I said "fuck it" and got through the first disc of FF9 again.  I hate you guys.

Headphonics: ruining memories since 2003.

so how about them complex character dynamics???

World in Conflict
The graphics are only holy-fuck-the-explosions-look-photo-realistic if you put the settings to high, but then a lot of computers can't play it. Compared to Bioshock, which still looks amazing in the low settings. The gameplay is tedious to learn and very annoying. I was just very underwhelmed by this game. I read a review about the tanks and airplanes being amazing and everything being one big, massive Lord of the Rings style war. But to me it was very small and not spectacular at all. Heck, Warcraft III is more spectacular. At least then the characters and such are larger on screen and make a bigger impact. The only good thing here was blowing up buildings, which doesn't happen a heck lot either.

Final Fantasy VII
I never got past 1/6th of this game I guess. One of the reasons is that the graphics IMO are horrid. I've seen RMXP games that look better. It's just so frustratingly pixelated. FFXI is, too, but it manages to capture a certain good atmosphere using blurring and special effects. The second is that it's just kind of boring. I'm not sure why. The characters just don't capture me. Maybe it's because I've read TOO many fanboyisms, to the point where I start disliking something even playing it. Regardless, the storyline WAS better than FFXII. But I still prefer FFXII over FFVII for having a better gameplay and graphics. I love the One Winged Angel song though. Small parts in the game like that do manage to capture me.

Aveyond I (& II)
I know this doesn't really count, because it's an indie game, but still. It's incredibly overhyped and has gotten a bazillion 10/10 reviews. So I get all excited about it, grab the game and start playing. W. T. F. The intro is horrid. It's staring at a corner of ice with two pixelated characters, with standard RMXP animations, and then a butterfly flying upwards through a very boring landscape. That's it. Then you're thrown into a town and have to do x chores (I hate games that start like this; it's so boring if you can't make a fun town that feels "alive" like this game fails to do). Yippee. FINALLY, a clown captures you! Oh, wait, you only read that you're captured. The sprites are just standing still next to eachother. A lot of bla-bla-bla later, you can finally fight things! Wow, the battle system is very repetitive, boring and old-school RPG-style. I've grown rather tired of turn-based battle systems over the years. But whatever. As a game this fails, but I have respect for Amanda for having succesfully brought an indie RMXP game onto the market.

BTW, I loved BioShock.

^

Yea. I guess the graphics were excellent back in those days, but now to me it's worse than some older games. I guess I just don't like the style. ^^; I prefer pretty 2D graphics over blocky 3D graphics (that try to look good, not 3D graphics that are blocky on purpose and are good at it) any day.

@Velfarre: I agree. But somehow I do like older games more. Now they're amazing every now and then. Real "gems", as you said. But so far there has been no game that has been more enjoyable to me than Blood & Magic, Warcraft II or Redbeard (old Amiga game). Though I could be just nostalgic, I'm still playing these games, while I would never give Bioshock a second play through. I loved Bioshock but it doesn't hold the same value as the classics had. Maybe it's because the classics were new and raw. They hadn't been milked and improved and improved yet. Games nowadays are perfected all over, and with good reason. But somehow I'd like to see that raw feeling and originality back. Shadow fo the Colussus kind of had this, actually. I never completed the game because I just didn't feel like it, but atmosphere-wise it had the same raw feeling as old classics to me.

The problem is that you are still talking about a few games instead of the time period as a whole.  Do you realize how many BABILLIONS of clones there were back then, just like today?  The games you're referring to are still the ones that survived time, but the ones that didn't still count under "older games".  You're applying the attributes of the good games to an entire time period, when as a whole games are and were the same, with some ideas being rehashed like crazy and people selling out everywhere, just like today.

I meant to say that "the best" games of back then are better to me than the "best games" now. I wasn't talking about the overall quality of the games from that time. ;)

I don't know if anyone said it but...

Super Smash Bros. Brawl.

What a waste of $50. It wasn't bad, but no where near as good as I expected. I kept hearing "OMG IT 'SGREAT" and stuff, so I got it, and... Well, I only played it like 4 times since I first got it. That was about 2 months ago... Yes, I have friends to play it with, but even then It's still just "Meh..." and the online I heard was pretty bad, so I didn't even want to try. Besides, I'd just get my ass whooped by some fat guy who lives in his moms basement who does nothing but beat the shit out of people in the game. Shit...

Then that sub-space shit(Which is why I wanted the game in the first place, well that and Lucas) turned out to be boring and extremely repetitive. Like, I was expecting a deep story, I don't know why, but I was, and all I got was just a collection of Nintendo characters going through boring Nintendo worlds, just trying to get rid of the villains. Although, I did like how they made the actual villains like Warrior, Bowser and Donkey Kong villains in the story.

Sure, it has all this replay value like stickers, trophies, CDs, unlockable characters, and all that shit that I don't care about. It's only the kind of stuff people with OCD would want to collect. Seriously, I'm not motivated at all to unlock Snake or Sonic(and I still can't get over WTF Sonic is Brawl for), or collect trophies.

Maybe it's because it's almost the same thing as Melee, which I thought was pretty mediocre too, but I just... I don't know. It's not THAT bad, there are worse games to play like Virtua Quest or Children of Mana, but it isn't as good as people say.

I don't understand why the two have to be separated though.  Why have the best games of then and now, when you could just go for THE BEST GAMES.  There is absolutely no reason to make this distinction.

Because the topic was games being better in the past? If you look at the bad games-good games ratio from then compared to now, I guess it would be the same or so-so. But the best games back then are better than the ones released now, so the past wins for me. They have to be seperated because that's kind of the point? xP

because the type of games you play now are sort of VERY, VERY DIFFERENT in complexity and gameplay than the type of shit you played 18 years ago?  i don't see how you couldn't make a distinction between megaman and gta 4

it's really surprising you think the best games of 1990 whatever are better than the current games but i just don't see that as true.  games today are infinitely better then they ever were and with only 3 main consoles to worry about there's actually a push to create MORE original content then there ever was.  XBLA, wii-ware, and playstation store are actually encouraging this.

Idk, I wasn't talking about the games ratio. That was the other guy saying. I just kind of agreed for the heck of it.

Mario? Lol, no. I'm hardly a fanboy for any game whatsoever. I like Warcraft II more than games that are released in this age, but I'm not a Warcraft fanboy. 'Don't even play WoW, Warcraft I and only played some Warcraft III.

actually the bad games to good games ratio was higher in the past because every faggot with an amiga could make a game and the consoles were dumping grounds for watered down pc ports and arcade games.

Yea, and now we have a bazillion shitty RPGMaker, Game Maker, etc. etc. games.

I really don't know enough about games to make an actual comparison/arguement though. I was just disagreeing with whoever said that all games now are better than games back then.