Choose: Only play games you've played, or only play new games, forever.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,637]

...and LOL at The Wizard of Oz.

The hilarious part is that I'm trolling you with the exact same condescending voice used in your SMB3 thread, on purpose, and you are not here for it.  

[Brickman | 4,073]

2 hours ago, AirVillain said:

But... that IS the point. Reed's saying that because a game/art is made later that it's "better", when that's not necessarily true.

I’m not going to put words in Reed’s mouth but I’m not getting that impression. I think he’s trying to point out that it is possible for new games to equal or possibly usurp what was once considered the best.

Those great games from the past still remain great legacy games though. SMB3 will always be considered a masterpiece but it is also possible to have something new that is equally or even better. At least that’s the point I’m trying to make.

2 hours ago, AirVillain said:

BECAUSE LISTEN TO THIS: No matter how "good" or "how much better" a new movie is, it will NEVER EVER be as good as The Wizard of Oz.

Yeah ok you’ve officially lost the plot dude  Yeah sure, The Wizard of Oz was the pinnacle of movies  Don’t get me wrong, great movie but there have been better movies since. 

2 hours ago, AirVillain said:

Since these games were the GOAT's first, this means they are CATEGORICALLY "better" than anything to come.

Yeah that’s just not true. I mean this essentially comes down to personal preference but just because something is first doesn’t mean they’re better. That comment is just insane. And by that theory you should think SMB is better than SMB3 because it’s the first in the SMB games.

 

1 hour ago, AirVillain said:

This is the truth right here: You're favourite game is from 1991. There is literally NO WAY to know with 100% certainty that a new game will come out in the future that you will like that much/better. It's impossoble for you to know that. IT. IS. IMPOSSIBLE. There is a 0% chance that you can know that.

I can say with 100% certainty that in my life time a brand new game or a game I have never played will take down a game in my top 10. My top 10 includes Dark Souls and Bloodborne, two modern games. 

[T-Pac | 7,644]

15 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

It's a free country, and we're all old men.  No one would fault you for sticking to your childhood classics because keeping up with the constant flood of new content requires way too much time, energy, and money.  Because it does.  You want to stick to a 5 year period from gaming's early days?  Go for it.  Most people eventually do that as they get older.  But that doesn't mean all of those newer games that you haven't actually played aren't great 

Just wanted to say bless you for being one of very few people who enjoys games from any era but won't fault those of us who don't branch out as much for whatever reason.

I'll never stop admiring how open-minded you are on so many topics like this, dude.

[T-Pac]

[Koopa64 | 52]

Definitely would rather play the same old games instead of only new ones.

At least with familiarity, I know it is going to be good. With new, it is a gamble.

[OptOut | 8,895]

Just replayed Star Wars Pod Racer on N64, and now I'm playing through Shadows of the Empire again! Not regretting my choices right now, that's for sure!

[Reed Rothchild | 9,637]

6 hours ago, OptOut said:

Just replayed Star Wars Pod Racer on N64, and now I'm playing through Shadows of the Empire again! Not regretting my choices right now, that's for sure!

I'm starting Prey today, and my boys are gonna play Super Mario Wonder with me tonight, and I'm gonna put together my 2024 goals after that, and I have Dead Cells Castlevania on its way in the mail, so I double don't regret my choices 

[fcgamer | 4,792]

I'd do games I've already played. I don't game much anymore, just not the priority, so when I do game, it's usually something I've played before a million times anyways.

[AirVillain | 494]

On 11/17/2023 at 11:58 PM, Reed Rothchild said:

Nope, I'm right on the money.  wRiTiNg liKe tHiS doesn't lend your post credence either, for the record 

The industry evolves and only gets bigger and more elaborate.  Games were great in the 80s, and the 90s, and the 2000s, and continue to be great today.  Great new things and ideas are always coming to the table.  Only now they came faster, and in greater numbers.  My favorite game came out in 1991.  Elden Ring is every bit as good, and came out in 2022.  They both get a place of honor in my gaming hall of fame.  That will only continue as amazing new games come out.

Battletoads is a great game.  Probably in my NES top 5.  Didn't stop playing til I got the 1CC.  But 20 Battletoads come out every year now.  There's too much talent out there, too much experience, and too many people who grew up with great games and are carrying the gaming torch by making great new ones.  Every year Battletoads slips lower and lower in my top 100 games of all time list because it's up against an ever-better field that's always increasing in size.  That's nothing against Battletoads.  It's just.... the numbers. 

