Why I think retro gaming is better than modern gaming

Page 2 of 4 [ 54 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

eelektrik
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 577
Location: Irvine, CA

25 Oct 2012, 2:23 am

Dantac wrote:
1- The first major change was when the industry ceased to innovate and begun to carbon copy and hype-advertise for profit. World of Warcraft heralded this change.
.


World of Warcraft was hardly the first massively hyped clone of another game, it was just arguably the most successful one. It had been attempted numerous times before. Hell, look at the numerous clones of Super Mario 64 that failed to replicate any of what made SM64 good.

But speaking of MMOs specifically, sadly it has become the measuring bar for MMO success and people are trying to copy it in order to beat it? It makes no sense, but they try anyways. You aren't going to make a dent in WoW's 8 digit subscriber base by releasing essentially the same game they are already playing. Plus so many MMOs either fail and either shut down or switch to a free to play model because they didn't get millions of subscribers. I would love to see someone make a new MMO that is actually new, and doesn't require a million+ subscribers to be considered successful. Do something innovative even if its aimed at a niche market. Attracting 10,000+ loyal subscribers should be the goal, instead they go for 1,000,000+ subscribers who end up only playing for one month and quitting.



Jediyoda
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jul 2010
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 355
Location: Brisbane Queensland

27 Oct 2012, 7:05 am

I agree. I got introduced to gaming from my Dad in the 1980s we had a commodore 64. Friday nights my family and I would play the commodore 64 and have competitions who would get the best score. I then got a Nintendo 64 I loved playing Goldeneye, Waverace and 1080 Snowboarding and then I got a Nintendo Gamecube then a Ps2 which I still have and a Xbox. My sister and I also had handheld games such as donkey kong,caveman, oil panic and street fighter which I still have. I find the graphics easier to take than the graphics of modern games now which make me sick I suffer verdigo and I have a fit if I play modern games to long. Retro games such as Sonic, Mario, Pacman, Space Invaders Donkey Kong and Frogger I can play for hours without getting sick that is why I have gone back to playing the older consoles and handheld games. I have a Gameboy colour which I brought the other day and I am playing Donkey Kong Country at the moment. I also have Donkey Kong Land 2 and Super Marioland. I also play the old Sega games on my Nintendo Ds called After Burner, Outrun, Space Harrier and Super Hang-on. I play Sonic Generations on the xbox and I have sega mega drive ultimate collection with all the Sonic games on it. I find I do not get bored playing retro games for hours like I do with modern games and they are easy to play and my friends enjoy playing Retro games for hours without getting sick.



Tross
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Jan 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 594

28 Oct 2012, 1:00 am

I have a number of reasons for preferring retro gaming, and games from the 6th gen(I'm not sure if they're considered retro yet). For one thing, games were complete when we bought them. None of this dlc nonsense. I'm not opposed to the idea behind dlc, just the way it's abused. I'm all for extending an already complete game. I don't like it when content is withheld, only to be sold later, for a premium. On disc dlc is bs. It's already on the disc. If it's free dlc, I suppose that's fine, but then that raises the question as to why the content was locked in the first place. Don't get me started on the in-game unlockable, which is something that the majority of modern games are missing. Patches are another thing. On paper, they are a good idea. They allow devs to fix mistakes with the game, and get rid of bugs missed during the testing phase. However, it seems that a lot of modern devs take that as an excuse to skip the bug testing phase, and release a buggy product. I don't care for the "we'll fix it later" attitude. Before patches, devs did everything they could to get things right the first time.

Single player gaming used to be the focus, and multiplayer gaming always used to involve getting together with friends, and enjoying a game in the same room, on the same tv. Now, the social aspect of competitive multplayer is mostly gone, unless friends hook up and play a game together(in which case, it still isn't the same). It is cool that friends from forums can get together to play a game, but for the most part, I'll stick to single player gaming. I don't hate trophies and achievements, but they're not really relevant to me. I never did understand the mindset of having to prove anything to anyone. I've overcome tougher challenges than most modern games offer, and I have absolutely no proof of it, which doesn't bother me at all.

Prior to the 7th gen, gamers of all shapes and sizes had a decent selection of games to choose from that suited their interests. Nowadays, the videogame market is focused more on a small handful of gamer types. People who don't fit into one of those demographics are left with very few options. While game development has always been a business, I've never heard so much sales talk prior to this gen. It makes me wonder if the big name devs are even in it for the passion of developing games anymore. Modern games just don't have the same quality IMHO, with a few exceptions. I never was able to find the right words to describe what's missing from modern games, but layers might be the term I was looking for. Games from the past had more layers to them IMHO, whether in the form of multiple types of gameplay, various game mechanics, or just aspects of the overall experience.

Part of the problem I'm having with modern games, could just be the fact that I grew up in different gens. I would say the shift to online gaming is as big as the shift to 3d gaming(in the 5th gen sense of the term). Things are different now, and they will never be the same again. But maybe I'm just not that into the way things are now.



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,874
Location: Florida

28 Oct 2012, 11:36 am

eelektrik wrote:
Dantac wrote:
1- The first major change was when the industry ceased to innovate and begun to carbon copy and hype-advertise for profit. World of Warcraft heralded this change.
.


World of Warcraft was hardly the first massively hyped clone of another game, it was just arguably the most successful one. It had been attempted numerous times before. Hell, look at the numerous clones of Super Mario 64 that failed to replicate any of what made SM64 good.

But speaking of MMOs specifically, sadly it has become the measuring bar for MMO success and people are trying to copy it in order to beat it? It makes no sense, but they try anyways. You aren't going to make a dent in WoW's 8 digit subscriber base by releasing essentially the same game they are already playing. Plus so many MMOs either fail and either shut down or switch to a free to play model because they didn't get millions of subscribers. I would love to see someone make a new MMO that is actually new, and doesn't require a million+ subscribers to be considered successful. Do something innovative even if its aimed at a niche market. Attracting 10,000+ loyal subscribers should be the goal, instead they go for 1,000,000+ subscribers who end up only playing for one month and quitting.


There's a difference between games that were 'similar' to those that are clones before WoW. For example, Everquest was an RPG MMO which was similar to what is arguably the first true MMO: Ultima Online. EQ did copy the overall concept of a game world with zones, questing and stuff...but they pushed the envelope with tons of features and novel ideas that made the game unique. So did the games that came after EQ... Dark Age of Camelot for example. Excellent game..EQ-like but so many improvements and innovations to technology and gameplay it stood proudly on its own.

Then came WoW. WoW did not innovate at all. It was literally a copy amalgam between EQ and other MMORPGs using the newest graphic power available. There was zero innovation, zero new concepts... it was all the same as previous games. The reason why WoW became so popular was due to it being the first MMO based off from a wildly popular previous game and because millions upon millions were spent on media advertising.

Seeing the success of WoW other companies picked up the bussiness model: why spend millions innovating when simply copying and re-labelling the same game in a different skin and spending a couple million on mass advertising gets this much money in short term?

Thats when China and South Korea and others, armed with the experience from gold farming efforts and the like begun releasing clone after clone of MMO's with the microtransaction scheme...and peddled it to the west after it had a sure foothold in asia.

Seeing even further quick cash for little investment the gaming companies in the west picked it up too. The result is the garbage we see nowadays in F2P games. Star Trek Online, Mechwarrior Online, World of Tanks... the Marvel comic world games... all turning F2P and being cloned into new game types after their expected short term lifetime expires.



CrazyStarlightRedux
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,028
Location: Manchester, UK.

28 Oct 2012, 5:09 pm

Tross wrote:
I have a number of reasons for preferring retro gaming, and games from the 6th gen(I'm not sure if they're considered retro yet). For one thing, games were complete when we bought them. None of this dlc nonsense. I'm not opposed to the idea behind dlc, just the way it's abused. I'm all for extending an already complete game. I don't like it when content is withheld, only to be sold later, for a premium. On disc dlc is bs. It's already on the disc. If it's free dlc, I suppose that's fine, but then that raises the question as to why the content was locked in the first place. Don't get me started on the in-game unlockable, which is something that the majority of modern games are missing. Patches are another thing. On paper, they are a good idea. They allow devs to fix mistakes with the game, and get rid of bugs missed during the testing phase. However, it seems that a lot of modern devs take that as an excuse to skip the bug testing phase, and release a buggy product. I don't care for the "we'll fix it later" attitude. Before patches, devs did everything they could to get things right the first time.


Agree 100%.

These developers are losing their cred from their own fans doing this.

This will eventually bite them in the backside in a few years down the line when no one will care for their buggy products....it's already happened to Capcpom (They did the typo in one of their trailers).


_________________
Just a guy who gives advice and talks a lot.


equestriatola
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 104,327
Location: Half of me is in the Washington state, the other Los Angeles.

30 Oct 2012, 9:06 am

Has anyone tried attending a retro gaming con?


_________________
LIONS-STAMPEDERS-ESKIMOS-ROUGHRIDERS-BLUE BOMBERS-TIGER-CATS-ARGONAUTS-REDBLACKS-ALOUETTES

The Canadian Football League - What We're Made Of

Feel free to talk to me, if you wish. :)

Every day is a gift- cherish it!

"A true, true friend helps a friend in need."


eelektrik
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 577
Location: Irvine, CA

30 Oct 2012, 3:30 pm

Dantac wrote:
eelektrik wrote:
Dantac wrote:
1- The first major change was when the industry ceased to innovate and begun to carbon copy and hype-advertise for profit. World of Warcraft heralded this change.
.


World of Warcraft was hardly the first massively hyped clone of another game, it was just arguably the most successful one. It had been attempted numerous times before. Hell, look at the numerous clones of Super Mario 64 that failed to replicate any of what made SM64 good.

But speaking of MMOs specifically, sadly it has become the measuring bar for MMO success and people are trying to copy it in order to beat it? It makes no sense, but they try anyways. You aren't going to make a dent in WoW's 8 digit subscriber base by releasing essentially the same game they are already playing. Plus so many MMOs either fail and either shut down or switch to a free to play model because they didn't get millions of subscribers. I would love to see someone make a new MMO that is actually new, and doesn't require a million+ subscribers to be considered successful. Do something innovative even if its aimed at a niche market. Attracting 10,000+ loyal subscribers should be the goal, instead they go for 1,000,000+ subscribers who end up only playing for one month and quitting.


There's a difference between games that were 'similar' to those that are clones before WoW. For example, Everquest was an RPG MMO which was similar to what is arguably the first true MMO: Ultima Online. EQ did copy the overall concept of a game world with zones, questing and stuff...but they pushed the envelope with tons of features and novel ideas that made the game unique. So did the games that came after EQ... Dark Age of Camelot for example. Excellent game..EQ-like but so many improvements and innovations to technology and gameplay it stood proudly on its own.

Then came WoW. WoW did not innovate at all. It was literally a copy amalgam between EQ and other MMORPGs using the newest graphic power available. There was zero innovation, zero new concepts... it was all the same as previous games. The reason why WoW became so popular was due to it being the first MMO based off from a wildly popular previous game and because millions upon millions were spent on media advertising.

Seeing the success of WoW other companies picked up the bussiness model: why spend millions innovating when simply copying and re-labelling the same game in a different skin and spending a couple million on mass advertising gets this much money in short term?

Thats when China and South Korea and others, armed with the experience from gold farming efforts and the like begun releasing clone after clone of MMO's with the microtransaction scheme...and peddled it to the west after it had a sure foothold in asia.

Seeing even further quick cash for little investment the gaming companies in the west picked it up too. The result is the garbage we see nowadays in F2P games. Star Trek Online, Mechwarrior Online, World of Tanks... the Marvel comic world games... all turning F2P and being cloned into new game types after their expected short term lifetime expires.


I personally would be much happier right now if Asheron's Call had been more popular than Everquest and everyone cloned it instead. I have yet to see an MMO since do all the things that made AC great. Even the company that made it, Turbine, made a sequel that was completely different and bombed, and then went on to make D&D Online and Lord of the Rings Online, the latter basically being Middle-earth WoW.

Three of the biggest things that in my mind made it the best MMO of that era and I have yet to play an MMO I enjoyed as much.

1. It had a classless character system, which was simple at the time but nowadays could be expanded upon greatly to give players much more variety in what they want to play and how they play them.
2. It had a massive world with no zones. There were no artificial borders between areas of different levels, or theme-park like design you see in modern design where every square inch of the world HAS to include some kind of quest start or quest related mob. Asheron's Call had an actual sense of exploration. There were dungeons in the world that weren't involved with quests, seemingly out in the middle of nowhere. There were also tons of quests but they weren't just handed to you and treating you like you are the lone savior of the world(alongside every other 'lone savior of the world' doing the same quest camping your quest mob).
3. When fighting monsters, a single add isn't going to kill you. Too many MMOs now are balanced towards combat with monsters being you versus 1 or 2 enemies, and if you get more than that you are in trouble. Asheron's Call I would regularly back myself up against a wall and smash through wave after wave of 5-10+ enemies regularly in dungeons that respawned at a quick pace. This was the main source of earning XP as opposed to quests. Admittedly in a modern game I would want something that balances farming and questing as XP sources and keeps both viable for people of different play styles, but either way you go I would want the option of being able to wade through hordes of monsters and not get overwhelmed immediately.

There are other great things about the game, but those three I have yet to see replicated in a single game since then. Sure Vanguard had a large world, biggest I have seen since AC, but outside of that it was basically Everquest 1.5, City of Heroes did a decent job of letting you fight large groups of enemies, but it had a fairly small highly zoned world and distinct classes. Not many games at all go the classless route anyways or at the very least offer multi-classing. I would absolutely love a true follow-up to Asheron's Call though.



NolleProsequi
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 29 Oct 2012
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 26

31 Oct 2012, 1:00 am

Is it wrong for me to find the simple pixelated graphics of yesteryear to be more beautiful than the attempted-realism of recent games? I am forever charmed by games such as Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VI, Sonic, Bomberman and Super Mario, or indeed any "retro" game. The only 3D games I can tolerate nowadays are Final Fantasy VII through to IX.



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,874
Location: Florida

02 Nov 2012, 11:07 pm

eelektrik wrote:
I personally would be much happier right now if Asheron's Call had been more popular than Everquest and everyone cloned it instead. I have yet to see an MMO since do all the things that made AC great. Even the company that made it, Turbine, made a sequel that was completely different and bombed, and then went on to make D&D Online and Lord of the Rings Online, the latter basically being Middle-earth WoW.

Three of the biggest things that in my mind made it the best MMO of that era and I have yet to play an MMO I enjoyed as much.
...



I would strongly recomend you try Final Fantasy 11 Online. Its perhaps the last of the 'olde schoole' MMOs.

Quote:
1. It had a classless character system, which was simple at the time but nowadays could be expanded upon greatly to give players much more variety in what they want to play and how they play them.


FFXI does not have this. Quite the opposite their class system is very rigid. However the characters have an enormous pool of abilities from which they must select 20 to choose from while in combat. These abilities range from melee to magic to racial & class abilities. At certain levels the characters receive additional abilities to choose from.

The class system is rigid but one character can be ALL classes. The system is that you have to go to your 'house' and change your character class. You can then also be two classes at once but the second class is active only at half level.

So, for example, if you are a Warrior as your main class and you have levelled it to level 20, you can select Thief as your secondary class. If your thief is level 10 or higher then your character becomes:

20 War/10THF.

You have access, as a warrior, to almost all abilities the THF has up to level 10.


So... their class system is rigid but your one character has an enormous amount of choices.

Quote:
2. It had a massive world with no zones. There were no artificial borders between areas of different levels, or theme-park like design you see in modern design where every square inch of the world HAS to include some kind of quest start or quest related mob. Asheron's Call had an actual sense of exploration. There were dungeons in the world that weren't involved with quests, seemingly out in the middle of nowhere. There were also tons of quests but they weren't just handed to you and treating you like you are the lone savior of the world(alongside every other 'lone savior of the world' doing the same quest camping your quest mob).


Since FFXI was originally designed for the playstation 2 the zones are mandatory. They are however, very big. The world itself is massive... and while there is no 'exploration' per say the game does not provide maps with omniscient info. In fact the stuff you need to find is so hard that you end up consulting the internet to finish most quests :P .

Quote:
3. When fighting monsters, a single add isn't going to kill you. Too many MMOs now are balanced towards combat with monsters being you versus 1 or 2 enemies, and if you get more than that you are in trouble. Asheron's Call I would regularly back myself up against a wall and smash through wave after wave of 5-10+ enemies regularly in dungeons that respawned at a quick pace. This was the main source of earning XP as opposed to quests. Admittedly in a modern game I would want something that balances farming and questing as XP sources and keeps both viable for people of different play styles, but either way you go I would want the option of being able to wade through hordes of monsters and not get overwhelmed immediately.


This is perhaps one of the biggest strengths of final fantasy 11. The combat with monsters is set so that monsters that give you XP when soloing do challenge you ...and adds WILL kill you unless you know how to use your skills. For group combat the mosters they fight are SO challenging that one mob occupies an entire group for minutes at a time and requires coordition and know-how of your class to beat it.

Unlike other MMO's, the entire combat design concept of FFXI is teamwork. If your debuff guy doesnt do his job the team will be in trouble. if the healers dont control their aggro they die mighty quickly..you get the idea. You will never, ever solo a boss or notorious monster that is anywhere close to your level..even at max level. Each boss, each notorious monster (and there's literally thousands of them) requires a completely different strategy from the team.

And if that wasnt enough, the game has its own time system, weather and lunar/solar cycles... some monsters are stronger or weaker in certain weather and in certain phase of the moon.

Even the in-game fishing craft system (which is AWESOME) relies on the moon phase and weather (and bait/rod type) to catch certain fish.

Try it. You'll like the game im sure :)



equestriatola
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 104,327
Location: Half of me is in the Washington state, the other Los Angeles.

04 Nov 2012, 1:45 am

I've decided to try and focus on my first love: retro gaming a bit more often now. Finding used games makes me smile.


_________________
LIONS-STAMPEDERS-ESKIMOS-ROUGHRIDERS-BLUE BOMBERS-TIGER-CATS-ARGONAUTS-REDBLACKS-ALOUETTES

The Canadian Football League - What We're Made Of

Feel free to talk to me, if you wish. :)

Every day is a gift- cherish it!

"A true, true friend helps a friend in need."


Misery
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Aug 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,217

04 Nov 2012, 9:37 am

equestriatola wrote:
Even though I am from a generation where I'd like modern gaming, I don't. Why, you ask?

1) Games in those days were played for the fun of it, much moreso than now; gaming today seems to be rather serious business, I've noticed.

2) The games were simple to understand; no need to look at complex controls.

3) The graphics were vibrant and colorful; most of today's games seem to be rather dark (save for the Mario games).

What do you think, guys?


As somewhat of a retro gamer myself, I agree with you.... to a point.


As your first two points go, obviously it depends on the game, but I actually find that alot of today's games are actually simpler than retro games; I mainly mean console games when I say this. Complexity is not just a matter of what the basic rules and controls of a game is, but has more to do with the game's entire design. Something like, say, the original Ninja Gaiden on the NES, I find to be much deeper and more interesting than, say, CoD or whatever. Alot of games like CoD or Halo or..... well, most of the big-name, bazillion-dollar budget games..... they tend to be trying to be MOVIES more than GAMES. Gameplay areas and levels mostly exist in these games to push you from one "set piece" or cutscene to the next, and since alot of gamers today are, frankly, quite wussy about difficulty, these games tend to feature things like regenerating health or infinite lives or the ability to save/reload ANYWHERE, or other mechanics that prevent the player from ever really losing.

Whereas something like Ninja Gaiden requires you to actually gain enough SKILL and KNOWLEDGE to overcome each of the highly-difficult areas. The game does not hold your hand during any of this: No infinite lives, no regenerating health, no side character talking to you and pointing things out, no magic glowing weakspot on a boss that it would inexplicably wave at you and then sit there for 3 minutes waiting for you to strike (seriously, it's SO bloody stupid when boss fights involve that one). That game had no qualms at all about crushing the hell outta the player. You had to memorize enemy patterns, master difficult jumps, learn boss attacks and how to dodge them, and the best methods for attacking each one, master all the different sub-weapons, master the wallclimbing... and then EXECUTE all of this perfectly, in order to beat the game.


As for the graphics, I agree with this..... but again, that mostly relates to console games.

And there's the thing about modern gaming VS retro gaming: The entire arguement only truly works when talking about console games. I dont bother with the consoles much these days (aside from fighting games) for many of the same reasons as you. Instead, my gaming is mostly done on the PC, and there's a reason for this: ANY type of game can be made, and thrive, on a PC. You still get your "blockbuster" mega-budget FPS games and such, but you also get indie developers making alot of games that are very, very similar to the retro games of old (and this includes their graphcis), or making games that use entirely new ideas altogether. And it's not JUST indie devs; alot of "full" devs can get away with this too, on PC. There's an EXTREMELY wide range of games on PC, and it always just baffles me that alot of console gamers never even LOOK, and never notice this fact.

Of course.... part of the problem is that you have to know WHERE to look; 99.99999999% of these games, you will never, ever, see in a retail store like Gamestop or whatever. You HAVE to know where to go online for these. And I DONT just mean Steam, though Steam is a great place to start.



So, in some ways, I agree, in some, sort of disagree.

I will always prefer the look of a game like Super Mario Bros, with it's bright, stark, colorful, simple visuals, over the "brown and bloom" that makes up most of today's games, and I'll always prefer games like Gaiden, which have DEPTH and CHALLENGE, over the mind-numbing cutscenery of alot of big blockbuster titles.

Yet, for as much as I love retro games, I think there's ALOT of good stuff in modern gaming..... IF you know where to look for it (and these are almost ALWAYS dramatically cheaper, too, than retail games...... or entirely free).



equestriatola
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 104,327
Location: Half of me is in the Washington state, the other Los Angeles.

05 Nov 2012, 4:47 am

Wreck-It Ralph, if you are a fan of retro gaming- is a must-see. :D


_________________
LIONS-STAMPEDERS-ESKIMOS-ROUGHRIDERS-BLUE BOMBERS-TIGER-CATS-ARGONAUTS-REDBLACKS-ALOUETTES

The Canadian Football League - What We're Made Of

Feel free to talk to me, if you wish. :)

Every day is a gift- cherish it!

"A true, true friend helps a friend in need."


Kurgan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Apr 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,378
Location: Scandinavia

05 Nov 2012, 8:36 am

CrystalStars wrote:
Modern day games have far, far more potential than anything 10+ years ago had. Anywho, I prefer modern games.


What game offers a more compelling story than Broken Sword (1996), a higher rate of mental stimulation than Oddworld: Abe's Oddysey (1997) or better level design than Gothic II (2003)?



equestriatola
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 104,327
Location: Half of me is in the Washington state, the other Los Angeles.

06 Nov 2012, 4:45 am

Kurgan wrote:
CrystalStars wrote:
Modern day games have far, far more potential than anything 10+ years ago had. Anywho, I prefer modern games.


What game offers a more compelling story than Broken Sword (1996), a higher rate of mental stimulation than Oddworld: Abe's Oddysey (1997) or better level design than Gothic II (2003)?


My answer? Can't say, never played any of them.


_________________
LIONS-STAMPEDERS-ESKIMOS-ROUGHRIDERS-BLUE BOMBERS-TIGER-CATS-ARGONAUTS-REDBLACKS-ALOUETTES

The Canadian Football League - What We're Made Of

Feel free to talk to me, if you wish. :)

Every day is a gift- cherish it!

"A true, true friend helps a friend in need."


eelektrik
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 577
Location: Irvine, CA

06 Nov 2012, 2:37 pm

Well, I'd say the best story in gaming is Planescape: Torment, but being that its only 3 years newer than the game he mentioned, still contributes to his point.