Gaming now and then
If someone would have presented a XBOX 360 for me and my friends 20 years ago, I’m pretty sure we probably would have fainted. When you compare similar games from the mid-eighties with today’s top notch video and computer games, the difference in graphics is quite amazing.
Here’s an interesting comparison of 9 games from the 80’s with todays killer games – inspiration to write this short article came from this post by Henrik Torstensson.
Double Dribble, Nintendo, 1987
NBA Live’06, XBOX 360, 2006
Karate Champ, Nintendo, 1986
Dead or Alive 4, XBOX 360, 2006
Tennis, Nintendo, 1983
Top Spin 2, XBOX 360, 2006
The Bard’s tale, Nintendo, 1985
World of Warcraft, PC, 2005
Rad Racer, Nintendo, 1987
Project Gotham Racing 3, XBOX 360, 2005
Ice Hockey, Nintendo, 1983
NHL 2006, XBOX, 2005
10 yard fight, Nintendo, 1985
Madden NFL 06, XBOX 360, 2005
Mike Tyson’s Punch-OutNintendo, 1987
Fight Night round 3, XBOX 360, 2006
Are you new to Fosfor Gadgets? If you are, I strongly recommend that you subscribe to our feed – it will bring you eternal happiness. Hehe.
FeedThank you for reading this post. You can now Read Comments (276) or Leave A Trackback.
Post Info
This entry was posted on Thursday, March 23rd, 2006 and is filed under Cool, Design, Gaming.You can follow any responses to this entry through the Comments Feed. You can Leave A Comment, or A Trackback.
Previous Post: Interview with 360 hacker »
Next Post: Ajax word processor »
March 23rd, 2006 00:13
[...] Gaming now and then [...]
March 23rd, 2006 03:22
In my day, this was all pixels
Fosfor gadgets has done that thing we all do internally every time we see an amazing new video game (or demo thereof in the case of the PS3) and put together some “then and now” screenshots comparing modern games…
March 23rd, 2006 03:37
It’s not fair comparing 80s gameplay shots to prerendered clips from today’s games. You should use gameplay shots from today’s games – NHL 06 doesn’t look THAT good.
March 23rd, 2006 08:36
I’d still play some of the old games over the new ones that’s for sure. You can’t reflect playability with screenshots unforunately.
March 23rd, 2006 09:21
All screenshots are from the actual engines = none of them shall be pre-rendered. The scaling effect have a beautifying effect though.
March 23rd, 2006 11:15
tbh, i could probably spend hours of fun playing that 1983 tennis game today
March 23rd, 2006 11:29
Pete & BiggyDonk: I totally agree, playability is something completely different…
March 23rd, 2006 11:34
I still play Sonic, Robocop vs terminator, Echo and a bunch of other old games, granted not from the 1986 era. I find them much more satisfying than today’s games.
March 23rd, 2006 11:36
They may not be pre-rendered but they are still cut-scenes (unless people have starteed driving cars backwards)
March 23rd, 2006 11:45
What are the names of the games from which the first shots have been taken?
March 23rd, 2006 11:47
Did you not know that you can change the views in-game? It’s not hard to do. The comparisons are for graphics, not game play anyway.
March 23rd, 2006 11:48
“When you compare similar games from the mid-eighties with today’s top notch video and computer games, the difference in graphics is quite amazing.”
No, what IS amazing is that they are still selling you kids the exact SAME games with updated graphics. Not a lot of originality in the gaming world. Nintendo seems to understand, you can rag on the DS and revolution but at least they’re trying something different.
March 23rd, 2006 11:50
First: they are from ‘Cabal’ and ‘Battelfield 2′.
March 23rd, 2006 11:54
Most of those early games are at least as engaging to play as the new ones, graphics dont make a good game. Look at some of those “good” graphics ones and see if you can tell me what’s supposed to be happening compared to the shot on the left. Are we looking at gameplay or at instant replay? Few of those 3d games even have better joystick control of the characters beyond what the old versions have, it just looks like they might at first (until you try to play it). I feel bad for any kid that starts out on those games and then goes and gets a nintendo emulator, they’re gonna feel retarded that the “old fashioned” nintendo is more fun than their 3d graphics game-du-jour.
March 23rd, 2006 12:03
Not pre-rendered scenes ? Right, I’ll have some of what you’re smoking please.
It’s a shame the article isn’t anything except some screen shots. How about comparing the game play, or coming up with some analysis on the fact that they new ones are just rehashes of old games with updated graphics (Hollywood films anyone ?) and why we still put up with it after all this time ? Is originality dead etc. ?
Could have been a real cool article…
March 23rd, 2006 12:09
Sure, I know you can change in game views, but most of the modern screenshots are not actual action playing the game shots, they are just pretty cut-scene clips showing off the graphics. ALL the old game screenshots are in game shots.
Therefore it is a flawed comparison.
March 23rd, 2006 12:13
Why are you comparing gameplay to cut scenes?
March 23rd, 2006 12:15
The warcraft screenshot is what it looks like fromt he game with the HUD off.
March 23rd, 2006 12:15
Nine times out of ten I’ll have more fun playing the older game. Having to remember what each of 16 buttons, two analogue sticks and countless combos achieves adds little to gameplay unless the game is some kind of memory test! Also – I have a small child to think about – I like games I can dip in and out of at short notice. A quick Mario Kart session on the SNES is better than booting up a PC and loading gigabytes of 3D models, textures, sounds and engines.
March 23rd, 2006 12:21
It’s not obvious that any of the modern ones are anything apart from video playback. There’s certainly no clues that the characters being watched can be interacted with in any way.
March 23rd, 2006 12:21
[...] Link [...]
March 23rd, 2006 12:37
Yay for old games!
)
Many of the comments above say it’s unfair to compare on visual quality alone; I say it does not matter, in fact it just serves to drive home a point: that many old games are superior to later releases *exactly because* the graphics of yore were “teh sux0r” — that’s why old games often had much better *game play* and replayability.
I have spent a lot of time playing HL and Day of Defeat, but I have spent (and am still spending!) much more time playing Ports of Call, or Scorched Earth.
March 23rd, 2006 12:49
Crappy old Nintendo graphics vs. shiny new Microsoft graphics (som of which is pre-rendered!)…? Who ordered this comparison?
Really guys, you could do much better. Why not compare some old PC games with some Gamecube og PS2 games. Or even compare old PC games with other games from the same era (C64, Amiga, …)
This ‘comparison’ serves another purpose, I’m sure!
March 23rd, 2006 12:49
The old games are soooo much better then today’s crep.
March 23rd, 2006 12:51
I had some much fun, playing those games years and years ago, now I only like to see modern games being played for the nice graphics.
I just spend hours playing a Legend of Zelda clone (had a lot of fun again….)
March 23rd, 2006 12:56
Well, if it wasn’r for the gameplay, simple low-res graphics on the Gameboy and DS platforms wouldn’r stand a chance!
Zelda and Mario really rocks, btw.
March 23rd, 2006 13:13
Except I have played Fight Night and can vouch for you that it looks EXACTLY like that ingame. My jaw dropped when I saw it for the first time. It’s simply the best boxing game I’ve ever seen, and not just because of the graphics.
March 23rd, 2006 13:22
OK, now ask yourself: Which of these pictures make you more happy? The ones to the left or to the right?
Honestly…
March 23rd, 2006 13:23
One word – ELITE – I found an old copy recently and it’s still good to play…
March 23rd, 2006 13:32
What is wrong with you people? How can you say games were better back then? Don’t get me wrong, I grew up in the 80’s. NES games simply don’t muster up in comparison to today’s games. They can’t keep interest for long, the control usually sucks, and not to mention the graphics. Once again, I loved those games back in the day. But grow up and realize that gaming has changed for the better and quit looking for a reason to complain. Sheesh!!!
March 23rd, 2006 13:34
Games look better now, but are they as fun as the old games? now we have to trough shitloads of tutorials just to be able to play.
March 23rd, 2006 13:34
Games look better now, but are they as fun as the old games? now we have to go trough shitloads of tutorials just to be able to play.
March 23rd, 2006 13:36
[...] There is a good post here on gaming’s evolution – and I suddenly miss The Bard’s Tale on my old C64 [...]
March 23rd, 2006 13:39
Another comparison: FF7 – FFXII.
The block-graphics of the earlier game look sooooo super cute, nothing can beat that.
March 23rd, 2006 13:49
I think there’s a bias towards the good old days in the minds of the people who were around when the rubber keyed 48k speccy was the bomb. I loved my Speccy and Amiga to death, but im going to put that down to a couple of things that have changed. One, my Age, surely games are just better, coupled with a young imagination? Two, the concepts and gaming Ideas were ‘new’ then – I see one or two ‘new’ games a year nowadays.
So what side am i on? I think it depends on the game
First person shooter – todays games (battlefield)
football sims – sensible soccer, kick-off
Top 5 games ever?
populous
elite 2
battlefield 2
sensible soccer
magic pockets
March 23rd, 2006 13:54
New PC, PSII, XBOX etc. games are really great and better than the 80s games. But with new development tools and libraries, development process is very similar to the old c64 games, ‘coz game development was harder 20 years ago.
If we’re talking about the gameplay, old games always win. If we’re talking about being realistic, new games win with no doubt. But a game is a game with its rules, story and gameplay. Grpahics&Msx&Sfx just defines the quality level. Think about a chess game with very bad graphics and sound. Would you say chess is a bad game to play?
So, most of the old c64 (and other 8-bit and some 16-bit machines like Amiga) games are better than today’s games if you take the “game” word with its real meaning.
March 23rd, 2006 13:59
No way the first screenshot is from Battlefield 2. Have the game and none of the 3 available RPG’s look like the one on the screendump.
March 23rd, 2006 14:01
I hate to admit it but I play BombJack & Commando on the C64 everyday! Yes, everyday! I play the browser based applet version:- http://c64s.com/ Occasionally it’s difficult to figure out which keys do what, but otherwise, it’s a fantastic nostalgia trip and great fun. Recommend it to anyone!
March 23rd, 2006 14:07
would be interesting to also compare if people would actually enjoy playing the modern versions compared to the old ones…tend to remember myself that I had serious fun with pong despite its graphic weaknesses
March 23rd, 2006 14:10
How many of you remember Ultima on the Apple? (Ultima IV and V specifically) Those games had a highly involved plot and could easily keep you busy for MONTHS trying to beat the game. Hundreds of unique characters, puzzles to solve, battles. For its day it’s impossible to beat.
Step forward a few years to Marathon. The first decent first person shooter. Incorporated such “groundbreaking” concepts as gravity, stairs, weapons that required reloading, water, and location-specific ambient stereo sound. It was at least two years before ANYONE else caught up with them. You could even make your own arenas. I believe it was also the first multiplayer networked FPS.
