Ruffin Bailey wrote:
>
> >Modern systems will have a harder time reaching classic status because
> >they mainly just rehash the same genres with increased 3D power.
> >In this respect the 2600 is actually better since it offers
> >classifications of games which are no longer done on modern systems so
> >poly counts and texture mapping is not really an issue.
> I am interested in hearing more about your reasoning behind the 2600
> producing more classics, Glenn, and hope you'll share more. Is Oystron a
> classic and why? What defines a classic and how is that missing (other
> than age) from today's games?
I think your questions are interesting - I would like to hear some
answers to them. However, Glenn was clearly saying that he thinks
that modern *systems* not *games* will have a hard time reaching
classic status. I tend to agree with him, as it seems the battle
has turned into just plain horsepower in machines - pixels and polygons
per second, etc.
--
Robin Harbron macbeth@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.tbaytel.net/macbeth
--
Archives (includes files) at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/archives/
Unsub & more at http://www.biglist.com/lists/stella/stella.html
