fireside at October 28th, 2013 21:19 — #1
Kind of interesting. Lots of old games that look pretty terrible now. I think the text adventures are the most interesting. I started playing The Hobbit, but as usual I get frustrated. I opened the chest but can't look inside it. The fill rate for the graphics is line by line.
tyree at October 30th, 2013 15:41 — #2
they had pitfall on there, I enjoyed that game. I was looking forward to the progression of action games at the time
fireside at October 30th, 2013 16:41 — #3
It is interesting to look at the progression of games. One of them I've always been amazed at was Return to Krondor, but that's been freely playable for a long time. I sped up the frame rate using dos box and was amazed at how good the game really was, but of course, they had to depend more on story back then and the author was a professional writer. I think they just took some characters from his books. I was never much of an action gamer. I like space shooters. Action games are a lot more dependent on graphics, I think, but I still like more strategy or something. I never even bought Doom when it came out. I just played the demo for a while. I did actually buy Unreal, the first one.
tyree at November 1st, 2013 02:30 — #4
its the opposite for action games. the action is what keeps a player interested. thats part of what made 2d action games so good. no matter how primitive the graphics were. the player always knew exactly what the author was reaching for. could the gameplay be enjoyed and the action was all that really mattered. 3d is really what caused everyone to focus on graphics