Sure I enjoy a good game of Unreal Tournament now, but I’d be just as inclined to play some Ultima or most definitely Marathon. Graphics look very poor in Marathon when compared to UT, but the storyline and solo playability in Marathon lays waste to UT even today.
March 23rd, 2006 14:11
hmmm, older betterer? I don’t know, I’ve actually gone back to play old school games from when I was a kid and it’s like trying to compare dessert to a 4 course meal. The old school games (arcade) where short and sweet and really got the adrenaline going, whereas todays graphics heavy console behemoths take a while to get into and digest. Old school games were fun for their time, and let’s face it, what else was there to compare them to? Kickball? Saturday morning cartoons? The imersive quality of today’s games is entirely different. I can’t say I’d play defender or mario bros for 18 hours in a row, but I can say that I’ve done that with halo just to see how the story pans out.
March 23rd, 2006 14:13
hey biggydonk, thank you for that link! I’ll be of playing commando now! Does it have the original music, that rocked!!
As for the comparison, your taste may very, but I like a game that you can open, and start! Without having to read any instruction, etc. I played ‘Spitfire’ a lot in the c64 days, if I now try to play a similar game I wouldn’t even get the plane off the ground! I think that for short games you play just for fun, and not as a way to put 50% of your time in learning it, the older games where better. On the other hand, I recently played ‘Deth Karz’ which was a nice optimum of ok rendering (nothing overly fancy though) and fun gameplay. It’s still possible!
March 23rd, 2006 14:17
The new games look like the box art for the old games :p
Also, gameplay wise, some new games surpass the old while some old still outplay their newer counterparts. NHL 2006 and Gran Turismo to name a few, however, most sports games are for sports nuts. They aren’t video games, they are simulations. What happened to games like Techmo Football, Ice Hockey or Bases Loaded? Just games
March 23rd, 2006 14:21
Mikkel Pilehave Jensen, maybe you haven’t noticed this, but there is TONS of mods for battlefield2.
I have a few dozen mods for it that completely change the weapons and maps, and i have that same RPG on my computer.
I think it comes from the mercs mod.
March 23rd, 2006 14:23
[...] Gaming now and then – Fosfor Gadgets [ fosfor.se ] [...]
March 23rd, 2006 14:27
doom was networked long before marathon. (and you could make your own “arenas” as well.)
March 23rd, 2006 14:39
[...] Gaming now and 20 years ago [...]
March 23rd, 2006 14:40
The ones on the left look better and more playable.
March 23rd, 2006 14:43
Fight Night Round 3 is alright, but there’s no WAY it even holds a candle to Mike Tyson’s Punch Out. There’s still people out there that wouldn’t stand a chance of beating Mike Tyson. And you can’t beat Little Mac training in his pink sweatsuit. Imagine a character in FNR3 training in a pink sweat suit nowadays? Honestly, people wouldn’t buy the game for that reason alone. Sad really.
March 23rd, 2006 14:46
ok, just played commando, very cool, but my current keyboard just doesn’t feel as heavy as the C64 keyboard. Or maybe my fingers have grown old
By the way, I’ve played “1943″ there, but it just wasn’t as nice as “1942″, are these actually different games? They idea is the same…
March 23rd, 2006 14:47
[...] If you have any interest (or had any interest) in video games, you should check out this page. It shows you screenshots of games of 20 years ago compared to today, and displays the technological difference between the two eras. [...]
March 23rd, 2006 14:51
I still play Rogue and Nethack from the days before graphics cards.
Is reading a book better or worse than watching a movie? Rich multimedia does not make a story better or worse, just a different experience.
Good stories (and good games) engage your mind and draw you in. In some ways beautiful graphics actually work against this. By supplying every detail of the world your mind is more passive, busy absorbing the detail instead of filling in the details in your imagination.
David
March 23rd, 2006 14:51
You’re just comparing graphics. Big deal. Graphics will continue to get better. Many of the older games are still much more playable than the new ‘totally-real’ ones.
March 23rd, 2006 14:55
What a waste of an article. I can’t believe this was slashdotted — must be someone’s buddy. When it said “The Bard’s tale vs World of Warcraft is really funny.” I expected there to be, um, actual humor.
March 23rd, 2006 14:56
Ok once and for all… The top screenshot is from the XBOX 360 version of BF2… and no its not a cut scene. I have played PGR3 and Fight night 3 both look way better than those screenshots… and no they’re not cut scenes. I own a 360, do you, if not dont talk about what the new games dont look like because you dont know. I do like the old games a lot, but come on its time to move on… Ive played them once not gonna play them again!
As for inovation and control, sure many of todays games are clones and arent original but look at it this way… Legend of Zelda:OOT was by far the best in the series (I know its not next gen but its leaps and bounds from the NES and SNES versions) The new consoles have so much potential and sure not every game will be amazing… that is never the case, how many crappy unoriginal games were made for NES and SNES? A lot! This is just the same story all over again… just better graphics and more dynamic control.
March 23rd, 2006 15:00
The author is not implying that we made progress since thwen, i hope.. lovely playable arcade games 20 years ago, and this is just a bunch of formulaistc s**t
March 23rd, 2006 15:05
[...] Nine comparisons of gaming graphics at Fosfor Gadgets’ Gaming Now and Then. Boy, games sure used to SUCK. [...]
March 23rd, 2006 15:08
someone mentioned pre-rendered cuscenes above?
I have a lot of the games shown above. I have PGR3, Ghost Recon for 360. I’ve played Fight Night 3. Those are in game graphics people. The PGR3 stuff is like the instant replays of the games, but it does look like that from game rendered graphics.
March 23rd, 2006 15:09
Old School Games Rulez!
March 23rd, 2006 15:18
Some of these are press photos, such as Gotham. They may be ‘in-game’, but it’s not the game you and I play. It’s the game running on a dev kit at a higher resolution and lower framerate.
March 23rd, 2006 15:20
Just to make it clear: I used to play a lot of older games, I like Blockout, Commander Keen, Dangerous Dave, StarGoose, Duke Nukem, Prehistoric, Wolfenstein 3D, Jill of the Jungle, Silky, Neverhood, Virtua Fighter, MDK, Descent: FreeSpace, and many others, but except for the PS2 Burnout and Kinetika, I don’t play any new games at all, they are just NOT exciting.
March 23rd, 2006 15:23
Just remembering, that graphics are an important criteria, also my first computer game I bought for my Amiga in 1986 was the text adventure “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” by Infocom. The story was fantastic, funny and I didn’t miss the graphics during gameplay. Later on I played some Magnetic Scross Adventures like “The Guild of Thieves”, which added some background screens.
Of course the old mid 80s games can’t beat todays graphics, but does that really count with regard to the “fun factor”?
March 23rd, 2006 15:24
“They may not be pre-rendered but they are still cut-scenes (unless people have starteed driving cars backwards)”
That right there is McClaren…the steering column is center-mounted, and no that’s not a cutscene. You can take shots like that in PGR3 in photo mode, I do it all the time! As a matter of fact, I’ve played most of those 360 games and they ARE that beautiful.
To hell with old games, bring on the full-immersion VR.
March 23rd, 2006 15:24
[...] http://gadgets.fosfor.se/gaming-now-and-then/ [...]
March 23rd, 2006 15:26
I really like the old C64 games better than new games. That is mainly because the ideas were then new and the playability of the games were very good. Also because the games were not photorealistic the flaws of the graphic engine, physics simulation etc. don’t bother you while playing a game. The illusion of reality is not disturbed that easily.
On PC I like playing games that you just can’t play with a C64. These include all multiplayer games (MechWarrior II, Total Annihilation, Star Control II, EnemyTerritory, WoW, Dyna Blaster/Atomic Bomberman etc.) I hope the screenplays of modern games would become better. Halo and Max Payne atleast had some effort on the story side.
On C64 my favourite games are Elite, Laser Squad, Lords of Chaos, Monty on the run, Skate or Die, Blue Max, Bruce Lee, H.E.R.O., Winter Games, Platoon, Raid on bungeling bay, Raid over moscow, Mikie, Ghost ‘n Goblins, Paperboy, Action Biker, Gyroscope, Mr. Do’s Castle, Cliffhanger, World Games, The way of the fist II, Law of the west, High noon, Commando, G.I. Joe etc. The list goes on and on… I really like the music of Rob Hubbard and could load a C64 game just to listen to the music. Smae thing was also with Star Control II on PC
I hope I could play these games with my cellphone someway easily
March 23rd, 2006 15:28
What’s with all this psuedo-elitism? “I only play OLD games, these new games just can’t compare” WTF? Like you’re better than me because I love my 360?
March 23rd, 2006 15:28
[...] I just found this on slashdot. [...]
March 23rd, 2006 15:28
[...] La primera pertenece a un juego de boxeo para la consola NES del ao 1987. La segunda, a un videojuego de este mismo 2006 para la consola XBox 360 de Microsoft. Las diferencias tcnicas son abismales: tienes que mirar al menos dos veces la segunda imagen para convencerte de que no es real, sino que ha sido generada por ordenador (ms imgenes). [...]
March 23rd, 2006 15:31
[...] it’s a small thing, but this comparison is pretty stark for me. I mean, kids these days, what amazing things will they tut about in 20 years? When PGR3’s graphics seems staid and sad, we’re in for a real treat. [...]
March 23rd, 2006 15:32
Well I liked the article in that we all got to tell how much we love those old games. Gosh, looking back at Punch Out, Rad Racer, Ice Hockey, Double Dribble, just put a huge smile on my face. New games are nice looking, I try them, but I hate not being able to just turn it on and just play without having to read a huge manual. Gameplay to me is a LOT more important than graphics. I can play any of the marios now for hours (still remember where the flutes are in super mario 3?). I loved the commodore 64 games, Atari ST games, NES games. Rick Dangerous, APB, Gauntlet, Dragon Warrior (1-4). Even on my Gameboy Advanced SP, I have Pac Man, Dig Dug, Galaga (all on one cartridge). In the end, what a game is for is entertainment and fun. If you can’t have fun because your “game” takes a whole month to learn, then it stops being a game and like someone else said, it just becomes a simulation.
March 23rd, 2006 15:32
The playability and fun factor of a lot of the older games sometimes surpassed many of the games of today that concentrate solely on graphics. Any older RISK variant is usually more appealing and more playable to a wider crowd than today’s over-complicated convoluted cutscene-filled ones. However, games like Tekken their predecessor and fastforward the whole concept into an amazing audio/visual banquest that is well beyond what we could have hoped for or imagines while sitting at our 2600’s and Colecovisions.
I’ve seen a few article like this and wrote one myself a few weeks ago about Auto Duel and Auto Assault: http://autoassaultvault.ign.com/View.php?view=Articles.Detail&id=5
Thanks for the quick trip down Gaming Memory Lane!
March 23rd, 2006 15:39
the Double dribble one is a cut-scene, not the game engine. In my opinion the game engine looked better than the crappy cut scenes for dunking in that game.
March 23rd, 2006 15:43
ARE YOU PEOPLE RETARDED? Those are most definitely not pre-rendered or cut-scenes. They are most assuredly from the game engines themselves.
March 23rd, 2006 15:45
All in-game graphics? Wow, I had no idea Project Gotham rendered the Microsoft logo on every frame!
March 23rd, 2006 15:49
I still think Punch Out is the best boxing game ever made… btw some of those are CLEARLY pre-rendered pics, for example WoW looks 10000x more crappier
March 23rd, 2006 15:50
Come on, where were the Atari 2600 screenshots or Commodore 64? I agree with several other posters that the article could have actually used some text comparing the games. I think games have lost something in the last 20 years, the need for any imagination at all. Both in orginality of game creation and on the part of the player playing the game.
March 23rd, 2006 15:55
Thinking back to the NES days, I really enjoyed playing the RPG games. Comparing them to now a days games, I would have to say that I actually enjoy the new games more. Sure, it may take you longer to understand how to play, but think of all the options you have also. I dont remember being able to choose exactly what your character looks like in the old games, or being able to choose from a varity of interface options. Also, I remember the tutorials in the old games too. They just were not as in depth. To reply to a post “Is originality dead?” Thats mind boggeling, sence there are games, like Razes Hell, that is its own game, also, World of Warcraft. Given, WoW is a RPG, but, you have to remember that it CAME FROM a RTS game. Interesting, huh?
Conclusion, as tech. advances, so do games.
March 23rd, 2006 16:13
[...] A walk down memory lane: [...]
March 23rd, 2006 16:18
Why do people hate pretty graphics? Whenever someone points out that today’s games have good graphics, many people feel the need to defend their nostalgia and point out how unoriginal game developers are. Personally, I see plenty of originality and I like good graphics. It doesn’t detract from the memories of the gaming of my youth.
The face of gaming has changed. Accept it.
March 23rd, 2006 16:32
– NOT PRERENDERED??!!??! –
The publicity shot for Microsoft’s PGR 3 still has the company’s logo as a water mark in the corner! Come on people.
March 23rd, 2006 16:33
Not as many are prerendered as you might think. DOA 4, Top Spin 2, PGR 3, and Fight Night 3 really look that good. If you think otherwise, you don’t have a 360. The graphics in PGR 3 and Fight Night for the 360 are amazing, not prerendered.
March 23rd, 2006 16:36
The PGR 3 shot may be a publicity shot, but the game really does look that good!
March 23rd, 2006 16:38
I used to think the same thing [as this article]. I want to go back in time and show someone Half-Life 2 and laugh at them vomitting all over the place.
Nothing’s wrong with amazing graphics as long as [they] don’t skimp on other aspects of the game. But what do you think consumers are thinking about when they pick up a game’s box in a retailer store?
Probably not reading to see if DUALSHOCK is supported.
P.S. With the exception of NHL ‘94 and ‘95, Ice Hockey may as well be the greatest hockey game of all time—and its graphics aren’t even as good as Blades of Steel’s. Forget other NES hockey games made after that.
March 23rd, 2006 16:40
Punch out is better.
March 23rd, 2006 16:42
Gaming has come a long way, it has been, I think, the driving component in computer technology. Does anyone remember the tandy?… cassette tape player for a hard drive and “hard cards”? I remember typing in hundreds of qbasic command line entrys just to play a non-graphic game of blackjack…..
March 23rd, 2006 16:44
[...] Ahhh a relaxing look at gaming in the last 20 years. It’s awesome that my entire life span has reached across the breadth of gaming technology… and I’ve been there, dedicated, every step of the way. [...]
March 23rd, 2006 16:50
I Think that this is a good comparison… If you prerendered scenes from the 80’s games they would still look like pixel blobs! They are just showing examples of the best graphics at the time, prerendered or not.
March 23rd, 2006 17:03
Wow, some of you are as annoying as the guy in the office who always has to point out that HE doesn’t have a TV at home because he reads and goes to plays. Ok, I’ll try your attitude:
Your Bard’s Tale sucks. Computer RPGs are all pale copies of D&D with real people.
Your Punch Out sucks. Nothing compares to actually putting on boxing gloves and sparring with a friend.
Your Rad Racer sucks. I just hop on my motorcycle and hit the interstate.
Doesn’t that contribute a lot to the conversation? You guys sound like luddites. Just have the power cut off to your homes and hitch up the horses to your buggy. Guess what, your old games didn’t create game play either, all of this stuff was available in the real world long before there was an NES or C64. Technology is in most cases about incremental increases – seldom does the sun shine on something new.
And WoW does look like the screenshot when I play it on my machine. Learn2upgrade your PC.
March 23rd, 2006 17:04
Punch-Out!/Super Punch-Out! > any other boxing game ever
March 23rd, 2006 17:06
Those were the days… in that time, people actually FINISHED the game, I used to play the same game over and over till I reach the end. When was the last time you saw a YOU COMPLETED THE GAME? At that time sequels came out 2 or 3 years after the original release… Now you almost get one every month… The games may be more graphical and beautiful now but I had much, so much more fun with with C64, Amiga and Spectrum games than I have now with a Pentium IV.
When you have little you get to apreciate more of the game, don’t you think? There are too much choices now. My “never forgeting” games were Manic Miner, Bomb Jack, Atic Atac, Saboteur, Match Day, Commandos, Lotus Sprit Turbo, Match Point (still like it), a little bit later Wing Commander, Leisure Suite Larry (in Larry I only liked the “prompt” type ones, where you had to write everything), Out Run and a bunch more that I can’t remember…
Guess im getting old!
What were your favourites?
March 23rd, 2006 17:09
[...] Cuando veo estas cosas me hacen sentir demasiado viejo, pero es que ver este tipo de comparaciones es impresionante, sobre todo nos ponen a pensar lo que esta por venir con tres nuevas consolas. [...]
March 23rd, 2006 17:10
It’s a knee jerk reaction to praise the gameplay of the classic games, while putting your nose up at the modern games.
There were plenty of lame-ass games back then too.
Don’t get me wrong, I do hold game play over graphics, anyday.. but to say that there hasn’t been any advance in gameplay with modern games is just silly.. There’s been entire genres of games created since the days of old.. RTS, FPS, etc, etc. Loads of gameplay enhancements.
Sad but true that the market is flooded with garboon games.. but you can’t let that take away from how much we have accomplished.
Fav C64 games: Elite, Fort Apocolypse, Colossal Cave (Adventure), Zorks, and the early Apshai games!
March 23rd, 2006 17:18
I have to agree with Lanke. It would be nice to see screen shots of the games during play.
March 23rd, 2006 17:31
They only go back to Mid 80’s. I go even further back, to the Atari and Intellivision. I remember when Intellivision came out, my friends and I were blown away by the graphics. We have come such a long way.
March 23rd, 2006 17:38
Ok my comment was a bit nostalgic, it’s true that I was younger and I looked at games with a diferent perspective.
I welcome evolution and I like modern games, I do a lot of multiplayer and I did spent some money on my graphics card.
My point was:
If I give you a music album that you like, you will listen to all the music in it, and probabily will find 2 or 3 that are special. Now, if I give you fifty albuns, you have a lot to ear and you won’t give as much attention to each music.
I know that theres nothing you can do, because business is business and if I can make 3 games in one year to stay ahead of competition I will do just that, even if I know that gamers won’t pay as much attention to each game as if they would if they had the time to enjoy it before it getting “old”.
But in the end, it’s just like I said before, I was younger back then, maybe I enjoyed gaming more than I do now (i’m 33 years old).
March 23rd, 2006 17:42
Sorry graphics do not interest me for more than 5 min or so, how do these games compare in terms of actualy ‘fun’ and ya know ‘gameplay’? This is a good example of how much better graphics have got in the last few years but nothing more. Move along nothing to see here folks.
March 23rd, 2006 17:49
I sinceraly hope that your kids don’t read all these comments .. because .. everyone knows that ..new games are so much fantastic than the old ones .. not by grafics or playability .. for the fantastic new tecnology=speed ..but by entertaiment .. take a good look .. please
March 23rd, 2006 18:04
Are you kidding me…10 Yard Fight is the sh!t do the Pepsi taste test…play say ‘Contra’ orginal NES or SNES (practically impossible) and then play something like Brother In Arms…sure the later looks more impressive visually..but you’re spoon fed through the levels and each step–you hardly swear anymore or throw the controllers!
March 23rd, 2006 18:12
OK, the graphics are more realistic. But is the GAME better? Does it have a better plot, or just bloodier guts?
March 23rd, 2006 18:14
I love the original Tetris for the Atari… I play it on emulator all the time!
March 23rd, 2006 18:22
I hate hearing new “gamers” saying that the old games are crap simply because they were on 8 and 16-bit machines. I got into video games when I was about 8 and the NES was still king of systems. I remember when a friend of mine was the first in our group to get a SNES when it came out. I remember the wars between the Sega camp and the Nintendo camp. We never argued graphics. We never argued sound. We argued the games themselves! Now it’s all about which one has the most polygons and 7.1 DTS audio.
Just remember that 20 years from now we’ll be here again when video games are something we can’t even begin to imagine now.
March 23rd, 2006 18:22
Yeah, pretty lame comparison.
Gameplay screens to cut screens.
FWIW: Mike Tyson’s punch out was
the bomb. Doubt that 360 POS is
more fun to play…
March 23rd, 2006 18:27
[...] This site makes comparisons of current games to the games of old. For a look at gaming history, and the scary reality of what 20 years in the future might bring, go here. [...]
March 23rd, 2006 18:31
well miguel if you don’t think that playability is important for any game then you obviously don’t know what playability means. Plus all games have their place, speed ball two released over ten years ago is still an excellent game because of it’s playability, but a game like Battlefield 2 just wasn’t possible back then and doesn’t make it any better than speedball 2.. just different. Old games rock for trickiness and innovation and suck for reliability and prettiness. New games rock for varied looks and suck for innovation. End of.
Playable games existed then and exist now.
March 23rd, 2006 18:42
“All screenshots are from the actual engines = none of them shall be pre-rendered. The scaling effect have a beautifying effect though.”
The graphics may be engine-rendered, but if those screenshots are from “playable” moments of the game, I will show you 6 unplayable games. How are you supposed to aim a basketball when all you see is a giant face on your TV? How the heck am I supposed to play a racing game when all I can see is the front-left fender, looking towards the back.
When you pull back on most of the “modern” games, they tend to lose a lot of the detail that you see in the gratuitous closeups. In many cases, the added detail ONLY EXISTS for the closeups, and the background gets blurred out, so in a way, the graphics really AREN’T that good when you are really playing the game.
March 23rd, 2006 18:44
“Yeah, pretty lame comparison.
Gameplay screens to cut screens.
FWIW: Mike Tyson’s punch out was
the bomb. Doubt that 360 POS is
more fun to play… ”
80s boy is an excellent example of what I was talking about. He couldn’t be bothered to read the comments where it is said several times by different people that THOSE ARE NOT CUTSCENES. Or, heaven forbid, to do some research and find out for himself. Instead he’d rather draw a conclusion that a game he hasn’t played cannot be as much fun as the one he has played.
Let me continue the reasoning of ’80s boy’:
The Model T was a masterpiece of engineering and technology. Many people loved it. Even though I’ve never driven a Corvette, it must surely suck in comparison.
Make sense?
The article isn’t saying the old games you enjoyed are horrible. It’s just saying that games have evolved. And before you talk about a proliferation of crappy games, remember that the deluge of crappy Atari games is what nearly destroyed the video game industry until the NES rose from the ashes.
You’d think this was a topic about religion…
March 23rd, 2006 18:45
It truely is amazing that people still think that these next-gen screenshots are cutscenes. I have played all of these games (except battlefield 2) on the Xbox 360 with a HDTV and these are without question IN GAME shots.
Everytime someone says “But, those are pre-rendered” it just makes me smile that I’m playing actual games that thier PS2 can only come close to with pre-rendered footage.
March 23rd, 2006 18:53
I love the Power Glove. It’s so bad.
March 23rd, 2006 18:59
I’ve also own the majority of these. DOA4 – in game, PGR3 – in game during the playback feature. Still uses the in game engine and the cars are actually that hot. Most of the sports games I’ve touched were of that quality and the shots used are in game, though many are with camera adjustments or after the catch as in madden etc. They are still in game shots using the engine. Fight Night looks that good too. Unsure about NBA 06 being in game, that is the only question. I think my WoW looks better than that shot.
The water mark on the PGR3 doesn’t make it a cut scene, it just makes it trademarked. That stuff is real in game footage.
Games have come of age.
March 23rd, 2006 19:00
Where is Super Mario ?
Where is Zelda ?
and about Tetris and other arcades ?
They don’t really have modern equivalents… I still play those old game on my modified Xbox console. You can’t beat the playing fun of those games with nice graphics.
March 23rd, 2006 19:06
[...] the images change new content still lags behind years. [...]
March 23rd, 2006 19:09
Nintendo vs. xblox 360
Nintendo vs. peecee
Nintendo vs. xblox
I think I see a pattern here… what happened to the VIC-20, C-64, Amstrad, Coleco Vision, Atari 2600 (and all the other variants), Sega, 3DO, etc.? And as if comparing from only one platform was enough of an insult, you compare from only M$-based systems. No PS2? Mac? (yes, I know modern Mac games are PC-rehashes, but still) Other systems not mentioned? (or remembered?) Is there no way you could have fit these other options into your reviews, or are you just looking for the post on Slashdot?
March 23rd, 2006 19:12
Why are some people bashing gameplay of modern games? As if Splinter Cell, MGS, or RE series lack innovative and enjoyable gameplay. As if the KOTOR series can’t hold its own with the zelda series. Gameplay is getting more sophistacated and more enjoyable…tell that to the hardcare nostalgics
Anyways, can’t wait to see another article like this in 10, 20 years.
March 23rd, 2006 19:17
[...] The Evolution of video games. The game on the left was state-of-the-art 1987, on the right is the latest from 2005 (on the x-box 360). See more of them HERE Posted by Tim Filed in Electronics [...]
March 23rd, 2006 19:19
one thing to keep in mind is what’s going on here other than graphics… game mechanics have also made several quantum leaps. the most striking example from the above selection is world of warcraft, which in terms of graphics is a top notch game. in terms of what the game actually *is*, it’s a marvel of modern engineering.
March 23rd, 2006 19:19
Compare the gameplay of Zelda with Elder Scrolls: Oblivion. Some will insist Zelda has better gameplay. It’s because of the amount of enjoyment it brought you when you were younger, and the feeling comes back when you play it now. Doesnt mean the gameplay is better
March 23rd, 2006 19:20
nothing beats “bubble bobble” … http://c64s.com/game/510/bubble_bobble/ … it was one of the TOP games on C64 (my opinion) …and it still rocks … i can’t say the same for most of the games that i played recently ….
March 23rd, 2006 19:21
This (visual) article seems to show how the *older* games are better (at least visually)… I will demonstrate how:
In the first introductory image set, I can clearly see my target in the 8-bit game on the left and I know what projectiles I have to dodge, my part in the game is to figure out where to go and anticipate the next salvo. The right hand image shows my back clearly but what am I supposed to be doing here?!
Double Dribble vs NBA Live: while the Live image is quite photorealistic, I can’t see any of my 1000’s of fans cheering in the background as I make the money-shot…nuff said.
Karate Champ vs DOA
it’s not how many moves you’ve got, but how you use them. Karate Champ shows the entire playfield at a single glance, I dont have to shift my perspective for every play. My opponent is dressed very distinctly from me. There is little to be confused about. FIGHT!
In the tennis screenshots the playfield arguement again applies. The nintendo game gives me all I need. I see my opponent clearly, the ball, the ref, the spectators as well as the somewhat important court boundaries. The Xbox game looks like the game from a balls point of view, half of it hidden by the net.
Bards Tale vs Warcraft:
Here’s some text and some character images. I’m not jogging some endless landscape of endless monsters who seem to have very little to say. Wheres the adventure in that?!
The rest of the games demonstrate many of the arguements from above…
On a strictly visual note, in an age of “(psuedo)photorealism” why are stylized cartoons (manga, line drawn comics, etc) so appealing? The Simpsons are not raytraced (with an occassional exception) but that has not stopped them from becoming ubiquitous – a cultural icon. What’s so bad about stylized graphics in games? Take a look at some Zen painting or Ukiyo-E ( http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/ukiyoe/hokusai.html ) from Japan if you want to see an extereme of charm and “simplicity.”
There is little text in this article. The author seems only impressed by the visual quality of (or lack thereof) recent games. Gaming tends to become more of a “spectator” sport in this way. Maybe we should ask ourselves are we buying a game to watch it or play it?
March 23rd, 2006 19:22
This is the same as hollywood (hollow-wood) special effects. The game looks awesome but it has no soul. Compare the star wars II to star wars IV. The graphics in II blew away IV but ultimately I enjoyed IV 10 times more than II.
March 23rd, 2006 19:25
Apples and Oranges
March 23rd, 2006 19:28
See all your dumbass comments that the graphics don’t look that good, makes me really appreciate my Xbox 360 all the more, since I know they do look that good, and you don’t have those games, and I do. Sorry you PS2 can’t render graphics that good. Go to walmart and try their kiosk demos before saying it is real. And if you have any friends that have a 360, have them download the demo for Fight Night 3 and play it, and you will see the gameplay does look that good.
March 23rd, 2006 19:32
As many have said, sure the graphics in today’s games are better…but are they funner? I find myself firing up MAME and other emulators to get my gaming fix more than I find myself playing the latest and greatest games. Why? Because they are fun. Most games today, the graphics thrill lasts about 10 minutes, then you realize they simply aren’t fun…or in the case of the 200 FPS titles a year..simply more of the same with a new name.
Sadly, most console and PC gaming kiddies today only care about graphics…so the game companies oblige them. They jump from one “cool” looking game to the next and typically don’t ever finish a game. Christ, someone mentioned above they don’t want to have to read an instruction manual before playing a game…which is why gaming is in the sad state it is today.
March 23rd, 2006 19:41
Gaming now and then
March 23rd, 2006 19:53
Guys, while I share similar, warm memories of the games of yester-year with many of you, the dimensions games are able to take now made possible by today’s processing power just was not possible back in the day.
First off, get off this kick about how all old games were so oringinal. Thats like saying when the first automobiles came out, they were so much better than todays counterparts, simply because subsequent updates such as automatic transmission, windshield wipers, headlights, air conditioning and such upgrades which were ubiquitous by the 70’s makes today’s automobiles somehow incompetent? Todays cars have evolved from their brethren, but are still bascally four wheels being propelled by an internal combustion engine.
The same holds true for games. They are evolutions, which many of the time take an original concept to the next level. As much as I LOVE my original zelda, mario bros, and madden 92, do you guys remember the first Resident Evil, and how it had you peeing in your pants? Do you think that type of atmosphere was possible on an 8bit game console? Or today, with Ghost Recon on the 360 – I guarantee you no past generation could immerse you in an enviornment as this game does, even though its essentially the same concept of the game which appeared 5 years ago on a different system.
Were yesterday’s games original? Yes. Should people continuously expect oringinality from a saturated industry? Sure, but tame your expectations a little.
Quite literally, I dont see people complaining about how the wheel has not been reinvented over and over again? Give it time, and enjoy games for how they are today. GTA’s immersive world is made possible by some incredibly smart coders and todays technology. The fact that I am able to now hop online and play anybody around the globe on the 360 is a result of today’s brilliant designers stepping on the shoulders of brilliant designers of 20 years ago (who did the same in their generation) evolving a form of entertainment which has brought many of us hundreds (if not thousands) of hours of fun and laughter.
Just enjoy it.
March 23rd, 2006 20:33
Uhh…before condeming these as “prerendered” shots, why don’t you try playing them? I’ll tell you for sure that the Fight Night shot is right out of the game, and it’s something you could see as it happens, not just in replay. Furthermore, as a former huge fan of Karate Champ and blue belt in Chinese Kenpo, I can tell you that FNR3 is the better fighting game. It’s got a control scheme that really offers fluid, analog control over attacks and to some degree, defense. There is no better game for providing a sense of mass in fighters and no better model of damage and fatigue in gaming today. And frankly, TBT vs. Oblivion would be a better comparison. And Oblivion would blow away TBT, too. Oblivion was what my friends and I dreamt the future would hold for us when playing Wizardry on our Apple ][+s.
March 23rd, 2006 20:36
Mike Tyson’s Punch-Out is still the best boxing game ever made.
March 23rd, 2006 20:47
2 words; Ninja Fucking Gaiden
March 23rd, 2006 20:50
think about what we are going to have in 20yrs from now…100yrs…500…2500…sweet!
March 23rd, 2006 20:51
Nice Article, nice shoot and comparative, Before the entretención was the most important thing, now the graph seems to be everything in the current titles. Beautiful remembrance get me this article thank you.
March 23rd, 2006 20:54
Shut the F@ck up Lanke you moron.
March 23rd, 2006 20:56
P.S. Lanke is the idiot who said “It’s not fair comparing 80s gameplay shots to prerendered clips from today’s games. You should use gameplay shots from today’s games – NHL 06 doesn’t look THAT good.”
What a tit.
March 23rd, 2006 21:05
I too don’t think it’s fair you compared screenshots with rendered pictures of the games.
March 23rd, 2006 21:15
last time I had as much fun playing a new game as an old game, it was a new contra release, which was pretty much like old contra, with shineyer guns. Old games couldnt rely on pretty pictures to carry them through. If you couldn’t come up with the gameplay, then you fail. I say games from the mid 90’s were the best. Stillhad the gameplay, but kicked the graphics up a notch, like super mario world and donkey kong country. Woo hoo SNES, best system ever.
March 23rd, 2006 21:26
10 yard fight should have been tecmo super bowl. The best football game ever.
March 23rd, 2006 21:41
Everyone who is defensively-whining that those screens are “in-game” shots needs a kick to the head. Yes, they are rendered using the in-game engine…but those camera angles are indicative of non- or only partially interactive play sequences.
Except for the World of Warcraft shot, which is the least impressive of all those screenshots, but also the most typical of actual gameplay. Minus the interface, of course.
But for all you PGR people who play your racing games staring at your front headlights as you careen blindly down the track, more power to you I guess.
And I love how everyone thinks the PS2 doesn’t have games that look like these shots or better. Particularly at these postage-stamp+ sizes.
March 23rd, 2006 22:00
Gaming now vs. then
Came across a good article comparing games now vs. 20 years ago.
Okay, it’s not an “article” per se, more …
March 23rd, 2006 22:18
It was amazing to me. The argument was similiar to doo-wop listeners saying the Beatles were trash.
With every innovation in anything, there are those who will refuse to change. They have nostalgia. It matters little the quality or ability of the new thing. The very fact that it is new makes it suspect. The new thing does not remind them of their childhood, or a past moment. If it does not recreate a memory or old feeling, it has no worth.
This has been seen countless times in histroy, in every aspect of human history; religion, government, art, music, technology, etc. Wars have been fought because of it.
I don’t even think it is subjective. The new video games are better in every arena. The only thing they lack is the personal attachment.
I remember when I played Utlima 4, or the first Zelda. I remember Pitfall and Frogger, and all of the early 80’s titles. But I would not wish the state of games to remain static. I like the changes. WoW and Oblivion are the latest steps in gaming evolution. There will always be change.
I don’t know, maybe you like ol’ school Detroit doo-wop. But I like rock ‘n roll.
—Webster
March 23rd, 2006 22:21
I gotta say, I had never played Avernum until last summer, and man, that game is great – the whole series, in fact.
I remember the days of playing Zork on my Apple ][+ with a monochrome monitor, another awesome game. I also miss Hard Hat Mac.
I’ve also killed months worth of time playing Unreal Tournament & MDK2.
All different games, all great. I think the key to a good game is playability. “Next-gen” graphics don’t necesarily make for a good game. Old-school graphics don’t necesarily make for a good game.
But man, what an utterly pointless article. Fosfor should fire whoever “wrote” it.
March 23rd, 2006 23:11
Sports games – how boring!
At least the comments are interesting.
March 23rd, 2006 23:24
“It was amazing to me. The argument was similiar to doo-wop listeners saying the Beatles were trash.”
So are you also prepared to say that Britney Spears is better than the Beatles? The Beatles are better than many games out right now. And I guess by your logic, Mozart is probably almost caveman music compared to doo-whop music, relatively speaking.
Pac-man is better than many games out now. And I don’t say that out of fondness. I played plenty of pac-man back in the day, but it was not a favorite. I greatly preferred Crystal Castles, Buck Rogers, Xevious, and a slew of other games that … now … don’t hold up as well as pac-man. I liked them at the time because they had way better graphics and complex gameplay compared to pac-man. Graphics and complexity does not a great game make.
I mean, yeah, there are tons of games from the 80’s that are forgettable, flashes in the pan. But the same can be said for the games that came out in the 90’s. The same can be said about games coming out today. Only a few games stand the test of time.
For some ongoing proof of this, look at the success of games for the GBA. They do very well, and are using a SNES-equivalent as the game hardware.
March 23rd, 2006 23:28
oops, lol beatles are better than games. I meant groups ^^
Anyway, I love modern games too. I certainly wouldn’t want them to pull Oblivion for the PC from the shelves (before I buy it, anyway). However, there are some things that never change, and some of the games back in the day “had it”. Most didn’t. And most today don’t, either. In the end, we’ll only want to play the best games, and graphics is not a factor in that. I’m playing the new Metroid DS practically as we speak. It’s a downgrade from Metroid prime, graphically, but it’s still darned amazing.
March 23rd, 2006 23:57
[...] Sometimes I really miss the old days. [...]
March 24th, 2006 00:15
Very cool. I pulled together a few Nintendo examples.
March 24th, 2006 00:17
[...] Gaming now and then. Marvel at the advances [...]
March 24th, 2006 01:00
Graphics are 100% irrelevant. I had more fun playing old text-based MUDs (which have no graphics at all!) than games like WOW or Everquest. Why? First, they are essentially the same game. The advantage of an old-text based game, however, is that anyone could contribute to the game itself by building new areas and missions.
Or take, for example, board games. There are a bunch of them I love to play (Carcassone, Axis and Allies, Munchkin), and these have no graphics at all whatsoever.
Frankly, graphics and fun have almost no relationship at all.
March 24th, 2006 02:20
Old games were awesome.
Next-gen games are awesomer.
The haters are lame.
March 24th, 2006 02:59
What if 3dfx didn’t exist? I wonder how far we’d be in software graphics today…
March 24th, 2006 03:07
We get together to play both the old and new games. http://www.cinciclassic.org
March 24th, 2006 03:55
[...] Interesting comparison, gaming industry is booming. http://gadgets.fosfor.se/gaming-now-and-then/ [...]
March 24th, 2006 05:09
Sheeeeeit. Thats nothing. I started with an Atari.. Space Invaders, Missile Command, Combat!, Kaboom!, etc.
Then I got a Commodore vic-20, then a c-64. My neighbor had a trs-80 and an Intellivision.
The best then & now would be CastleWolfenstein from C-64 to Wolfenstein:EnemyTerritory!
March 24th, 2006 05:31
What about Atari “Adventure” – yes the graphics “SUCKED” in today’s WORLD. But it was the best game of all TIME – bar none.
March 24th, 2006 05:52
Today is is all about graphics, not gameplay, it is sad. They spend too much time on graphics rather than how well game play is. Sure they look amazing, but theya re still the same games getting shorter and shorter.
March 24th, 2006 06:01
some of those early games sucked.
10 yard fight sucked. the orig tecmo bowl was the first football game that didn’t suck. madden destroyed tecmo bowl and has been the same game since.
rad racer also sucked. those horrible time challenges that video games had back in the day: play for 25 seconds. loose. play the same section again. repeat 1 million times.
punch-out, on the other hand was awesome. every fighting game since has followed the same flow closer to wrestling than boxing — pound your opponent, then he repowers, and pounds you for a while. the last in the pounding cycle is the winner.
i was always annoyed with basketball that the players weren’t different heights and looks until late in the SNES days.
war games were usually cool, but are much better now. they take actual bullet range, strength, and other factors in, instead of simply being able to survive X number of hits.
count me in as appreciative towards better graphics.
March 24th, 2006 06:03
To the north you see a mailbox, and a golden egg
What would you like… oh never mind you’ve been eaten by a grue
March 24th, 2006 07:40
As as been said, these closeups and funky angles are not how you normally play the game.
It would be nice to see these done again, from a typical gameplay perspective, with the HUD and so on in place.
March 24th, 2006 08:35
oh ym GOD…i didnt bother reading all the comments cose there all the same…. the description reads… “…When you compare similar games from the mid-eighties with today’s top notch video and computer games, the difference in graphics is quite amazing.
” The GRAPHICS….there not talking about Gameplay or anything like that..idiots..go play ure 1985 games….
March 24th, 2006 08:41
dooses.
March 24th, 2006 10:01
new first person shootem-up:
great graphics, yeah.. but play it a second time?? bored yet?? everything still in the same place with the same encounters??.. tried to stray off the pre-defined paths through towns, cities and army bases?.. notice you can’t? lots of doors that don’t work.. lots of gates and other obstacles put in place to stop you from wandering off a set path.. how boring.. what ever happened to ‘choose your own adventure’ ?
old platformer style shoot-em up or action game (80s to 90s):
notice this is much more entertaining the second time.. you find all these secret bits everywhere and discover whole new levels that were’nt there before, new weapons and encounters, all round much more enjoyable (and usually a lot lighter-key) which is why so many people can find these games still highly entertaining today, 10, 20, even 30 years after the first time they played it! (might have been thousands of plays by then).. new games you play once and throw in the bin if you just want to play single player mode… unless you want to waste your internet quota on gameplay running around in circles, aimlessly killing one another, with no plot or storyline whatsoever.
I still play sonic and mario and many other platformers and still enjoy them. Many of my old adventure games from my C64 and Sega I STILL have not finished, 20 or so years on.. Most new games I have finished over the weekend (Quake, HL2, FEAR, etc).
The graphics, sound and ‘feel’ of games have improved dramatically in the last 20 years, but gameplay has seriously been sacrificed. This is why so many of you still play the old ones! Its not like you’d crank up a game of Zelda to gork at its fantastic graphics!?! You play it because you can DO LOTS MORE IN ZELDA than in the newer RPG games. We’re all too busy filling the DVD/CD up with graphics and sound samples and forget about variety of gameplay and game flexibility.
March 24th, 2006 11:12
Oh Todays games suck! I tried to play some PS2 and pc games but You cannot just relax on these. Have any tried Deluxe Galaga for pc vs. Amiga? I hate the pc version, hint for E.V. Now I would buy an AmigaOne OS4 version straight away. Or maybe Gravity force,
BattleDuel,ShufflePuck,Worms,CannonFodder,
Skidmarks,StuntCarRacer,AnotherTimes,Lemmings AlienBreed1-3,Pong or just Tetris (+100versions) X-TremeRacing,PinballDreams,AllTerrainRacing, etc… I would buy all new versions but can’t…
There are more, just name it!
March 24th, 2006 12:18
As someone said so well, Elite, it took over 20 years to make a game that came anywhere close to this masterpiece…. EVE Online. All the ‘old’ Elite clones were not a patch on the BBC game.
March 24th, 2006 13:43
Ugh many of you people are just getting too old to even have any relevent comments to add here. Controllers complicated? Get the hell out of here. It’s just a common thing to say for people who are lazy asses. Games today are just as good as they used to be. Don’t you ever tell me you can sit down and play any of those games in this day and age for the length you would sit and play something like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid etc. Those old games are great and should never be forgotten. They are among my favorites as well. However, playing them again really shows the age in them. They are usually boring. No depth to them. If you havn’t found a modern game to like THEN YOU ARENT LOOKING! Don’t stick to what you know. Don’t look at box art you idiots. Read some reviews. Go to gamerankings to see the general opinion of everyone. RESEARCH!!!! Play a game with a story once in a while. Play something that isn’t your comfirt food. PLEASE!!!!!!!
March 24th, 2006 13:45
Oh and the only screenshot there that could be considered a cutscene is the PGR3 one. And still THAT IS IN GAME GRAPHICS. It uses the engine. However, it is obviously not what you would ever see seamlessly while playing. Fight Night itself proves however that stuff like that can happen.
March 24th, 2006 16:00
[...] Mikael over at Fosfor Gadgets has posted a list of 9 comparisons from the 80’s and today’s games; check it out and see how different it can get in 2 decades. Tags: Gaming [...]
March 24th, 2006 16:33
[...] בשני העשורים האחרונים היו המון פריצות דרך שהובילו לאיך שהמשחקים של היום נראים, האתר הזה ערך השוואה בין 9 משחקים של היום, ו 9 מאותו הז’אנר של אז. מומלץ. [...]
March 24th, 2006 16:41
[...] nerdy but cool, games then and now! [...]
March 24th, 2006 16:51
More variety in yesterday gaming, no matter if graphics are better or smoother, or not so good, the matter is variety… while you can have 12 genres in the past there are only 3 nowadays (strategy : age of empires etc, wolfenstein3dstyleshooter : almost everything today, mindumberercarracing : NFS, etc.).
Besides the technology is focusing only in 3d display.. thats sad, thats the reason why games had have lost the variety of the early days…
No more Sierra adventures, or Origin worlds… it is very sad… games like Commander Keen or BlockOut or centipede…. its funny but even those were not that “visual realistic”, with them you got a more immersive experience
To put in other words… i quit console game play, i prefer the emulator style…
March 24th, 2006 17:40
Most of the graphics shown for those newer games are the CGI rendered shots. Not really ingame shots. Also WOW is a PC game, although there are MMOs for consoles. But graphics have never truely expressed gameplay. I’m guessing the author didnt want to showcase Atari 2600 games cuz they are way too simple graphically. Yet I still play Star Raiders on the 2600 to this day.
March 24th, 2006 17:43
I played all of these. When I was in high school in 84, I was playing text based only games. Remember Eliza? Graphics were not out yet.
March 24th, 2006 18:38
I played games since the days of space invaders… this is just my opinion of your opinions:
A note about Graphics of old and new.
Yes, those new games are all using the real-time engines. The real game graphics would be similar even though a bit of close-up details could be lost, but that’s besides the point. Graphics have evolved by a lot… That’s just what these old VS new is saying.
Now just a note about old VS new. I played all of those old games. Yes they were good. No the current games ARE NOT less fun.
Yes graphics ENHANCE gameplay.
The best way to say if graphics enhance gameplay is to compare the remakes of old games with their original.
- Metroid 1 VS Metroid Zero: They are basically the same game with a few differences. I think today everybody would rather play zero than the original.
- Super Mario Bros VS Super Mario World (or any of it’s 2D sequels that played like the original). The first was genious, but since the other simply improved on the original, given the choice, most people would select the newer ones.
- Metropolis Street Racer VS Project Gotham Racing 3. Both are the same game with different tracks and car selection. Everybody would rather play Gotham 3.
- DOA1 VS DOA4… do anyone even WANTS DOA1 anymore?
- Worms 1 VS Worms World Party (last one in 2d). Everybody would select World Party.
- Quake 1 VS Quake 4 (as bad as the reviews are for Quake 4, most people would rather play Quake 4 than the original today).
- Wolfentein 3D VS Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Who actually TRIED playing the original recently and can actually say he had more fun than the current re-make?
Graphics do HELP make games better…
As for people saying they don’t like current games. I just say that you are not playing the correct games. There are games for every taste nowadays…
You prefer quick games with less controls over the 16 buttons + required games of some of today’s games? There are tons of those in your local gaming store, just look behind the current best-seller and you’ll find them.
March 24th, 2006 18:49
I don’t know why people keep saying they’re prerendered shots. Those are not prerendered. Grab an Xbox 360, put it on a decent HDTV (or hook it up to a computer monitor), bam: same graphics.
Those are in-game shots. Sorry, naysayers.
March 24th, 2006 19:03
The problem is that games back then were harder. (Even though by harder, sometimes it meant starting over from the beginning when you died.) Back then you needed to actually time things to get some simple tasks done. One or two (with power-up) hit kills made you better at dodging and gave you a better sense of accomplishment. While today with save points a player may get through a tough area once and then move on, quickly forgetting about it. This makes the game both easier wile making the game seem shorter. The other problem is that back then, if you were doing well, the game would cheat. Flat out cheat. I cite to most fighting games… [SF II] win the first round and see how much cheese is thrown at you by the boss in the next round…. [M Bison....]. But they were harder because of it. With today’s AI, things have gotten better, however there are times where the AI just fails, which leads the old school gamer to the conclusion that the mindless drone is better and old school games were harder.
The graphical deficit of yesteryear had to be masked by the difficulty of a game. Story or background in some games was non existent… unless you read the 3 paragraphs on the back of the box [or as I am told in some situations the 4 paragraphs in the instructions, however that is mealy a rumor, since no old school gamer ever read instructions]. In order to have a game that people wanted to play, you had to have decent controls, so that when they went through room for the 100th time they did not care. Many games today do have decent controls. What gets many games today, are the camera angles.
But I digress, in games like Halo where the ‘Legendary’ setting is supposed to be next to impossible, they did a decent job. [The save points make it so that it becomes easy compared to older games]. But in all honesty, anything less in that game is a joke once you have done Legendary. [Especially Legendary co-op Halo II]. The only balance of older games is that once you figured out the punch, punch, knockout punch [Punchout] pattern, many of the older games became a lot easier. However, if you look at most older shooters, the harder the setting, the more crud they threw at you, until the game slowed down and flicker made it so that only half of the pixels could be seen. In games today, there are normally two few enemies, too few bullets being shot at you and overall to few true difficulty settings. Legendary is not legendary until your controller nearly goes out the window, and when you beat the game a parade is held in your honor, your friends carry you down the street on their shoulders, because without you, they could not have seen their arch nemesis defeated leading into the 3 framed ending that makes no sense.
[Hardest old school game Phalanx on Insane]
I leave with one example of a recent game that has done it right.
Look @ the last 5 min drive from Halo… the level that was thrown together… that brought the game together. That, if you could do it on Legendary, gave you a sense of accomplishment, because if you died you started the whole gauntlet over again.
March 24th, 2006 19:36
I got to say the old games are way better to play and not to mention new games really do breed violence in children.
March 24th, 2006 19:44
Gamer, those are pre-renders. Cartman86, those are not gameplay scenes. In-game graphics does not equal gameplay. You don’t “play” during the much flashier replays, for example.
I don’t agree with people that think all games out today suck though. What about System Shock 2? Thief 3? Guild Wars? Jedi Knight 2? Shadow of the Colossus? Katamari Damacy? Every Metroid ever. Every castlevania (except the N64 one).
There are just lots of good games from all eras. Age doesn’t diminish a truly excellent game. However, I do think that many (too many?) new games rely too heavily on flashy graphics and hype. They did the same thing back in the day when CD-ROMs came out, suddenly putting full-motion video in everything. The games were dumb, but people wanted their FMV’s.
Also, if you want to see a game from the 80’s that you could “play” and looked better than all of those xbox360 games, try Dragon’s Lair
March 24th, 2006 19:56
“Metroid 1 VS Metroid Zero”
agreed, I would pick Zero
“Super Mario Bros VS Super Mario World”
I wouldn’t care. All the same to me. All fun.
“Metropolis Street Racer VS Project Gotham Racing 3″
I’d pick PGR3
“DOA1 VS DOA4″
My favorite was DOA2. I’d pick it over 1 or 3. Haven’t gotten my hands on 4 yet, but 2 had the best “feel” to me so far.
Haven’t played many worms
“Quake 1 VS Quake 4″
Quake 1 in a heartbeat. The graphics in Q4 mean NOTHING to me. The multiplayer in particular is lame.
“Wolfentein 3D VS Return to Castle Wolfenstein”
I’m not sure. Wolf3d was an incredibly fun time when I played it. Not so much fun now. RtCW was NEVER fun.
I disagree graphics make the games better. Graphics CAN be used to make games better in some ways. Tron 2.0 for the PC wouldn’t really be possible without a certainly level of graphical prowess that it needed to achieve such a good imitation of the original movie.
A game like WoW, which is pretty much about being in a virtual reality, is enhanced by realism…but only inasmuch as its vision requires. Everquest II has “better graphics” than WoW, but EQ2’s lack of artistic unity and vision renders their efforts subpar, visually.
Asteroids was more fun than colony wars: vengeance, but only because vengeance had some semi-buggy missions. Good graphics don’t save bad design. The original colony wars was top notch.
March 24th, 2006 19:57
Hey, I also noticed something..
What fool of a druid would take on a world dragon in moonkin form? Noob.
March 24th, 2006 20:00
I Love the old games cuz you can shuffle through the nostalgia collection and remember your childhood…but kids who get into video games now are gonna look at halo the same way that we look at our oldies. Childhood memories die hard. Playing my dad’s intellivision is still great, but nothing can touch original mario and zelda.
March 24th, 2006 21:50
[...] An entertaining look at games of the past compared to games of today. # [...]
March 24th, 2006 23:07
GDC 06 #3
March 25th, 2006 00:04
The graphics have gotten better…. Gamers’ attitudes have gotten worse; you can’t even make a blog entry like this without crybabies starting to attack each other in comments. We used to get along, man.
In any case, I’ll back up the author: anyone with an XBOX 360 and an HDTV has seen most of those screens rendered in real time before their eyes.
The missing comparison: Pitfall vs. Tomb Raider Legend
March 25th, 2006 01:09
Double Dribble vs. NBA Live’06
DD for the loose play control, NBALive06 suffers from the creepy zombie effect.
Karate Champ vs. DOA 4
DOA4 with more fun controls. Not a fan of either game.
Tennis vs. VIRTUA TENNIS!
Tennis NES had horrible control, Virtua Tennis I could play all day.
Bards Tale vs. WoW
Faced 396 berzerkers in bardstale. While WoW is just another timesink. Both fail, hard.
ROAD BLASTER vs. WIPEOUT XL
Wipeout XL is pure.
BLADES OF STEEL vs NHL 2006
Blades of Steel is STILL fun, one of the reasons I still have an NES. NHL06 was meh.
10 yard fight vs Madden NFL 06
10 yard fight was never good.
Punch Out vs Fight Night round 3
Punch Out, easy. Fight Night is still fun, but Punch Out is a zen-timing game. Only got tyson once, ever.
March 25th, 2006 03:20
Doesn’t matter how many dudes someone has fragged in Halo, if they sit down at Blockout on a PC (a fast 286 with EGA will do) they will never get to level 13 without many hours of practice, and a certain basic ability in 3-D visualization.
If you don’t learn all 16 moves on Karate Champ, you won’t beat someone who has and who knows when to use them, even if you’ve done the Tekken “powerup vomit a burning furball & bodyslam” move to death. It’s a magnificent visual creation, much prettier than KC’s blocky graphics and simple (though at the time revolutionary) sampled Japanese accent judge’s awards. But the former still made for an engrossing battle, especially against the line-up of players standing in the arcade waiting to pump their quarters into it to take on the current champ. The battle came down to split second decisions of situation, posture, defend or attack with multiple choices for each, and was tightly programmed. It LOOKED like a real match on that basis, whereas many of the newer martial arts games look more like World Wrethling Entertainment.
And yes, I have a standup original Karate Champ in my garage!
March 25th, 2006 14:18
[...] Gaming now and then – Fosfor Gadgets Graphical comparison of classic and recent video games that share a genre. (tags: videogames history technology) [...]
March 25th, 2006 17:04
[...] Aqui hay una lista bastante LOL con Screenshots que comparan 9 juegos antiguos (Atari, NES, Commodore 64) con juegos de última generación (PS2, XBOX360, Gamecube) y me reí caleta viendola, asi es que ustedes rianse, porque o si no serán absorbidos por Schubniburach. [...]
March 26th, 2006 03:34
[...] Gaming now and then – Fosfor Gadgets — Interesting comparison of a few Xbox games with a few games from 1980’s. With screenshots. Tagged as: comparison games gaming images lists pictures xbox [...]
March 26th, 2006 03:19
[...] Gaming now and then – Fosfor Gadgets Graphical comparison of classic and recent video games that share a genre. (tags: videogames history technology) [...]
March 26th, 2006 20:42
Then and now
A wonderful collection of screen captures of games at fosfor gadgets. The left image is from a twenty-year old version, the right from an XBOX 360. Here are a few: I have never really gotten 'into' computer games but I…
March 27th, 2006 13:08
[...] [...]
March 27th, 2006 17:29
HI!!It´s incredible, the times goes by and the videogames world changes, the classics will be in the Nintendo Revolution by Miyamoto (father´s Mario). I love consoles and PC´s
March 27th, 2006 20:44
hi peoples
what do u think is the best game ever made??!!??
evil fuzzy teddy bear
March 28th, 2006 22:06
Jeux d’hier et d’aujourd’hui (anglais)
C’est drle, en dcouvrant ce site qui compare les graphismes des jeux d’hier et d’aujourd’hui, je m’attendais une fois de plus rler tout seul en passant pour un vieux ractionnaire. Or, j’ai dcouvert que je n’tais pas seul.
Oui, les…
March 29th, 2006 00:50
WOW THAT IS ONE REALISTIC RACING GAME!! I’VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING ELSE LIKE IT.
90% of today’s games suck. I can’t wait until we reach a point where graphics are as good as you’re gonna get and they can be as realistic as they want, or as artsy as they want.. because that’s when they’re going to have to focus on something else to differentiate their games….. Like gameplay!
“Ooooh better water textures!” “ooh more hair strands” WOW “that face looks realistic”.. Who gives a crap.
March 29th, 2006 01:25
[...] Весьма занимательная запись в Fosfor Gadgets: сравнение современных игр (большей частью под X-Box 360) и приставочных хитов двадцатилетней давности. Всего по одному скриншоту, но тенденция где-то понятна: следующее поколение геймеров вырастет вообще без воображения
[...]
March 29th, 2006 07:28
Maybe ifyou guys had a real life you would not be so worried about the “little things” in life! Geez! Back away form the video games, get dressed and go out into the world and see what reall grown-ups do for fun! Sheesh!
March 29th, 2006 20:16
NERDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 29th, 2006 20:31
[...] Gaming Now and Then [...]
March 29th, 2006 20:40
Wow, we’ve got some pent-up kids out there.
BTW, those aren’t prerendered shots, that’s the real deal folks. Anyone with access to a Best Buy has played these games at the 360 kiosk.
It’s easy to tell who does their homework…
March 29th, 2006 23:52
I have a 360 and own several of those games.
I can say with absolute certainty that the NBA Live ‘06, Madden NFL 06, DoA4, and Fight Night Round 3 shots are in game shots; not pre-renders.
The Project Gotham shot may or may not be a prerender, but the in game graphics are of the same quality.
March 30th, 2006 01:58
omg coooooool!!!!!!
March 30th, 2006 02:59
[...] In the last twenty years, gaming has come a long way. When you compare similar games from the mid-eighties with todays top notch video and computer games, the difference in graphics is quite amazing. Heres an interesting comparison of 9 games from the 80s with todays killer games. gadgets.fosfor.se/gaming-now-and-then/ [...]
March 30th, 2006 03:24
well, ill leave my two cents…
Although I do enjoy older games more then I do new games, I have to say, how old are we? When NES came out, how old were we all? I was about 8 or so when I first got mine. But what was I doing back then? Waking up at 6am to go to school, getting home at 3:30, and playing some games. Like most of us did. Today what do I do? I wake up at 5am, work until 4, come home, do laundry, go food shopping, take care of the house, etc. I dont have time to learn these new games. To kids growing up, they are just as fun as contra was to us.
March 30th, 2006 16:36
Rob you are right, and this kids won money playing counter or wow they “WIN Money PLAYING” i have 21 and i dont have also time for games and i am a owner of a server whit Games Online, and i cant play xD how ironic it´s that…
March 31st, 2006 00:54
Gaming Now and Then
Mikael Svärdh at Fosfor posts some screen shots of ”Gaming Now and Then.” Just when we start…
March 31st, 2006 03:45
I think that the real difference between games of the past and modern titles is the emersiveness. Super Mario Brothers could never come to dominate my every waking thought like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion has. Emersiveness is achieved by graphics AND gameplay both. In fact it has to be both. If you only have one, you have a game that never stops reminding you its a game. Well made games, in any era, make a player forget what they are doing and buy in to the game. Zelda on the NES did that, but Oblivion does it so much better (I hope the next zelda will pull off what oblivion has done).
March 31st, 2006 09:28
Guys, listen!!
The shot of PGR3 on the X-Box 360 (the driving game) is in game play. Whilst driving, you use the stick to rotate the camera WHILST in motion. I have no problem imagining that the other shots are in game also. The graphics on the 360 games I have are awesome!
March 31st, 2006 14:48
[...] Gaming now and then [...]
April 2nd, 2006 18:42
Think about how addictive Tetris is. Does better graphics make that a better game?
A good game has graphics, a great game has replayability. When you completed Super Mario, how many people played it again. Can you say that about modern games?
April 3rd, 2006 09:01
[...] [...]
April 10th, 2006 15:20
Listen, I’m sorry but “In Game” those shots would be filled with motion blur and slowdown/tinier characters with the screen full of UI thats been designed by a monkey. But hey, developers can always turn up all the options, take a picture at 5 fps, and then turn down some of the options so that it will run at a decent pace. I’ve played those games, and while nice, the screenshots are only partly what the gameplay really is like. Modern Combat? Can you say motion blur x50? Thats not in game, I’ve seen that on the previews for it.
The problem with this article is that there ARE in game shots of all of those games. Why the hell didn’t he use them, instead of lifting shots from press releases that are obviously designed to decieve the public?
Its just lazy, thats why. And all the Fanboys coming in to defend it is laughable. Yeah It really looks like that! Its just that they didn’t actually take a screenshot, but just used the pre-release photos, which have obviously been touched up and set up to look nicer than the actual game.
April 13th, 2006 06:01
The guy that did this article is a complete moron or worse, a microsoft employee…
ok, here’s the solution to this discussion… what you like more? animated movies using tradicional animation (draws like anime/disney’s) or complete 3d rendered animated movies (computer generated like pixar’s)?
as dumb as this question is…
April 17th, 2006 16:48
…
Everything must start somewhere. It is needed that we all keep record of how history (game history) began. It helps with the process of the “now and future” of gaming technology. Comparing old to new is not a discrimination I feel, but is a way to improve and rejoyce how far we’ve come in this world. Don’t get me wrong, the games from some 20 years ago were fun and some if not most still are, but as time grows so do our humble thirst for more graphic designs, field work, and adventurous gameplay…a thirst might I add, never seems to get quenched.
April 17th, 2006 17:13
One more thing. I need some more information (atleast 5 pages worth) about my topic for a project I’m doing (part of my work with NASA). The statement is: How have games evolutionized in the last 20 years?
I’m using the trivial format in this, meaning I’m using the who, why, what, when and how. Here’s some questions I need answering:
Who – names of companies or organizations that are majorly known in game making over the last 20 years.
When – a timeline of dates showing the change and evolution of games since 20 years ago.
How – something to show how the technology used 20 years ago differ from now-a-days. Also, showing how each new game began to be better then before and how it was done.
What – this should show the materials, what the goals were, and what it took to make a better game.
(Note – I’ll take care of the “why” part)
So, please if you would look into the depths of your hearts (if it isn’t already engulped in shadows), send me some work of information I need from what I’ve given above. Send the information to my email Justice_of_mankind@yahoo.com. Remember, I need atleast 5 pages of research plus correct citations. Thanks a bunch!
April 18th, 2006 17:36
Gaming now and then…
Another post comparing the spectacular improvements in video games over the p
April 19th, 2006 20:21
i love u
April 19th, 2006 20:22
no way games are the coooooolllllleeesssttt halo 2 OWNSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 21st, 2006 19:23
aynen katiliyorum hey gidi günler hey..zaman cok hizli teknoloji cok hizli…anlam vermek cok mu kolay yoksa anlamak cok mu zor bilmiyorum..sevgiler…
I game love
))
April 21st, 2006 19:25
I’m going to Antalya…. good night…
April 27th, 2006 16:31
Gaming now and then
There’s a great post at Fosfor Gadgets that simply juxtaposes screen shots from old (mainly Nintendo) games from the 1980s with the Xbox 360 equivalents. “If someone would have presented a XBOX 360 for me and my friends 20…
May 1st, 2006 09:42
maby you have codes for fosfor!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
May 1st, 2006 09:42
May 1st, 2006 09:43
May 1st, 2006 14:09
Ya d français ici…..
May 3rd, 2006 14:25
va te faire enculer par les mouches
May 3rd, 2006 14:25
nn pa toi iii
mai les anglais
May 5th, 2006 19:06
Some people rag on old-game realism. Not so in all cases, the Romancing Saga for the SNES was a solid war sim, better than Star/War Craft or AOE or what have you. Anyone who cheers for the retro games and owns an XBOX is going to hell. My gamecube sits proudly upon my TV, with over 30 games in my library.
May 6th, 2006 11:30
Evolucin grfica
Via pjorge.com, descubro una a comparativa grfica entre juegos de hace 20 aos y sus equivalentes actuales, menudo cambio, si bien hay que decir que en algunos parece que lo que se ha comparado es el juego de hace 20 aos con la animacin de presentac…
May 6th, 2006 17:45
Great idea IMHO – but why did u miss to compare ELITE to Eve Online ?=)
May 7th, 2006 18:57
Amazing Graphics and Malcontents
Fosfor Gadgets has an interesting side-by-side comparison of graphics from games of the 80s and those of today’s games. They do a good job of pitting games of similar genres against each other, for example: 1985’s Bard’s Tale for Nintend…
May 7th, 2006 19:00
[...] Fosfor Gadgets has an interesting side-by-side comparison of graphics from games of the 80s and those of today’s games. They do a good job of pitting games of similar genres against each other, for example: 1985’s Bard’s Tale for Nintendo versus 2005’s PC hit World of Warcraft and 1985’s 10 Yard Fight for Nintendo against 2005’s Madden NFL 06 for the XBox 360. Good stuff. [...]
May 7th, 2006 20:21
[...] for more Gaming – now and then comparisons, check out my article Gaming – now and then. Eternal happiness Are you new to Fosfor Gadgets? If you are, I strongly recommend that you subscribe to our feed – it will bring you eternal happiness. Hehe. Feed 19 comments [...]
May 8th, 2006 05:24
[...] for more Gaming – now and then comparisons, check out my article Gaming – now and then. [...]
May 8th, 2006 13:08
Why is Bard’s Tale compared to WoW ? Doesn’t make any justice for Bard’s Tale. Oblivion would be better example.
May 8th, 2006 14:14
YEAH THIS THING RULEZZZ !!!
May 11th, 2006 19:01
People, c’mon now. Does it really matter whether the modern shots are pre-rendered or in-game? According to the description, the only point this post was trying to make is that graphics, like the rest of technology, have come a long way in the last few decades. And pretty much ANY modern game that isn’t consciously trying to look “retro” is gonna look better than 80’s-era pixels. The render/ingame thing is totally besides the point.
As to gameplay–which was outside the scope of the comparison to begin with–I suspect that’s going to be personal preference.
See, I never had a NES, back in the day, and only ever got to play the original Zelda once or twice on my best friend’s little brother’s system. So this year, with those fond memories in mind, I got the Collector’s Edition disk so I could have the experience I’d missed.
And after dying more times than I could count–okay, so my dexterity isn’t the best–I shrugged, said, “eh, so much for THAT” and fired up Ocarina of Time. I like the 3-D games a LOT more, and not just because the graphics are better; even WITH nostalgia for the old games.
So in the end, it’s a matter of perspective. As in so many things in life, one gamer’s trash is another’s treasure. Peace.
May 13th, 2006 01:08
excellent article. I have alot of the old consoles thanks to ebay and emulators thanks to ‘geeks’ all over the world. and, i can honestly say i play the emulators more than i do todays games.
May 20th, 2006 07:32
Unfortunately, all these graphics are just a waste. The games back then were much more fun.
June 1st, 2006 01:23
Im not going to take either side because i believe that some new games are good. Sure, old games are very playable but that doesnt mean some of the newer games arent.
I mean have you tried the recent games? I have and i must say that some are pretty hard to get used to and they dont have much gameplay. But still have you even tried a different one? They cant ALL be the same.
Ill have to disagree with all of you,
because its really a matter of,
what game you pick
if you like it
and it genre.
June 2nd, 2006 08:07
[...] Gaming now and then – Fosfor Gadgets (tags: games) [...]
June 10th, 2006 00:15
[...] for more Gaming – now and then comparisons, check out my article Gaming – now and then. Personal organizers Just reading the tagline on the box of the Casio IF-8000 makes me smile: [...]
June 14th, 2006 23:00
Gaming now and then
When you compare similar games from the mid-eighties with today’s top notch video and computer games, the difference in graphics …
July 30th, 2006 14:33
Sell, Latex Clothing, Catsuit, Cat suit, Latex Catsuit, Rubber catsuit, Zentai, Fetish, Latex fetish, Fetish clothing, bondage, BDSM, Latex Dress, Rubber Dress, Lycra, 黒, 網, 全身タイツ, タイツ, ジャンプスーツ, キャットスーツ, ラテックス, ラバー, wholesale, Shop
http://www.latexbay.com
September 29th, 2006 17:09
i think that this web site is thew stupidest thing ever
October 18th, 2006 11:41
i like to play older games over the new ones because i get bored with the long load up times with the new ones and also the games are more enjoyable
October 24th, 2006 07:25
gfhgfuighhgdfuhzgsduighghdfdifhpuihdfuhgpffhug
November 14th, 2006 17:22
I love basketball more then anything if u don’t like it your gay ok
November 19th, 2006 12:22
Nice comparison. Check out http://tnlc.com/eep/compare/ for a comparison of many recent 3D game features.
January 22nd, 2007 21:09
yo i keep on typeing about how to download madden07 for gba rom keep on saying I CAN NOT FIND IT that got me PISE!!!!! so isay all yo fuck niggaz better give me what i want fuck you fuck you who is reading it bicth
March 29th, 2007 18:03
i really love to do all of this games thay are really fun to play will
April 27th, 2007 00:43
I did not reed eny of this stuff but it’s LONG!!!…I LOVE YUGIOH AND I’M 14!!!
May 2nd, 2007 00:29
gaming is overrated
May 2nd, 2007 15:03
[...] Cuando veo estas cosas me hacen sentir demasiado viejo, pero es que ver este tipo de comparaciones es impresionante, sobre todo nos ponen a pensar lo que esta por venir con tres nuevas consolas. [...]
July 22nd, 2007 10:16
u fukin huni
July 29th, 2007 13:09
baby shower stuff
As you are surfing for online shopping web sites and web pages, be sure to use all of the resources at your disposal.
August 11th, 2007 21:53
old coin prices
Our motive is to show you the best resources for mystery shopping researching.
August 29th, 2007 13:55
old times no more… good graphics, but not fun… =\
December 9th, 2007 20:06
[...] http://gadgets.fosfor.se/gaming-now-and-then! [...]
January 7th, 2008 19:16
[...] ad racer, punch out, 10 yard fight.. hepsi ilk bilgisayarlarımızın gözdesi oyunlar. peki ya şimdiki oyunlarla karşılaştırınca ne kadar eski kalıyorlar değil mi? inanmazsanız bir de siz bakın. [...]
January 24th, 2008 11:24
CATR Australia offering various kinds of Latex Rubber PVC Vinyl Lycra Spandex Leather Catsuit Dress Corset Pants Mask hood Gloves Socks, For Woman Man Female Male. Go have a look.
February 1st, 2008 14:44
The history of a Key West Bed and Breakfast…
History of Knowles House Bed and Breakfast located in Key West Florida….
February 19th, 2008 20:15
you people suck modern day video games are nothing but bad ass. The only fun old school game is the Mike Tyson’s Punch out. So quit your whining and get over it.
May 12th, 2008 16:14
[...] simply don??t muster up in comparison to today??s games. They can??t keep interest for long, …http://gadgets.fosfor.se/gaming-now-and-then/Welcome Week 2007 Acadia University, Wolfville, Nova ScotiaSpecial interest Groups. On Monday, [...]
June 25th, 2008 00:42
[...] [...]
June 26th, 2008 01:13
[...] [...]
July 8th, 2008 13:15
[...] Vu (via no-bug.net) un site qui compare le graphisme des jeux de console d’aujourd’hui et d’il y a 20 ans. Le rapprochement est assez saisissant ! C’est par ici… [...]
July 8th, 2008 13:15
[...] Vu (via no-bug.net) un site qui compare le graphisme des jeux de console d’aujourd’hui et d’il y a 20 ans. Le rapprochement est assez saisissant ! C’est par ici… [...]
July 8th, 2008 14:00
[...] Vu (via no-bug.net) un site qui compare le graphisme des jeux de console d’aujourd’hui et d’il y a 20 ans. Le rapprochement est assez saisissant ! C’est par ici… [...]
September 13th, 2008 09:22
I fail to see how A Bard’s Tale and WoW are related.
December 5th, 2008 20:18
we got a sega saturn for the weekend once upon a time I can remember looking at the graphics for a wrestling game and going omg porn!
December 18th, 2008 01:28
a game like HALF LIFE 2 is pretty much at the top of the list. not only are the graphics top notch, the gameplay, controls, sound and storyline are done as well or better than anything you can name. madden 09 destroys its competition in every way as does sonys THE SHOW for baseball. i just finished DEAD SPACE and the overall experience was mindblowing for what a game can do. LITTLE BIG PLANET brings platforming into the 21st century and allows gamers to create their own levels as well. there have always been lots of stinkers on the market at any given time but todays consoles have their share of incredible titles too. i grew up on ATARI and such and had tons of fun but maybe some are looking back with rose colored glasses. todays top titles cost tens of millions of dollars to produce and the level of immersion a player experiences is revolutionary. its not just the graphics that have improved. surround sound, high definition big screen tv sets, intelligent foes, and production values to rival a major motion picture all come together to create something not possible 20 yrs ago. the current round of consoles ( ps3, 360 ) have achieved a level of quality unheard of even 5 yrs ago. if you prefer old style gaming, theres xbox live or playstation network which offers many old style titles. i suggest giving todays games a second look, you may be pleasantly surprised with todays technology.
January 8th, 2009 17:52
Left 4 Dead Vs Gauntlet.
I just stumbled across this webpage and it was only last night that I was reading a piece about the history of the arcade and then home computer and console game “Gauntlet.” I had been playing “Left 4 Dead” (published by Valve) earlier that day and suddenly realised that Left 4 Dead is like a modern take on Gauntlet.
Four players start off at the entrance to a map, they have to fight their way through hoards of basic enemies (zombies in L4Ds case) and occasionally have to fight rarer but more dangerous boss creatures. The Witch in L4D is much like the Grim Reaper in Gauntlet, with everyone aware that the witch is there, but everyone also trying to give the witch a wide birth and not let the witch get anywhere near the players.
Both games have entrance and exit points on each level, both games require the players to work together and ration the health packs that they find as they journey through the level. Both games can be tense affairs where if one of the four characters gets isolated, then they can become easy prey.
January 21st, 2009 16:40
[...] nostalgia canaglia] Old vs New http://gadgets.fosfor.se/gaming-now-and-then/ — [...]
April 14th, 2009 03:01
Quicktime Converter for Mac, FLV Converter for Mac
June 29th, 2009 23:16
Escavera Homes…
Great Blog, We are adding your info to our website…
August 31st, 2009 19:19
http://www.healthesmoke.webatu.com
Some of the old games are the best.Even with the cruddy graphics they more addictive and fun than todays games in my opinion
September 24th, 2009 22:48
[...] Gaming now and then [...]
January 8th, 2010 03:20
Excellent ideas here, have emailed my mum so expect a big reply!!
February 4th, 2010 14:52
I totally remember playing Mike Tyson’s Punch Out when I was younger!!! My brothers and I would beat each other up on it daily!