Why do we play old games

[Monster Bonce]

Well, how about it?

I genuinely prefer 2D (and so-called 2.5D) games but I don't know how much nostalgia is involved in that preference.

I rented a PlayStation from the video store when they were popular and really enjoyed Klonoa so it can't just be nostalgia, can it? On the other hand, I loved Mystical Ninja on the N64 and it's fully 3D. I'm playing Ocarina of Time on the VC at the moment and find it, well, a bit disappointing.

Am I just a misty-eyed fool or did we lose something with the transition to 3D?

[Seldane]

Mostly nostalgia, as I don't play "new" old games (i e old games that I didn't play back then) that much. I still play my old games a lot though. Probably too much.

The nostalgia is strong in this one...

Aside from that, I mostly play new games simply because they are almost always so much better than the old "junk". I prefer 3d over 2d, and I can't stand "2,5d" at all. By 3d, I mean good 3d, I really don't like old stuff with PS1 and Dreamcast graphics. I'm a grade 1 graphics w*ore, and I'm proud of it.

[NecroPhile]

For me, fun is fun.  I don't care if it's new, old, 2D, 3D, 7D, Double D.... wait that last one's the best.

[Monster Bonce]

I love playing, as you put it, "new" old games. On the other hand, I have fairly strong memories of reading about a lot of them when they came out so nostalgia can't be discounted.

The only new games I'm playing much are Sauerbraten on my Mac and Wii Sports. Before you say there are few games on the Mac, which is true, it's a MacBook Pro so if I could be bothered I could install Windows to play games. I haven't done so.

Anyway, what I'm driving at is are games still an inferior form of art? I think they are. That's fair enough, after all, they haven't been around for that long really.

However, I find myself watching lots of old movies from the 40s, 50s and 60s and they are usually superior to contemporary mainstream cinema in that they have not been afflicted by the legacy of Jaws—the big budget B movie. (Jaws itself is a fine film, but its success transformed mainstream American cinema to the point where fewer and fewer films are actually made that deal with adult themes.)

I don't think there is a direct equivalent to this with games or at least I suspect there isn't. Does the "golden age" of games have as much to offer us as the golden age of cinema, even on its own terms?

Interestingly, I also find much American independent film insufferably smug and small in scope—small, personalised stories that tell us very little of universal value. In that regard mainstream US cinema trumps its much-lauded independent cousin.

By the way, I'm not picking on American film by singling it out. There are plenty of problems with European, Chinese, Korean and Japanese films but, with the exception of the Asian fighting blockbusters and gangster films, the pressures are different.

[Seldane]

I don't really consider games an art form. At least not yet. Back then, in what a lot of people consider the "golden era", most games seemed to be like hobby projects made in some computer enthisuast's basement. It wasn't really impressive in any way, but still fun (I am talking about the 8-16 bit eras here). Games are really starting to become something like movies, etc. nowadays though. I can't wait to see what games on the PS4 will look like.

[termis]

Most PCE games I play are new, so it's definitely not nostalgia for me.

New games probably aren't bad, but I just don't care enough about games to put down a wad of cash to buy a new system when I still have fun with my old systems.

[Monster Bonce]

I don't really consider games an art form. At least not yet. Back then, in what a lot of people consider the "golden era", most games seemed to be like hobby projects made in some computer enthisuast's basement. It wasn't really impressive in any way, but still fun (I am talking about the 8-16 bit eras here). Games are really starting to become something like movies, etc. nowadays though. I can't wait to see what games on the PS4 will look like.

Well, it's certainly a difficult one. I was educated in fine art and part of my work is as an art critic. I think they are an art form, just not necessarily a particularly good one. As an analogy, people outside the art world always see some dreary piece of conceptual art and ask: "But is it art?" The only answer can be, yes, but it's still shit.

On the other hand, the directly interactive nature of games may mitigate against them being art. Salman Rushdie, a Mario fan, made this point a while back.

[offsidewing]

For me, fun is fun.  I don't care if it's new, old, 2D, 3D, 7D, Double D.... wait that last one's the best.

Hell Yeah!

By the way, I'm not picking on American film by singling it out.

Wait until you take that "Reflections of Society in Films" 200 series class!  You'll really be upset then!

Movies are simply there to entertain me.  They are like circus monkeys.  Here's my eight bucks, go sing, dance, or blow shit up for me for 120 minutes.  No more, no less.  If I want to be moved or provoked into thought, it's history, dicovery, or travel channel.

Magical Dinosaur Tour is AWESOME!!!

I don't really consider games an art form. At least not yet. Back then, in what a lot of people consider the "golden era", most games seemed to be like hobby projects made in some computer enthisuast's basement. It wasn't really impressive in any way, but still fun (I am talking about the 8-16 bit eras here). Games are really starting to become something like movies, etc. nowadays though. I can't wait to see what games on the PS4 will look like.

Well, it's certainly a difficult one. I was educated in fine art and part of my work is as an art critic. I think they are an art form, just not necessarily a particularly good one. As an analogy, people outside the art world always see some dreary piece of conceptual art and ask: "But is it art?" The only answer can be, yes, but it's still shit.

On the other hand, the directly interactive nature of games may mitigate against them being art. Salman Rushdie, a Mario fan, made this point a while back.

Art is really only important to a few very, very silly people.  I'm the best mother fuckin' stick figure artist in the world.  My sister with the double major from CCAD says so!  I'll post some of my finer works later...

The cover art for Impossimole is some of the best still based stuff I've ever seen.

[Tatsujin]

coz they're better.

[guyjin]

I play old games because the new games, by and large, suck, regardless of 3dnes. And even when old games do suck, I haven't wasted much money on 'em.

but I voted nostalgia, 'cuz that's my #3 reason.

[Monster Bonce]

Wait until you take that "Reflections of Society in Films" 200 series class!  You'll really be upset then!

Arf, arf. I'm a little bit old for undergraduate courses.

Movies are simply there to entertain me.  They are like circus monkeys.  Here's my eight bucks, go sing, dance, or blow shit up for me for 120 minutes.  No more, no less.

In which case you would be rather well served by contemporary film, I would suggest.

I take it you don't like the analogy. Oh well. Nevertheless, if singing, dancing and blowing things up is all it's about then you're pretty well served by games too. I don't like such things—at least not in movies, and yet that's more or less all there is to most games and I still like those. I think I'll have to chalk another vote up for pointless nostalgia.

[Golgo13]

However, I find myself watching lots of old movies from the 40s, 50s and 60s and they are usually superior to contemporary mainstream cinema

I totally agree, older American movies were the best, now its just a bunch of crap coming out of Hollywood.

[RCduck7]

A good game is a good game!
That's how i see it.
Allthough the more arcade kind of blasts seem to be lesser present then now.
Propably because of the high prices of games most seek something that lasts +10 hours to be finished.
But xbox live and downloadable content seem to fit that bill perfectly.
I also don't seem to be intrested in paying a full price in let's say a (new) Castlevania game for the GBA or DS if for example i have castlevania 4 for the snes in my collection.
However, the evolution in videogames i see is good, it slowly seems to mature like movies and music.
This opens genres!

[MrFulci]

That's something I agree with offsidewing on, and something I tell others about movies. I don't read much into them, I watch them for entertainment. Entertainment is the #1 reason I watch a movie. It's like an amusement park ride. I pay money, take it for a spin, see how I feel, and if I like it or find a lot of depth to it, I may return. Whether it be "Vengence is Mine", or "The Hidden", or any other movie I've purchased recently. It's there for entertainment.

Not to sidetrack this thread too much more, however "art" is all up to whomever. A lot of what makes the world go 'round is marketing. Tell enough people something is art, get the "art" attention, create demand, etc, and if all goes well and folks show interest it's, "art".


I have in my mind the games I play aren't, "old".  Part of me is stuck with certain brackets of years. To me, "old" stuff is 50 years in the past. 20 years.... pfffft, that's not "old".

I play games I enjoy. Final Fight, Ninja Spirit, Street Fighter 2, Samurai Shodown, World Heroes 2, Crusader of Centry, Shadowgate (univited, etc), Splatterhouse, Road Rash, Military Madness, TMNT Arcade game, Magic sword, etc, etc.

The above games are easy to pick up and play. A lot of new games seem to focus more on the looks. I'm not into 3D stuff, much. There are many games out there I've yet to play or complete, so it's not as though the well has run dry and I'm only playing the same games over and over again. Plenty of classics out there.

ALSO, new CONSOLE games sometimes are limited in key/button assignment. Bad key placement, shitty controllers turn me off on new games also. Most of the time, when I paly a new game, it's on a PC.

I also prefer to focus on certain types of games. I have other interests, so I stick to certain things when it comes to video games.

Around the time of the playstation was when I started to slow down keeping up with gaming. I already had other game systems at home, and nothing on the Playstation interested me. It's been that way for quite a while with the new systems. Though, this year I did purchase a Gamecube with a Gameboy Player (my "Gameboy Cube") and recently a Playstation 2.

Why did I buy the above consoles? "Cassic" games, hahaha. Magic Sword on the Capcom Classics, Volume 2 sold me on the PS2. Hearing King of Fighters XI, a recent game, was being released on the Playstation 2 added even more incentive to purchasing a PS2.

Since purchasing a PS2, I purcahsed a few games to go along with it. They are; Activision Anthology, Capcom Classics Volume 1 and 2, Atari Anthology, Midway Arcade Treasures 2, Metal Slug Anthology, Taito Arcade Treasures.

I hear about other games released on X-Box that interest me, such as TMNT Arcade, Double Dragon, etc. While that interests me, it's not something I could get too much into if I'm going to play with other players on that system (Not to mention the cost of that system). I feel it's more a game meant to be played in an Arcade setting, not online. Playing that type of game online doesn't have the same feel an arcade has, I've played in the arcade and playing those type of games online jsut seems to be missing something. Same goes for 2D fighters online, where there is a slight delay between players. I find it more fair to play on a single machine.

What it all comes down to in a simple answer, is I only have so much time with video games, and I prefer to spend it with games I like. I have enough other games to keep me occupied, not much need to buy recent games.

[Kitsunexus]

1. Nostalgia.

2. Some of the genres I like work better in 2D than 3D.

3. A lot of modern games are dull and stupid.

4. Older games have a better "pick-up-and-play" factor.

5. The music is almost ALWAYS better.

[offsidewing]

Movies are straight up entertainment.  I've been to a lot of film festivals, that's what happens when you have a sibling who makes them.  Vancouver, New York, Columbus, LA, San Fran, blah-blah, and it all boils down to one thing:  Did I waste irreplacable moments of my life on the movie I just watched? 

Do I know more about movies that the average pretentious journalist?  I hope so.  Do I know more about movies because I caught the "Blue Skies over Mars" line the first time watching Total Recall?  Probably not.  Movies and Theatre have changed a lot the last 40 years because of one thing:  The audience's imagination.  Audiences are no longer pressed to use their imagination to immerse themselves in a story line.  While that's more detrimental to the stage than to the screen, the fundamental change has affected both forms of ENTERTAINMENT.

An audience no longer has to try to imagine what it's like to storm a beach head at Normandy.  I saw Forrest Gump drag a torso across a beach.  Yeah, that's messed up.  Yet, I do have to imagine what Gweneth Paltrow's head looks like in that box which adds to the FUCKED-UP-ED-NESS to the ending of that movie.  I get to thank Julie Taymour (sp??) for not allowing me imagine what the African safari looks like on stage.  And WTF was up with Starlight Express!

I will rationalize dangerously as this prime example is a hot topic of Fan-Boyism.  The Star Wars prequels.  Setting aside the fact that you already KNOW what's going to happen to Anakin Skywalker, the movies failed to connect with the original (or new) audience because the immagination was stripped from the prequels due to the (in my opinion, wonderful) special affects work.  I didn't have to imagine what it was like in the super futuristic world.  Someone dictated it to me.  The story also stripped itself of inspiring back stories.  "You fought in the clone wars?!?!"  Yeah Luke, and they were a let down once I saw what they were like...

Anyways.  That is why people tend to find older films 'more authentic' or mentally engaging, because they require you to be.

LONG LIVE THE TG-16!!!!!!

[Hobo Xiphas]

There needs to be an option on the poll that says "I like 2D games, but 3D games are okay too!"

I don't care when a game was made as long as it is a good game.

[Monster Bonce]

I don't disagree with your characterisation of film as entertainment and didn't write anything to contradict that. I also agree to it boiling down to whether or not watching was a waste of time. I don't know why I've got your back up so thoroughly, it wasn't my intention. I even agree with your point on why many people, myself included, often prefer older films (though there has also been a clear and corresponding rise in genres that require no thought whatsoever and there are other thinks that irk me about much contemporary film).

Anyway, the movie comparison was simply an analogy. I was wondering if the same held true of games or if they will seem laughably primitive in a few years. I have a fairly low opinion of nostalgia but here I am posting on this forum and playing PCE games. I was wondering if people think there is an appreciable quality to older games that is now lacking, that's all.

[offsidewing]

I don't disagree with your characterisation of film as entertainment and didn't write anything to contradict that. I also agree to it boiling down to whether or not watching was a waste of time. I don't know why I've got your back up so thoroughly, it wasn't my intention. I even agree with your point on why many people, myself included, often prefer older films (though there has also been a clear and corresponding rise in genres that require no thought whatsoever and there are other thinks that irk me about much contemporary film).

Anyway, the movie comparison was simply an analogy. I was wondering if the same held true of games or if they will seem laughably primitive in a few years. I have a fairly low opinion of nostalgia but here I am posting on this forum and playing PCE games. I was wondering if people think there is an appreciable quality to older games that is now lacking, that's all.

More to the point, any movie without Lo-Pan in it just plain sucks.

[MotoRoaderMike]

2D games>3D games any day!

[Kitsunexus]

Why DO we play old games?


Instead we could be playing old women! Yeah it's sick as all fuck, but hell, those bitches are RICH!

[Turbo D]

Why DO we play old games?


Instead we could be playing old women! Yeah it's sick as all fuck, but hell, those bitches are RICH!

Yes, sick as all hell.

anyways, I play old games because they seem to have more heart and effort put into them. All the new supposedly 3D games are rather the same style imo. I do like fps on my pc tho, there is nothing better that owning newbs online 

[Kitsunexus]

Actually, we need to blame 3D games sucking on id Software, makers of Doom and Quake. They pioneered the "license out an engine for a shit game" business method, after all.

[GUTS]

Yeah but the god-awful Unreal series perfected it.

[Dark Fact]

To me, 2D or 3D, it really doesn't matter just as long as it's a good game.  What really irks me nowadays when it comes to gaming is "how many hours does it take to finish the game?"! Dude, it doesn't matter how many hours it takes! You finish the game when you finish the game, that's it! People asking that kind of question tend to treat games like they are some kind of "garbage in, garbage out" object! Games are meant to be played and enjoyed for their entertaining values, not as a limit to one's tolerance for a specified period of time.  Back when I was a tyke, games were regarded by their awesome graphics, gameplay and difficulty.  We appreciated the games for what they were and looking at it in retrospect, we can appreciate them even more now because of the amount of hard work, heart, and dedication that it took to make them.  Game designers CARED about making a good game, not throwing a bunch of polygon shit together just to get their paycheque.  I look at games from Nihon Falcom's library and realize how much passion they put into making a game with memorable music, characters, and gameplay.  I look at Capcom and its dedication for colorful graphics and gameplay.  I look at Konami and its "serious" style.  I look at Telenet Japan and its dedication to its anime titles as if the anime had real specialty to the game instead of being a stock gimmick.  Today's games rarely capture that feeling (with the exception of some AWESOME 2D games for the playstation which were released by Atlus and the now defunct Working Designs). 

If a game is in 3D, I want it to be done with the prospect of providing us with entertainment, not just to show off for the critics.  Yes, there were crap 2D games back then but the good outweighed the bad most of the time.

So, with the Wii and the Virtual Console, and XBOX's Live Arcade, the chance to relive the glory days of gaming are once again upon us.  Gamers new and old have the chance to see what a REAL game was like back then.  The newbies may not appreciate it but at least the companies are giving them the chance to.

Me? I'll just sit back with a good entertaining video game, thank you very much.

And that...is my 500th post and my 3rd bonk smilie.

[Tatsujin]

1. Nostalgia.

2. Some of the genres I like work better in 2D than 3D.

3. A lot of modern games are dull and stupid.

4. Older games have a better "pick-up-and-play" factor.

5. The music is almost ALWAYS better.

truest!!

[RCduck7]

You may find this strange, but i had strong nostalgia feelings of certain PS1 games at a time the console was still in production.
Propably because the 3D capabilities blew me away at the time, i was totally immersed.

[Monster Bonce]

I don't think that's strange though it may have been a bit unusual. I find it odd the the PS1 now qualifies as retro, though. I suppose it is, given it's no longer in production, but it's still been a pretty quick movement.

[NecroPhile]

What really irks me nowadays when it comes to gaming is "how many hours does it take to finish the game?"! Dude, it doesn't matter how many hours it takes! You finish the game when you finish the game, that's it!

I disagree - it most certainly does matter how long a game is.  Whenever I hear somebody ask how long a game takes, it's because they want to get there money's worth (longer is better, and not just in your pants).  If a game is finished in 5 minutes, it sucks.  Even if it's the best five minutes of gaming known to man or beast, it sucked and left you wanting more.

Game designers CARED about making a good game, not throwing a bunch of polygon shit together just to get their paycheque.........Today's games rarely capture that feeling (with the exception of some AWESOME 2D games for the playstation which were released by Atlus and the now defunct Working Designs). 

If a game is in 3D, I want it to be done with the prospect of providing us with entertainment, not just to show off for the critics.

Don't hate on 3D (or do, I don't care).  Fancy visual effects that don't really enhance game play are nothing new.  2D had parallax, scaling, rotation, etc.  3D has radiosity, lens flare, etc.  You'd have to be blind not to see the effort put into many newer games, although that effort has tended towards realistic rather than artistic environs.

[Seldane]

To me, 2D or 3D, it really doesn't matter just as long as it's a good game.  What really irks me nowadays when it comes to gaming is "how many hours does it take to finish the game?"! Dude, it doesn't matter how many hours it takes! You finish the game when you finish the game, that's it!

Playtime is an extremely important factor to me. For example, I would never pay for a game that takes five hours or less to complete (okay, so I did it once - Ys Origin, but that was the biggest mistake of my life). I would also never play a game that takes 100 hours to complete, as I don't have that kind of patience with games. I like games that take 10-20 (and sometimes even 30) hours to complete, but that's it. That's why I'm always interested in how long a game is.

[Dark Fact]

Okay, I stand corrected.  However, the general attitude of gamers that I found regarding the number of hours for game time tends to be pretty arrogant.  They think that once they're done with the game, it's not worth their time again, ever.  If you're going to buy a game, buy one that offers you the best replay value.  I'm not saying you should buy one game and stick with it for the rest of your life, just buy a good library of games that will offer you good playtime and good replay value.

[gundarN]

I play both old and new games. I'm pretty sure in 20 years time people will have fond memories of the "retro" PS3 (although they have yet to release any truly great games for it, although Virtua Fighter 5 might stand the test of time).

Newer games tend to be more play and throw away than older ones that were designed to keep you coming back for more, very few new games don't have a save feature which encourages you to complete it, and because it took you 60 hours to do it, the thought of doing it all over again makes you ill. All the 360 games relying on XBOX Live will be almost unplayable once Microsoft discontinue the support and infrastructure around them. Same goes for Sony.

I have to say though, my Japanese PS2 is one of the finest retro consoles you can buy and I can see myself buying and playing games on that for a long time, regardless of the number of dimensions involved.

Another factor for me is that I work long hours and have a family, old games are better at providing a quick fix to fit in with my lifestyle.

[kenomac78]

i prefer both old games and new. 2d and 3d  are bth fine but  i just cant stand games that you have to stop and have everything explained or walked thru for you every 5 minutes, and it seems to happen alot more with newer games, which happen to be 3d,  which is why i am gugingly playing thru zelda the twightlight princess, and everytime i think the game FINALLY starts moving, i have to stop, read, do some stupid step by step horsecrap, read some more. man its frustrating,,,,

i think alot of eople were turned off by 3d because  the transition from 2d to 3d was not as gradual as it should have been, and sony sort of force started it byt requiring ALL ps games to start being 3d, whch in turn made everyone else have to catch up. you start to see experimentations into 3d starting in 91 and 92 and if the saturn , jaguar, n64 and playstation would have been 2d out of the box with a slow transition to 3d (at least saturn and jaguar had those intentions!) it would have given developers alot more to time to perfect how 3d works, and alot of garbage 3d games would have never been made. but because psx is 3d out of the gate, suddenly eveyone has to be 3d too and i hink not everyone was prepared for it,  the only 2d games i can think of  for psx are rayman and klonoa and megaman x. were there any others?

so maybe if 3d started getting more into full swing around th time of the ps2 people would not be as bitter about it as they are, i can understand coz i played that crap too!  plus  i fel that we were robbed of expriencing endless 2d platforming with 16.7 mllion colors, as was my dream growing up!

[nat]

the only 2d games i can think of  for psx are rayman and klonoa and megaman x. were there any others?

Castlevania?

[Kitsunexus]

the only 2d games i can think of  for psx are rayman and klonoa and megaman x. were there any others?

Skullmonkeys, Castlevania, Johnny Bazookatone, the Strider port, Gunner's Heaven, a whole horde of SHMUPS and fighters...

[Golgo13]

Why do we play old games?  Ill show you why!


This aint the early 90's anymore, this is the 07 my friends, and as the illustration shows:

[kenomac78]

the only 2d games i can think of  for psx are rayman and klonoa and megaman x. were there any others?

Skullmonkeys, Castlevania, Johnny Bazookatone, the Strider port, Gunner's Heaven, a whole horde of SHMUPS and fighters...

yea i forgot about castlevania! i was asleep when i made that post anyways!  then theres  alot of fighters yes, and games like r-types and thunerforce v.  but even if the total of (original, not remade) 2 d  games for the PS was 100 it would be a drop in the bucket compared to all the other games they had.

[Golgo13]

. I'm pretty sure in 20 years time people will have fond memories of the "retro" PS3 (although they have yet to release any truly great games for it,

Another factor for me is that I work long hours and have a family, old games are better at providing a quick fix to fit in with my lifestyle.

Exactly, new games take too long to get into most times, and as for what you said about the day when PS3 is called retro, well, that is going to suck.

[terrormask]

The problem with the newer games is they are trying to be too much like interactive movies. It would take a lot of typing to explain thoughorly about the big changes in video game making that happened in the 90's, but to let you know who did it, it's Id software. The game company that made Doom and Quake changed the way video games were originally visioned, and turned them into pretty much interactive movies. Doom 3 was great in many ways, but, I like playing video games, not some stupid virtual simulation of putting me in some sci-fi horror flick where I have to fight aliens and escape from mars.

[PCEngineHell]

Actually, we need to blame 3D games sucking on id Software, makers of Doom and Quake. They pioneered the "license out an engine for a shit game" business method, after all.

I don't know,I like most of the games released that used the Quake 1-3 engine. I hard pressed to find one I don't like playing on my 3DFX based computer. I have it set up to play games right from the 96- early 2001 era. Its a Athlon Thunderbird 1200 mhz,on a Shuttle AK12A,with a Voodoo 4500 and a Aureal A3d 2.0 card. As far as Unreal engine goes,Im hard pressed to see alot of games using the engine,other then Land of the Dead:RTFG,and Tribes Vengence. RTFG sucked,but Tribes is awesome,but also,Tribes runs on a modified engine using Havok.

I mostly play old games from the 80ies to mid 90ies but I do love certain 3d games. Arcade style ones are my favorite,along with certain games like the  Silent Hill series 2 on up, Max Payne 1 and 2,Return to Castle Wolfenstien,ect.

[Tatsujin]

the only 2d games i can think of  for psx are rayman and klonoa and megaman x. were there any others?

are you kidding? did you ever realized the PSXs big 2D shooter repetoire. there over 100 of them in mimimum. of course, not all of them are utlimate 2D treasures, but at least 20 of them are top notch.

harmfull park
gradius gaiden
r-types
donpachi
dodonpachi
X-multipy
kaitei daisensou
jikkyou oshaberi parodius
sexy parodius
....

[kenomac78]

but most of those never made it to america. where the mindset is bigger and badder, and in 3-d

[jimid2]

I'm late to the conversation but want to add my 2-bits worth anyway... I agree with a lot that's been said in the thread so far. Nostalgia is certainly a part of it for me, especially with my favorite old-school systems - the Lynx and TurboGrafx - neither of which has a huge library to draw from (yes, I know the PC Engine has about one bazillion games available, but I only have US hardware). Besides that, I simply have a limited amount of time and money for games, and retro gaming offers the best bang for the buck. We own all the last-gen consoles (XBox, PS2, GameCube and Dreamcast x 2) in our house, and there are plenty of games for these systems I haven't got around to playing yet, despite the fact that I own them (God of War, Shadow of Colosus, Final Fantasy XII, Metal Gear Solid 3 Snake Eater, Killer 7, Resident Evil 4, Trigger Heart Excelsior, etc.) - I picked most of these games up cheap, used, because I know I'll like them and I know I want to play them, but I hardly get in any console game time in the summer, so they'll have to wait until September before I start looking at them... That's okay though, because with the exception of recently published DC shmups, I pretty much refuse to pay more than $20 for a game, and I usually get them for less than that (pawnshops mostly - drifting around the streets on my lunch hour).

I've played Gears of War and Advanced Warfighter and Guitar Hero II on a friend's XBox360, and they're certainly fun, but they're not any more fun than the stuff I have in front of me to play now, and they'll still be fun when I finally get around to playing them at $20 a pop on a $200 XBox360 three or four years from now... We have many friends who own a Wii, and playing Wario or Wii Sports is a kick when we visit them, but it doesn't feel like the kind of thing I'd spend lots of time doing at home, so what's the rush? 

Of course, with our constantly-in-a-state-of-barely-controlled-chaos schedules (we've two teenagers in the house, after all) portable gaming makes the most sense, and everyone in the family has a DSLite, and these systems see a lot of use. There are also two PSPs in the household, and my GP2X is my retro portable, so the vast majority of our gaming is done on handhelds, which tend to have a decidedly retro feel in most games anyway. Maybe our tastes just gravitate to that kind of gaming (platformers, shmups, 2D fighters, classic JRPGs etc.)... Or maybe I'll just be damned before I drop $600 on a video game console ;)

[elnino]

I love the old 2d games but I've to admit that I play 3d games as well. The most important factor for the superiority of 2d games is the soundtrack which is just not memorable in newer games no more. I mean, I've played Ridge Racer 6 for the 360 for 95+ hours but I can't whistle a single song! Maybe I'd remember if I heard them, though. On the other hand, I catch myself a lot whistling a tune from 2d games with hilarious soundtrack like Winds of Thunder, Gates of Thunder, Star Parodia, etc., it's just always in my head! Classic stuff!!
Another important issue with 3d games is the "pick-up-and-play" factor, to use Kitsunexus' words. When I insert a game, I don't want to spend an hour or even read a manual (WTF?!!) to get familiar with the controls, and the presence of a tutorial in a lot of the new generation games (especially shooters) is a clear sign that the controls are not intuitively no more (no offense against tutorials^^). A little pressing around on the buttons to see which one is for shooting and which one for jumping has to be enough!
Last but not least I'm a great fan of shoot'em ups and 3d is just not made for them.

Keep 2d gaming legal!

[Kitsunexus]

On the other hand, I catch myself a lot whistling a tune from 2d games with hilarious soundtrack like Winds of Thunder, Gates of Thunder, Star Parodia, etc.,

Making fun of the GOT soundtrack is punishable by death on these boards...

[nat]

I refuse to play old games because old games are cheesy.

[terrormask]

I refuse to play old games because old games are cheesy.

Old games part made the games you like.

[nat]

Games made before 1995 suck so bad.

3D games are soooooo much better. Polygons are teh shizznizzle!

But you know what game really blows? That one game, JJ & Jeff. That game suxorz!

[OldRover]

I'll play any game that holds my interest. I did notice something of a downward spiral in game quality when 3D became the norm though...games were being sold on the basis of "superior 3D graphics!" but usually had very little redeeming quality. Once 3D was completely mainstream, good quality games started appearing regularly again. I've got no problem whupping your butt in a game of Pong and then whupping your butt in a game of Soul Calibur 3.

The only thing that bothers me to this day is the vast amount of brainless FPS games. They're all the same basic game with "l33t0r gr4f1X m4|\|!!!!!!111111". BOOOOOOOORING. Keep your Quake 13, Medal Of Honor 84, Half-Life 132, I'll go play me some original DOOM goodness.

[Keranu]

Games made before 1995 suck so bad.

3D games are soooooo much better. Polygons are teh shizznizzle!

But you know what game really blows? That one game, JJ & Jeff. That game suxorz!

Go to hell, Dark Keranu. Really, GO TO HELL!