Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected]
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Nostalgia is a hell of a drug.
This seems like an appeal to nostalgia to me... they're old games, and therefore I must simply be blinded by nostalgia rather than the possibility that those older games might have actually been better in certain measurable ways...?๐ค
An appeal to nostalgia is a claim that more or less boils down to "things were better in the past."
The NES era has a special place in my heart because those were basically the first games I played and those stick with you. But... I am not about to claim that modern equivalents aren't as good. And I don't feel the need to prove otherwise because I know that it isn't their objective quality or lack thereof that made them special to me. So the question is why is it so important to you that you can "prove" the PS2 era 3d platformers were objectively superior? Are you going to suddenly flip a switch in your head that changes your opinion of them if someone manages to "prove" otherwise?
AND you have to keep in mind that you are more likely to remember good games and forget mediocre ones. There is a bias toward older games being thought of as being better because most of the garbage ended up being lost to time. Today's stinkers are still fresh on everyones' mind.
noooo its just nostalgia!! games weren't better, they are better nowww!!!
Games in general have gotten worse, the quality only exists in the indie space nowadays. But there's 1000s of them, so it's not easy to find the gems. As for 3PP platformers... I guess the genre isn't all that appealing to developers. Maybe there will be a new one when someone has an idea for a new fresh take on it. Great games are made from great ideas and passion, rather than them being made to fill a gap in the market.
I mean, I won't say everything is better, but it's not exactly as bad as you're saying either.
Sure, 1000s of games are bad. 1000s of games were bad in the 90s and 2000s too. Bugsby 3D was allowed to exist.
OP isn't even able to say games back in the day were good as he has already bashed N64 and Gamecube (lame move btw, Goemon's Great Adventure I still play every year). He's very much just thinking of PS2.
How many people have missed out on Hat In time exactly?