It's a free country, and we're all old men.  No one would fault you for sticking to your childhood classics because keeping up with the constant flood of new content requires way too much time, energy, and money.  Because it does.  You want to stick to a 5 year period from gaming's early days?  Go for it.  Most people eventually do that as they get older.  But that doesn't mean all of those newer games that you haven't actually played aren't great 

The capitalization/non-capitalization is not used to lend credence to my argument, it's to mock what you said about your math comments. Because here's the thing about that:

There is 100% you KNOW that the games you've played are great. There is a 0% chance that you know with 100% certainty that a game in the future will be "better" than those games you have already played.

Those are straight math facts, homey.

I understand what you're saying, I really do. But you're letting your own personal preferences get in the way of the point. Yeah... there are new games coming out that are pushing your old faves down the list. That's YOUR math. The REALITY of the math is gambling on the future, which is in itself, impossible.

What we're talking about is hedging our bets against a frog-dick making evil Wizard. I'm not taking any chances with that.

Playing the "you must be getting old" card, eh??? Haha.... Yes... Yes, I am. But that's not why I don't care about buying the new X Box Square Thunderbolt, or PS84. I know that's what the kids are calling them these days. It's just not my jam.

And according the MATH of the poll, the majority here agrees.
 

On 11/18/2023 at 12:00 AM, Reed Rothchild said:

...and LOL at The Wizard of Oz.

The hilarious part is that I'm trolling you with the exact same condescending voice used in your SMB3 thread, on purpose, and you are not here for it.  

Well the Wizard of Oz is an amazing piece of art and it holds up very well. Not sure why you would lol.

Trolling me with my own condescending voice on purpose...? Yeah... that was VERY clear. I mean, you're pretty matter fact in other places around here, but apologies if you took me too seriously or as being a dick... it happens sometimes if I'm just saying how I feel, and can't convey tone very well through text.

And if you can't handle the truth about SMW, then you gotta steer clear of the thread... or else I just might tell you what's up.

Facts are facts, mang. SMW isn't great when you compare it to SMB3, and you can't know for sure if future games will be as good as those in the past. FACTS.

 

On 11/18/2023 at 1:27 AM, Brickman said:

I’m not going to put words in Reed’s mouth but I’m not getting that impression. I think he’s trying to point out that it is possible for new games to equal or possibly usurp what was once considered the best.

Those great games from the past still remain great legacy games though. SMB3 will always be considered a masterpiece but it is also possible to have something new that is equally or even better. At least that’s the point I’m trying to make.

Yeah ok you’ve officially lost the plot dude  Yeah sure, The Wizard of Oz was the pinnacle of movies  Don’t get me wrong, great movie but there have been better movies since. 

Yeah that’s just not true. I mean this essentially comes down to personal preference but just because something is first doesn’t mean they’re better. That comment is just insane. And by that theory you should think SMB is better than SMB3 because it’s the first in the SMB games.

 

I can say with 100% certainty that in my life time a brand new game or a game I have never played will take down a game in my top 10. My top 10 includes Dark Souls and Bloodborne, two modern games. 

I get it. Please see math facts above.

Haha, I know Wizard of Oz was a stretch of an example (maybe something like Casablanca would fit too) but it's still a solid movie.

(EPIC scene/line)


Yeah buddy.... your top 10. You going to give them ALL up just to get ONE new game to get to the top 10?

So let's say you get a couple new games in there... even 3! That's a lot. But... it's still 4 less than you would have if you kept the games you already knew/played.

So... if you take the gamble, chances are you're only going to find 3 games that could make your top 10, but if you DIDN'T take the gamble, you'd still have 7 games. A difference of 4 games.

I'd take the 7 over 3 any day. Plus, this does not account for ranking.

Sure, the 3 games will take down some games, but will they take the #1-3 spot???? That's even less likely.

MORE MATH FACTS HOMEY!


 

 

On 11/22/2023 at 3:28 PM, Koopa64 said:

Definitely would rather play the same old games instead of only new ones.

At least with familiarity, I know it is going to be good. With new, it is a gamble.

