Old games vs New/Next-Generation games, is really worth a comparison?

[Marco]

Hello there!

Ok, guys, as I anticipated in another thread, I'd wish to talk about a phenomenon that I encountered on the web from at least the last 7-8 years... let's say when I was following some youtubers, when horror games about Slenderman were an everyday trend, when some reboots of old shooters came out (starting from Shadow Warrior reboot made in Poland), and so on....

So, I would start with translating some of what I've read from the comments sometimes, during these years, and talk about the fact that the web (at least in Italy) seems to be divided in old-school hardcore gamers and next-gen casual gamers who like to follow every trend of the moment... or who actually like the cinema movie that authors mix with a graphically realistic game.

Let's start with some comments I read on various videos of Zeb89 (not to discuss about his old cheating history, I'm referring to him as the youtuber who uploaded the videos where I took the comments from), as many italians did, I watched many of his videos during the last 7 years (he now is on Twitch only, btw).

I don't remember if this comment is from a Painkiller H&D or a Serious Sam 3 walkthrough series from Zeb. Anyway, a guy wrote: "This game is freaking easy: monsters are queuing up together to be killed!".

A comment I'm sure it was on a Zeb's video about the last canyon & final boss walkthrough from Serious Sam 3: "What the fuck is this game? Its graphics is from 1997".

A video of a duel in Serious Sam 3 between Zeb and SeriousShark. A dude I'll quote below wrote about 5-6 comments, I will translate 2 of them: "After 11 minutes and over, I realized just one thing: this game is a load of poop. Repetitive, it gives me seasickness and with bare and really ugly arenas that don't make a fucking sense.
My God, I thought that, at reviewing videogames, you had some good taste, Zeb, but definitely we are not there yet. *Swear in tuscanian dialect* what kind of fun do you have in chasing yourselves like 2 morons with thousand of thousands weapons?". My personal note: the "bare and really ugly map that doesn't make a fucking sense" in that video is... Little Trouble.

"This game might be so good, so I could be the strange one because I like teaming games with a bit more of tactics instead of shooting from the left to the right like a moron just to catch somebody who jumps like a horny kangaroo and meanwhile there is me behaving like a rabbit with his ass on fire too, because I'm afraid the moron above hits me first.
If campers drive all of you guys insane so much is just because you guys can't lose with style. I almost never camp and when people kill me I don't get angry, I actually go driving them out". Marco's question: and what the fuck does "Campers drive you insane because you can't lose with style" mean???

Another video from Zeb: a duel vs Serious Mario, but in HD version of Sam. Some comments.
First one: "This is really a piece of poop of a game, you do nothing else than just running like a fool from the left to the right, jumping 30 meters high and it even does uh-uh, what is this uh-uh, then the arena... but I'd rather name it a dog-house. What a newbies you 2 are, you 4 cents-worth players, just go get a serious job, and you even act as the good one there.".

Second guy: "Listen to me, guys, that's not true that Serious Sam requires skill, because at my first day of playing I got scores like 20-3, 20-4, in fact I abandoned it 2 days later! Then I still find better BattleField if played with friends or COD if played just for a little game, or still those great games from Nintendo with their great single player campaigns, very important in a game!". He follows writing 2 more blablabla. How can this guy compare single player old Nintendo games (he mentioned Super Mario, Mario Kart, The Legend of Zelda, Pokemon games... I guess from NES, SNES, GameBoy, Nintendo64 era) to the versus part of Sam's multiplayer???

Third one: "What a piece of poop of a game, jump-shoot jump-shoot for the whole game, now I get why he is the best: only 4 cats do play on it. Go COD, game that you named 'made of poop' but you only died there... In my opinion you must have some mental problem if you play Serious Sam...".

Here is one guy talking to another one. I'll translate only this: "Just look at the most sold game. CoD is much more sold because it is very competitive! And don't tell me that whoever saying CoD is better means he knows nothing about videogames... because he will think the same about you! Your problem is that you defend strenuously the games you like, even if you know there are better and more sold games... Sorry, but that is: CoD is also way too competitive even if it has a very old engine". This was 7 years ago.

From an old Live show of Zeb in 2015-2016. Zeb is talking about how OP Sniper Rifle and Rocket Launcher are in Serious Sam HD. While playing this game, he got fragged in only one hit (maybe with a rocket, if my memory works good) and he said "Guys, look at it! Come on, this isn't that normal!" (obviously he referred to other Arena games, like QL/UT where weapons inflict less damages). Well, read what a guy wrote in the comments: "You say it isn't normal??? First of all, in real life if I shoot you in the face with a pistol, you won't get up anymore...". And more blablabla.

This is maybe from a video where Zeb was comparing Arena Shooters to Tactical-War Shooters. A guy wrote about Arenas: "These games have no strategy at all! To carry 14 weapons is NOT strategy, square maps are NOT strategy". Then I don't remember anything else, but maybe there's no need of it.

I don't remember what video was this, but here we have an unbelievable comparison between UT and BF3. This is another case of a guy discussing with another one: "Listen, I used to play Unreal Tournament when I was 11 years-old and it is facilitated and easy because it is only run-run, jump-jump, shoot-shoot and the medikit is there on the map, waiting for you. Also, weapons on the map are an already ready meal. That's why Unreal Tournament is so easy.
Battlefield 3, on the other hand, is harder because you have to find your teammate medic (you never know where he is) and you have to be aware of the snipers. If you sleep, they get you. But this is not because the game is ugly, this is just because you have no idea how to play it. Also, in Battlefield there is loadout so that I can choose my weapons and this gives me much more of strategy. It is difficult because you can choose only two and you have to master them very well, plus this game allows me to customize the magazine and other parts of the gun as I wish, so that I have various and different weapons everytime.
And do you know what happened when I entered a building shooting as Rambo, like you do in your favorite Arena games? When I was inside, my magazine got empty and my opponents from the other squad killed me suddenly.
Then Battlefield 3 has the building demolition mode played in teams, so my friends and I have a lot of good time like fools! It is sooo damn funny when you place C4 and buildings explode and come down, and you are there watching them". Then I remember he kept repeating always the same foolish comparison. And I still don't get what an extraordinary videogames knowledge did this dude have when he was 11.
Besides, I'm missing something with the logic from these comments: to choose and customize a fucking assault rifle (equal to each other from the same class) BEFORE JOINING THE GAME is DIFFICULT and gives you more of strategy, whereas to spawn with just 1-2 basic and weaker weapons and moving around in order to pick up 7-8 different weapons on the map WITH THE RISK OF BEING SPAWNKILLED is EASY and an assistance for newborn babies??? Last, but not least, to compare UT' standard Deathmatch to Battlefield's Demolition in teams is pure nonsense.

From the video "Arena FPSs died because...", read at this genius (I merged 2 comments into one): "These games simply died because those idiots who made FPSs didn't follow the current trend and the matchmaking is half-arsed made. Just add a level that raises (let's suppose) when killing other players, then induce players with a similar level to face one to each other, this would have prevented gamers from leaving FPSs... Then add as an award, after some games or some kills, a "suit" or a customization (aesthetic only), this could have encouraged gamers to play much more and would also have offered more competitive games once the players improved their skills... Not a fault of World of Warcrafts or free-to-play games if FPSs weren't capable to follow the trend... If everybody play for such things, why not adding them? Pride or ignorance?
So it is normal that if a dude like you plays against a beginner, after a while the beginner gets pissed off. If you do that way (that I said above) besides insuring a more fitting and competitive gameplay in favor of the veterans, you'd also insured a simpler and less competitive gameplay in favor of noobs, so that maybe they would be encouraged to improve their skills in order to obtain such customizations... It would have been a dignitary 'to give-to obtain' ". Another one who doesn't know what the fuck is he talking about...

Another guy from the same video, writing the same things as other guys: "I can tell you why Arena FPSs are dead! These games are so repetitive and boring: you only have to shoot and then jump left to right like a rabbit! You have nothing else to do". Sorry, never heard of "Shoot 'em up!" genre?? What did you expect to do from this category? To pick up some daisies???

A guy commenting one of those videos where Zeb showed his own game (Ultimate Arena): "What the fuck is this??? This game is not realistic at all: I kept shooting the target with my submachinegun for about 3 HOURS and he is still alive! That sucks!".

On a more recent (june 2018 or june 2019) live from Zeb, at Ultimate Arena part. A guy with a VERY QUESTIONABLE avatar (an anime-manga man with purple hair) wrote what I call "the comment of The Century". He got replied, so he wrote another post too. I merged into one. "Mother of God, sure this game takes me to the toilet!
It gives me diarrhea because it isn't a NEXT-GEN game and the graphics reminds me DirectX 9... but worse and badly used. Looks like this game is made with an outdated version of Unreal Engine 3, not with Unreal Engine 4". Oook. Scientific as the existence of our planet. Maybe I had to ask him what is a "next-gen" game, and what does it mean. Unfortunately, I don't find that comment series anymore.

Do you remember a game called "Unturned"? From a few videos I watched back in 2015 or so, this game appeared to be a mix between Battlefield (for the endless maps and the usage of an assault rifle), Mincecraft (mainly for the graphics) and Left4Dead (basically, you only shoot random zombies all the way around the map). Zeb made a video, too. Here is a comment from a guy: "I'm enjoying this game so much! It is always various, it has a beautiful story and excellent gameplay. And all the good things? This is only the beginning, because this game is already great even if it's only an aplha, it is developed from only one person and you must consider this boy is only 16 years-old! Ah, and the coolest thing: THIS GAME IS FOR FREE!". I seem to remember that programmer was from Poland (Zdzichu?). But maybe I'm wrong.

Another game: Sniper Elite. Zeb said in that game you die with nothing. This is what I remember I read from the comments: "This game requires a lot of skill: the hit is NOT immediate, you have to CALCULATE direction of the wind. Also, you have to take cover. You do none of these things because you're just a noob. They always hit you because you expose and you sleep too much. Plus, you are at a lower level and didn't reach a top rank. Just learn to play before speaking".

Now let's change genre. Zeb plays Fallout 4, but he doesn't like it. First comment: "You have no minimal idea how to play this game. You had to listen what those villagers were telling you, not attack them! If you managed to complete their QUEST, they would have given the Super Armor to you, so you were able to defeat that dragon without the need of raising your level with useless monster fights. If you keep saying that RPG games require only fights against monsters to get your EXP, then it is clear you know nothing about these games".

Second comment: "I really enjoyed this game. It has everything and you always have to do new things. The plot is awesome and the quests are pretty good. You can do a lot of stuff and despite that the campaign is ONLY 30 hours long. I wish it took much more hours to complete".

From "I finished Resident Evil 7", another fan of RPGs: "You got nothing about this game. You didn't have to kill that woman, she would have helped you to get the good end of the game. So you got the bad end. Anyway I loved the plot and this title was one of the best from the whole series. I also love the fact there is a double end so that you must choose. This is the main reason why I love these games".

Now, let's change YT channel. QDSS (Quei Due sul Server ---> Those Two Guys on the Server) is a gaming channel created by 2 men from southern Italy.
A while ago, they "reviewed" DOOM 2016. Oooh, guys... Just read the comments of a dude I merged into one. He was discussing with another as well: "This game is good because it bring a lot of new stuff. I like the fact you have 2 weapons to select at loadout, so they give me much more of strategy. If weapons were already on the map, it would be an arms race for the strongest weapon and this is bad!
I also like the feature of the rune, so I can choose my favorite demon. Come on, guys, who of you never dreamed of being Mancubus?
I used to play the old DOOM and DOOM 2, I'm a fan of the series but their graphics is TERRIBLE! This new one has the graphics I want, and that's why I like it". My personal note: if this guy really used to play the original DOOM/DOOM 2 games, he is kind of a new-gen gamer who got them recently on Steam/GOG... otherwise I don't get why is he so disappointed with their graphics. And, secondly, about the multiplayer gameplay, he looks like a fan of the, let's say, "War Simulators". I don't have anything against his taste, but it sounds pretty clear to me that he didn't even see an Arena shooter in his whole life... Ah, and no: I NEVER dreamed/wished of being a fatty-fat bag of lard like Mancu-pussy.

Now let's go to the italian version of the international channel "Did You Know Gaming?". I don't follow this channel, but I watched a video about DOOM. Basically the speaker in this episode is Redez, one of those 2 guys on the server (QDSS) I mentioned above. He just read in italian a piece from an old interview to John Carmack. In 2003 Carmack said "Story in a game is like story in a porn movie: it is expected to be there, but it's not that important". Looking at the comments I found this: "One of the biggest bulls*** said ever". Then follow some replies between this guy and others. But he keeps saying: "The most important things in a game are THE PLOT and THE GRAPHICS. If you don't have a storyline, simply you don't have a videogame". And the gameplay???

I could seek and post here much more of this stuff.

Now, first of all, let me say the only "warfare-tactical-simulation" etc games I played ever are the first CoD - Black Ops back in 2011 (I had a roommate who got his PS3), Soldier of Fortune Platinum and Soldier of Fortune 2, Hidden & Dangerous 1 and 2. Mostly in single player.

I don't have very much knowledge of Battlefield 3, 4, 1, etc... That I want to explain is that gamers seem to reject the glorious past of the videogames and that they just want to play what's new.

I understand we are in 2020 and whoever lives in 2020 wants to play 2020's games. But... I don't like newage faggots. And I don't mean those who only like new outcoming games. The "faggots" in my opinion are those who not only like newer games, but also speak bad words against everyone who like older games. Let's say, those people who glue disrespectful labels on your face like "jurassic", "retromaniac", "grandpa", those who say "enough with these fucking old games from 1907!" or "this game is boring because it is old" or even "The grand-grandpa of my grandpa used to play this poop" and "Who the fuck cares about those palaeozoic fossils anymore?".

I hope I explained it the right way. For me those who like newer games but keep peaceful and respectful are ok.

Anyway, between all of this stuff, I still find "improper" or "incorrect" to compare very different eras of the videogames. Would you compare Lewis Hamilton to Juan Manuel Fangio or Jim Clark?

Also, I think every game requires specific skills, different from another game. So, my question: is really worth a comparison between Wolfenstein-3D and Fortnite? Or between FIFA 20 and Kick Off 3?
This is so confusing, you know? There are people who say older games are harder, but there are some more people who say "No, older games are easy because of their simple structure and poor AI. Newer games are harder because you have to follow the storyline, you have lots of new things to do and the AI is improved too".


For tl;dr people: just tell me what do you think about comparing older games to newer ones. You can also translate some negative comments about older games from russian, bulgarian, greek, french, polish, german, dutch, etc... I brought here Arena shooters as an example. But the comments above are, sadly, applied on almost all older games (except for Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil, Half-Life, Zelda - Ocarina of Time and other PS1/Nintendo 64 titles from 1998 era). At least this is in italian YT community.

Also, what do you think about hybrid FPSs that came out during the last 7 years? I say "hybrid" because of the upgrades and other stuff the authors (especially Bethesda) put in recently, that you can see on every video from YouTube.

What do you think about the wave of horror games?

How would you define a "next-gen" game? Which are its characteristics, to get such adjective?

Uh, look what I found on the internet, searching for buggy MAME games that don't give an extra-life to you the second time you get the points needed for it. Didn't know about this game from Cap-Com.
"My" Cap-Com games back in the mid-00s were "Cadillacs and Dinosaurs" and "The Punisher". I used to play them from their cabinets, when I went to the bar in my village.

[Marco]

Ok, I think I'll go on with this monologue.

Wow, these newage games, how hard, beautiful and UNbuggy they are!






And take a look at negative reviews from Steam:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/78233...nguage=english

It is bad that they only are less than 4000 while positive ones are almost 50000, but they give me a hope: I'm not the only one who thinks newer games aren't as beautiful as younger gamers do claim!

[Marco]

Ok, while I was in a "Requiem for a Samtron" time , I downloaded the latest version of PCEm in the home laptop (MSi CR-650, which demonstrated to me that the AMD E-350 CPU is worse than Intel Atom N2800... unbelievable) and installed DOS 3.10 + Windows 1.01 there.

So, today I will talk about the first game that came with Windows: Reversi.

Well, ok, Reversi (or "Othello", as it was called in Windows ME) is actually a table game invented in England in 1883. But here we have the first version for PC (or at least for Windows if any other version came first for DOS environment... but I'll dig later for it). However, the first time I read about it was only when I read at Mark Gibbs when I was doing a totally different research. Then I read at Wikipedia, and it was there that I linked Reversi for Windows 1.0x to "Othello on The Internet" that I saw on WinME when I was a child but never played it.

So, basically I was expecting this old videogame was easy and boring... right?

This game is pretty difficult, instead! How come? Old games are supposed to be easy and boring because of bugs and the poor AI! Everybody say that!

Reversi for Windows 1.01 can crush you even if you set "Beginner" skill. It took a lot for me to understand its logic. But, even when I did, I only managed to obtain a tie game and a victory after 672354646798378384178380983 defeats.

Then, by the weeks, when I was winning some more games, I set skill level higher and higher. Finally last night I managed to beat the "Expert" skill at first attempt. So today I attempted at "Master".

This is from this morning:



It took me I don't know how many lost games to win only this one. The CPU thinks for some time, before moving, at "Expert" and "Master" (of Puppets?) skill levels and it can throw you in trouble very well, lol.

Score explanation: there are 64 cells on the board and every piece is worth 2 points. Here I placed (and reverted from Blue) 42 pieces (might be a coincidence?) while CPU placed (and reverted) only 22.

Fun fact: if you don't consider "Novice", this game contains the same skill levels that Nintendo put on F-Zero in 1990 --> Beginner, Expert and Master! They only changed "Novice" to "Standard".

Who knows, maybe the japanese programmers had intense Reversi sessions before making F-Zero for SNES...