By: Samantha White
Submitted: 2010-04-12 09:37:16 | Word Count: 628
Aren t you bored of those fags going around in websites, claiming that the only good games were those which released damn ages ago? Well, i don t quite get why the games that they used to play in their youth, must be the almighty ones and what we play those who suck. Yesterday, my father s friend arrives in house to meet with pa, and this conversation goes upon him seeing i am playing Assassin s creed, which at first he actually thinks i am watching a movie, then asks me what the hell i am doing with the mouse and keyboard while watching a movie, then after staring at what i am doing for a moment realizes its actually a game not a movie, that today s games are so fail that it grows harder to distinguish a movie from a game, and that they are only focusing on the graphics just because they have the technology, what is fun about it when you cannot know you are playing the game. He actually thinks that today, game industry is about making the graphics better. He is so wrong!
What can actually be so great about a silly strategy game that is released more than 12 years ago? Age of Empires? Half Life? Fifa98? Now i know FIFA series arent improving much today but, when i compare it with that poodoo Fifa98, i can tell, there is HELL of a difference. First, yes, i am going to tell, the graphics are way better today. But after that, comes playability, which also is leagues ahead of where fifa98 can be. We all know that football isn t a game that the ball bounces from players and finds its way to gates like pool balls with intense kinetic energy released on a pool table. It takes force to wind up and pass the ball to another player, and it is not always on the target, depending on the situation of the passer. It also needs to take great concentration and wind up of the shooter to shoot the ball. You cannot send a ball in whatever direction you need instantenously. Apart from that, we can take Age of Empires as a suckhard game too. Why i shouldn t be playing Napoleonic Total War but Age of Empires? What plus does empires have? I d even play Empire Total War instead if i wanted so much to get into this empire stuff. Where the map is real, the countries are real, where their location and soldiers are real. Where aztecs do not use arbalesters, where mongols do not use paladins, where saracens do not use churches. See that all these instances are of playability and realism. I dont even see the need of mentioning of graphics difference. Since it is obvious that in Napoleonic Total War, graphics are, actually a goddamn movie, where, Age of Untechnologic Empires, lack any graphic objects. I could take same fun if i were to play in front of a black screen, only chatting with the computer about what to do next.
[ advertisement ]
To sum up, many people around us, especially those older than us, so unnecessarily and stupidly try to mock us claiming our games suck and their games rule. These are our checks that we can prove that they are wrong. Of course, it maybe that they take nostalgic pleasure when they play those games they used to, and they dont feel the same when they play recent games, but they shouldn t be insulting our games! To be objective, every game, in its time, have done a respectable job of teaching community what it is about and what it will be about in the upcoming years, but if they insult us, we insult them!
