the series.

And I forgot mention another thing: When somebody was being a douchebag when you played multiplayer games back then, you were attached to the same system, and they were always within punching range. You knew better than to piss each other off by doing retarded shit back in those days, lol.

Go beat Lost Odyssey in 6 hours and I will give you everything I own.

No one beats Art's wall of text. He is The King of Text. Period.


Oh and uhhh...Bob - and I say this with a great amount of personal nostalgia and love for previous gens myself - you're nitpicking.