Koopa gets it.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,637]

You're choosing the tiny % of games you've played, over the tens of thousands you haven't, and the tens of thousands that are coming.  That's the "math" I'm referring to.

While sticking to an extremely narrow piece of the spectrum in the first place.

That fine, we all need to do our own thing.  You choose fear stability.  I choose the thousands of unknowns.  Only a tiny percentage of those have to hit it out of the park for me to still come out ahead.  That's a straight fact "homey" 

And is Wizard the GOAT, or merely "solid"?  Get those facts straight mang.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,096]

On 11/17/2023 at 9:58 PM, Reed Rothchild said:

The industry evolves and only gets bigger and more elaborate.  Games were great in the 80s, and the 90s, and the 2000s, and continue to be great today.  Great new things and ideas are always coming to the table.  Only now they came faster, and in greater numbers.  My favorite game came out in 1991.  Elden Ring is every bit as good, and came out in 2022.  They both get a place of honor in my gaming hall of fame.  That will only continue as amazing new games come out.

The flaw to your logic is that you're considering video games from all eras to be equally comparable, and assuming that any random "gamer" would logically prefer the best games from all eras, hence why you'd want to stick with an industry that is releasing more and more content year over year.  But the truth is that people like you (who play games from all eras) are exceedingly rare, and looking at games from a broader scope (across generations), one quickly finds that it is no longer an apples to apples comparison.  NES games in 2023 are more like a genre than anything else at this point, and finding someone who loves playing video games from all eras is akin to finding a movie buff who enjoys watching every genre of movie.

To wit, if someone loved watching silent movies and avoided most modern movies because they weren't his bag, would you tell him he's just an old man who doesn't have the energy to figure modern movies out, or would you understand that silent movies and modern movies in 2023 can scarcely be considered the same medium at this point?  Because that's where we're at with video games: playing NES or Atari and playing Elden Ring aren't really relatable to each other at all in any logical sense, other than to say that yeah, they're both "video games."  Saying that someone doesn't play modern games "because keeping up with the constant flood of new content requires way too much time, energy, and money," really is missing the mark completely on why most of us who exclusively play retro games actually play what we play.

Some people just don't care for what modern "video games" have become and prefer the style of games that the industry was releasing at some point in the past, and it's not because they're old and crusty and set in their ways; they just prefer a different style of game, and the constant "you're just old and set in your ways" schtick is getting really tired...

[Reed Rothchild | 9,637]

I feel I've already stated multiple times that no one is "correct" here and that people are welcome to stick to whatever niche they are comfortable with.  Hell, 90% of the books I read are either super well-known classics, or fantasy/sci-fi/horror, so I'm clearly a subscriber of this adage in that particular medium.

But I don't agree with certain takes that try to downplay the sheer scope and variety of what the "new games" option provides, including those that are perfect recreations of yesteryear.  That "different" style of game is still well and alive.  See half of the indies that come out every year, or the entire homebrew scene.

Someone is also welcome to "only" like silent pictures as well.  I'm sure that happened quite a bit when the "talkies" arrived.  That would have been their choice.  I'd say they'd have done themselves a great disservice, but that's just my opinion.  I would have felt trapped by missing out on so much of what a medium came to offer, especially when things like color and the popularity of widescreen came on the scene.

And if any part of my posts are "tiring" to you, stop reading them, or put me on ignore.  Easy solution.

 

It is fascinating to think that a poll about movies and music would probably produce similar results as this one, but one about books would most likely go the opposite way.

[Brickman | 4,073]

21 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

The flaw to your logic is that you're considering video games from all eras to be equally comparable, and assuming that any random "gamer" would logically prefer the best games from all eras, hence why you'd want to stick with an industry that is releasing more and more content year over year.  But the truth is that people like you (who play games from all eras) are exceedingly rare, and looking at games from a broader scope (across generations), one quickly finds that it is no longer an apples to apples comparison.  NES games in 2023 are more like a genre than anything else at this point, and finding someone who loves playing video games from all eras is akin to finding a movie buff who enjoys watching every genre of movie.

To wit, if someone loved watching silent movies and avoided most modern movies because they weren't his bag, would you tell him he's just an old man who doesn't have the energy to figure modern movies out, or would you understand that silent movies and modern movies in 2023 can scarcely be considered the same medium at this point?  Because that's where we're at with video games: playing NES or Atari and playing Elden Ring aren't really relatable to each other at all in any logical sense, other than to say that yeah, they're both "video games."  Saying that someone doesn't play modern games "because keeping up with the constant flood of new content requires way too much time, energy, and money," really is missing the mark completely on why most of us who exclusively play retro games actually play what we play.

Some people just don't care for what modern "video games" have become and prefer the style of games that the industry was releasing at some point in the past, and it's not because they're old and crusty and set in their ways; they just prefer a different style of game, and the constant "you're just old and set in your ways" schtick is getting really tired...

All 100% valid points if this question was about old games vs new games but it isn’t. The question is about playing games you’ve played vs games you haven’t from any era.

[Dr. Morbis | 2,096]

12 minutes ago, Brickman said:

All 100% valid points if this question was about old games vs new games but it isn’t.

You could say that about a lot of the points made in this thread, but the bottom line is that the two topics are intrinsically related: by choosing to only play games you've played before, you are, in effect, choosing to never play a "new" or modern video game released after the date of your decision ever again for the sake of all the games you've already played in your lifetime, most of which will be from generations past.  As a result, all of the arguments for "only new games" and against the "only games you've played" people lean on the "fear of the unknown / no time to figure out new games / old fuddy duddies stuck in their ways" viewpoint that has been expressed over and over, ad infinitum...

Edited November 25, 2023 by Dr. Morbis

[nrslam | 477]

I've been playing video games for close to 50 years, so there are hundreds of games, perhaps 1000s, that I've only partially played, some barely started. It's not like there's no new content to discover, play, and master (or fail at) in these games. The idea that choosing to play only games I've played before means I'll never see anything new to me ignores this fact.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,637]

10 minutes ago, nrslam said:

I've been playing video games for close to 50 years, so there are hundreds of games, perhaps 1000s, that I've only partially played, some barely started. It's not like there's no new content to discover, play, and master (or fail at) in these games. The idea that choosing to play only games I've played before means I'll never see anything new to me ignores this fact.

Dammit @OptOut, you left us with a grey area.  I say any unplayed content counts as a new game  

[DefaultGen | 5,506]

3 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Dammit @OptOut, you left us with a grey area.  I say any unplayed content counts as a new game  

Whoaaaa, no way. I've booted up so many damn ROMs for 5 minutes. I've played a week like 30 different MMOs. That's my lifetime of content right there baby!

[Dr. Morbis | 2,096]

59 minutes ago, nrslam said:

I've been playing video games for close to 50 years, so there are hundreds of games, perhaps 1000s, that I've only partially played, some barely started. It's not like there's no new content to discover, play, and master (or fail at) in these games. The idea that choosing to play only games I've played before means I'll never see anything new to me ignores this fact.

That's a great point, plus think about how much you forget about the games you've played as the years go by; I have games listed on my NES beaten list that I played in the early 2000's that I scarcely even remember booting up.  If I went back to beat them again at this point, it would essentially feel like playing a brand new game.  Times that by hundreds or thousands, in addition to all of your all-time favourites and old standby's, and the best choice in this poll for anyone with decades of video game experience under his belt becomes abundantly clear...

[nrslam | 477]

Oh yeah. I forgot about the games I forgot about.

[Ankos | 479]

2 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Dammit @OptOut, you left us with a grey area.  I say any unplayed content counts as a new game  

I was under the impression that anything I have ever had a controller in my hand for for any length of time would be off the table if I picked new games only. I still picked it though. Whenever I go back to old games I never do all that much new. Some people find replaying a game rewarding, but I just sort of fall into old habits and wind up thinking why I don't just move on

[cartman | 195]

It would've been a bigger dilemma with only old vs. new cars. Those legitimately aren't made like they used to be. With games you can and will find something that, if not identical to the old thing, pretty similar to it.

Mega Man 9 & 10 look like the old stuff. Jay & Silent Rob: Mall Brawl aswell. The 2D Bloodline's versions, Cyber Shadow, Battlekid etc.

So yeah it's not really a hard dilemma with comparsions like this where one option has infinite choices and the other doesn't: you always go with the bigger potential.

 

[Link | 2,768]

On 11/24/2023 at 9:16 PM, Reed Rothchild said:

It is fascinating to think that a poll about movies and music would probably produce similar results as this one, but one about books would most likely go the opposite way.

Any combination is possible, depends on who you're talking to. I've stated I'm going with "already" for games (but I could be swayed). I've said in other threads that I feel about games similar to my handling of albums, and here is another parallel. For movies I would definitely say "new-to-me" and probably books as well. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,637]

1 hour ago, Link said:

For movies I would definitely say "new-to-me" and probably books as well. 

Sounds like we need more polls 

[AirVillain | 494]

On 11/24/2023 at 9:32 PM, Reed Rothchild said:

You're choosing the tiny % of games you've played, over the tens of thousands you haven't, and the tens of thousands that are coming.  That's the "math" I'm referring to.

While sticking to an extremely narrow piece of the spectrum in the first place.

That fine, we all need to do our own thing.  You choose fear stability.  I choose the thousands of unknowns.  Only a tiny percentage of those have to hit it out of the park for me to still come out ahead.  That's a straight fact "homey" 

And is Wizard the GOAT, or merely "solid"?  Get those facts straight mang.

Gotcha on the math. You are definitely correct in what you're saying. We just look at it differently, frog dick making wizard-wise.

Haha, fear vs. stability.

I agree with what Dr. Morbis has said and your discussion since. It's not that I really don't think new games will be good. OF COURSE they will be good/great. Spider-Man 2 on Xbox was awesome (that's "new" example for me, haha) and I think this new Spider-Man 2 on Playstation 73 is similar...? Well.... there WILL be an awesome game that's similar at some point, so I DO look forward to that. So... I get it.

But like Dr. Morbis said, the NES games are almost their own genre at this point. Sure, there will be new Mario and Contra games that are side scrolling platformers, etc. ("New Super Mario Bros. ), but with the new systems, and inherently in the game, it will "feel"/be different.

And as mentioned, larger games like Elden Ring is on a whole other level of "video game", and just because someone, like myself, doesn't like to play them doesn't mean I'm old and crusty.... not all the time, anyways.

You're not wrong about Wizard of Oz, haha. I just kinda had run with the example. But, it's on a lot of top 10 lists, I'm sure.

Also, regarding which games are included, please see below.

 

17 hours ago, nrslam said:

I've been playing video games for close to 50 years, so there are hundreds of games, perhaps 1000s, that I've only partially played, some barely started. It's not like there's no new content to discover, play, and master (or fail at) in these games. The idea that choosing to play only games I've played before means I'll never see anything new to me ignores this fact.

Yeah, good point.... I think it's been established that games you've just booted up to "test" or have only played a short period would be included in "games you've played before".

So even if you choose "games you've played" from the frog-dick Wizard and if you haven't passed the first couple levels of a game, you can still go back and play it and the levels you haven't reached yet will be a "new" experience.

This is part of my reasoning for this option, for sure. Even games I haven't beaten, still need to playthrough, or even just barely played just to "test" them and are on my backlog are included.

So all that shit is new, but you still get to play your favorites and avoid the frog-dick. It's the best of (almost - aka excluding literally brand new games on new systems) all worlds.

Does beg the question, though, @OptOut, what about the Game Genie?

If we've used the Game Genie for a particular system, NES for example, are we able to use it for games that we've played before? Thus.... maybe being able to make it to later levels, play-though the entire game, experience "new" parts of the game???

Is that allowed?

I mean.... If we've used the game genie on the system before that kinda counts as "playing it before"? Or do we draw the line on what INDIVIDUAL game we have used the Game Genie on before? I need answers from the frog-dick Wizard.

Edited November 26, 2023 by AirVillain
Spelling

[Link | 2,768]

4 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Sounds like we need more polls 

I want to see a matrix poll of

Games -  Print -  Music - Movies/TV (one category or two?)
and for each: Do you repeat? Do you keep current? Do you seek new-to-you? Do you collect/keep physical media? Do you stream/download? 

If the correlations could be analyzed, that might make for an interesting social or psych study

Edited November 26, 2023 by Link
hit CTRL-Enter instead of Shift-Enter

[OptOut | 8,895]

8 hours ago, AirVillain said:

If we've used the Game Genie for a particular system, NES for example, are we able to use it for games that we've played before? Thus.... maybe being able to make it to later levels, play-though the entire game, experience "new" parts of the game???

Is that allowed?

Your dick right now: