Ceremony
blahem
- Jun 8, 2012
- 113,011
- 15,077
That's fair, I'm probably basing that on stuff from the end of the PS1 like Rayman 2, not counting development over the course of the console's life. Then from PS3 to 4 you have a lot of remasters and remakes and stuff like GTA V just coming out again.I might be biased because the last two consoles I've owned are the PS2 then Wii, and have stuck with PC gaming since, but I think you're nuts to say there was a bigger jump from the PS2 to the PS3 than thePS1 to the PS2. PS1 was the primitive stages of 3D gaming, and the standard controller didn't even have analogue sticks - those came later to the system. The way I've always looked at it is the PS3 was basically PS2 games but now rendered in HD.
Anyways no problem for me in playing older games, actually a couple months ago I went through Doom 2 playing some extreme mod. But while I missed a ton of PC gaming up until 2000 I find a lot of the 'recommended' games don't really cut it for me, like I couldn't really get into System Shock 2. That's more a case of not being my type of game than dated technology though.
I thought it was obvious I was exaggerating for effect. As for hypocrisy, I haven't played either of those because RPGs aren't my thing (three of them about the same thing especially, also when I played the demo of the first I couldn't turn it off fast enough) and because I've only ever owned a SNES and Game Boys (and because I legitimately don't see the value in playing one of dozens of Mario platformers, regardless of what word they end up throwing on the end of it).Love the ignorance.
You're bagging on people for not appreciating your game, yet do the same thing by reducing Mass Effect to a "alien ****ing simulator" and assuming Super Mario Galaxy is the same game as the ones that came before it (only the NSMB games can really be nailed for that)
Not even gonna bother reading past that given the hipocracy.
I suppose in this instance something I should be more aggrieved at something like Spec Ops: The Line being lost to the mists of time, since it's of a similar worthwhile quality to BioShock and subverts established notions of objectives and violence that are usually found in games in a similar way.Not especially. Again, the number of people who would be willing to sit through [old, classic movie] is probably just as low as the number of people who would be willing to play through [old, classic video game], so I think the comparison here is a bit of a fallacy. Kind of like how we're sitting here talking about BioShock as opposed to the objectively better/more important System Shock 2.
The marketplace and its desire for violence is the primary thing that undermines video games' ability to create legitimate works of art, but this is only a problem that profit-driven, main stream gaming has to deal with. This isn't to say that you can't have a legitimate work of art that's violent, just that that violence necessarily limits what kind of story you can tell, and that the element of player agency that video games necessarily have can absolutely serve to undermine the legitimacy of a story (see: most things by Ken Levine, absolutely everything by David Cage, and most things by Naughty Dog.)
There's obviously a limit to the sort of content you can have in a video game because of the notion of objectives, which is something few games have or can balance very well. How many great games have there been that you would hold as being story-driven that still require you to kill something, or multiple things? I don't know how to balance a story in a game with a gameplay mechanic which doesn't have defeating enemies at its heart, so I think you have to consider games with that in mind if you want to view them critically as some sort of artistic achievement.
Last edited: