This article has convinced me.

Hehehehehehe... That's a classic!

Yep, isn't it the truth though?

I have to agree that Outrun is a really bad game.

But one thing that confuses me, is that they use the Dreamcast as an example of "retro". Hmm...

Defender sucked too. There

AEI: There's no accounting for taste, so I can't claim one way or the other. However, by definition all articles that offer some kind of a deffinitive answer are wrong.

Other than Altered Beast, I pretty much like every game mentioned in the "Least Collectible Old Games" section.

What cracks me up is that they claim that new games are good. 90% of all new games are complete crap. The only thing that's improved are the graphics, and even that's debateable. (I'd rather have good quality 2d graphics than these horrid looking 3d cell shaded ones.)

The world needs more websites like that, lots more. Because the more websites there are like that, the more sheep brained eeeediots from around the globe will listen to them and agree with them. Therefore reducing the demand element from the age old 'supply/demand' equation and hence reducing the cost of games I buy because of over supply.

Lets all make one and reduce our outgoings.

Which brings me to something I've been thinking about for a long time:

What about a project of re-editing (reissue ?) of some old games with improved graphics and the rest?
I mean, now I'm playing Motor City and I'm thinking what a great game it would be (and a modern one) with SVGA graphics and a nice accelerated 3d test driving

I guess we can find enough people willing to participate in such thing(if there anren't enough here already)

There is the problem of copyright of-course, but we do not need to use any of the old stuff, the programming can be redone, the graphics need to be redone, and after all ,it would be non-profit, ofcourse.

Edited by Dexterus at 00:43 on June, 25th 2003

No, no, no, no, nO, NO, NOOOOO!!!!



Stunts 2 anyone? Pah! If I had the time (and artistic skill) to re-hash an old game I would make new ones from scratch.

#include <originality>

Yes ,Stunts 2 would be great

Well, originality is a problem... Making a whole new game involves big budget
Trust me, it would be more fun this way

[quote][b]Posted by NetDanzr at 19:54 on June,
AEI: There's no accounting for taste, so I can't claim one way or the other. However, by definition all articles that offer some kind of a deffinitive answer are wrong.[/quote]

You're right as rain. Now dance with me in the twilight you freaky fish.

I think you missed the sarcasm of my post. Stunts 2 is a 'live' poroject, or at least it was for about 3 days and 2 websites and 15 posts an ezboard. After which the people involved probably realised that spending 40 hours a week making fancy graphics for Stunts didnt keep a roof over their head.

And I dont think re-hashing an old game would be fun for many reasons, not least you would be killing it. Improving it??? not likely, more like smash the thing to pieces with a 500kg demolition ball.

I understand very well what it takes to get a piece of software to market.

Budget doesnt come into it, the main budget in a new piece of software is the man-hours of work that go into it, that wont go away when re-hashing, the only differance is no-one gets paid.

Right, I'm of to The Louvre to draw a beard and moustache on the Mona Lisa.

Rgith, I know some guys who were trying to make a new Frontier, and some posts on their forums were at least 3 years old, but still no playable result.

But I don't agree with you on the rest. I don't think it would kill the old thing. Everyone is entitled to his opinion, though...

And yes, if you choose a simpler game, that can be succefully done in 6 months, and you don't need an army for it

fretz:

But for some reason the thought of playing Star Control II and Xcom in Hi-Res, in windows, titillates me. At least until I actually
play it.

What was so great about these old games anyway ? Their antiquity charm ? Maybe now, but not when they first got out.
Their succes resides in the fact that they all had great ideeas, because there was nothing else in those times (graphics, sound, or HIDs) .
So, what I'm saying here: keep the ideea, use the new hardware possiblities

Edited by Dexterus at 01:10 on June, 25th 2003

AEI , you can play X-COM Apocalypse in high-res, if I'm not wrong.

What I would really want to play is a new Constructor. That game used that Display Doctor or whatever is called and doesn't work on new cards anymore.

Edited by Dexterus at 01:15 on June, 25th 2003

Yes, and the sound works if you play in Win98.
But I meant Xcom1 and was alluding to the remake project.

In answer to your question, Xcom was something I originally started playing because I was bored a long time ago. Really bored. In fact, I installed and reinstalled it 3 times before I actually got into it. But once I did, woo-boy, that was it. My favorite genre is probably turned based squad tactical, which explains why I love Jagged Alliance 2 so much.

Actually I played Xcom1 three different times through, so playing it again might not be too exciting (even in hi-res).

Yep, X-Com 1 was great and Apocalypse didn't have the same feeling..

But that's maybe true and sad, X-COM was played so much that even high-res or even 3d graphics wouldn't make it fun anymore.
You would have to add something new to the game ,like new terains or research ,or a new story, or whatever. I don't know...

Dexterus: There's a lot I like about Apocalypse but for some reason never finished it.
I'm still looking to playing that again though on a harder difficulty level, since last time I tried it was too easy for me. I have to play JA2 in ironman mode or I get bored; that's either a credit to how good I am or how pathetic I am, take your pick.