new generation video games give a better experience, opposed to older games

My opponent has offered great points. He has put up the points of age, history and game playexperience I shall start with age. Although you have made a valid pointof saying that older gamers and younger gamers cannot be mixed into the same generations,but what he is saying is a generalisation of what many gamers believe to be thefactions of age. Let’s use his example of the 40 year old. “If we try to take a gamer that is 40 years oldand get him to play some of the new games, it won't offer the same experiencethat some of the older games gave him. He would remember the glory days ofsnes, super Nintendo, and Atari”. We are likely to see that the 40 year old would prefer the“good old days”. But what cannot be said is that younger gamers have a higherpossibility of not enjoying older games. Franchises like Nintendo haveincorporated their older games for download via the internet so there is plentyof possibility for them to like the game. There are also emulators that canplay for example the first link or the old Pokémon. http://www.youtube.com... This point has strong evidence to support me and myopponent’s case. Therefore age cannot truly be a factor of whether or not newergames give a better experience or older ones. Game development The games development is an important part of the experienceas stated in my pervious argument. Myadversary seems stuck on the point that the story line and graphics are farbetter with newer games. Graphics are a non arguable fact. As time goes bygraphics will always get better, this cannot be argued. I would like to say that I did not rambleon about the new graphics, I clearly stated that “Development in technologyenable developers to create more realistic looking and soundingcharacters”. This can be considered onlyone point made about graphics. I also said that humans react to somethingbetter if it is more realistic, my link of the psychology page should haveclarified that. Now, addressing the point that my opponentmade about plot. He has clearly chosen one of the best games latergenerations had to offer, it has a well done plot and great characters. Howeverit seems to be missing that flare, the spark that makes you feel trulyemotional. I would like to use my example of mass effect, to be specific masseffect 2. Like my opponent I will explain the basic plot. You are theHuman spectre Commander Sheppard, patrolling the edges of human territory, whenyour ship comes under attack by an unknown force. The Normandy is left as scrapand you are presumed dead by the systems alliance. Your corpse is picked up bythe terrorist organisation Cerberus and they restore you to the great solideryou once were. You are then on a mission to find out why these unknown creaturesare after humans and their purpose for obtaining them. You build up your crew, strengthening your fight against thecollectors. New and old crew members are incorporated into the game. As youbuild up your relationship with the characters on board the Normandy and othercharacters, the game continually throws curve balls forcing you to pick sideswith crew members with possible detrimental outcomes later in the game. Youwill become attached to your crew and very decisions made or dialogue choiceopened seems difficult as you yourself are changing the universe around you.All the decisions made are counted and remembered as the final mission begins.I will not tell you the ending and how it ends because it is different forevery player however I will provide a demographic on the final mission. http://img203.imageshack.us...or http://social.bioware.com... Perhaps you have me beat on the music area; the sounds areiconic and original as a music lover I cannot contest the quality, perhaps I shouldnot bow to my opponent but I cannot deny the truth that the music is still asgood as it is and was. This however does not change the rest of myargument. “Old games paved the way for new games” This statement is true to some extent, you have to startfrom somewhere but perhaps this may throw a spanner in the works. When Nintendo made the Nes it was a hit in the market, it mademillions and made companies millions but they had strict rules when it came tobecoming a partner with Nintendo. “Nintendo would only permit licensees to sell carts made by Nintendoitself; cash in advance, with a minimum order of 10,000. Games licensed for NEShad to be console exclusives for two years after launch, and each company waslimited to just five games a year”. If these consoles and their games where to pave their wayfor the Future of Gamming, then we could have had many more ideas put intopractice. Nintendo at the time ruled the market and as my link shall showreported to rip of their customers, their business partners and an entirenation. This strict rules did not guarantee that the games was a success, ifthey were that was great but if they fell flat they cash out of pocket a possible 10,000 unwanted games and anotherlump sum to look forward to. Not only this they had to be console exclusivesfor two years and with Nintendo ruling the market there really wasn’t any competition. http://www.abc.net.au... AS we can see the rules have changed and game makers anddevelopers are free to release to multiple platforms and are set at a marketbased value of consumption and price. This gives them the ability to free roamand explore the art of video gaming that’s why new generation games offer abetter experience. They are not held by constraint but are allowed to developtheir game to fit their style. To sum up I resist the remarks of my opponent saying that I will not be able to show thatnew generation games are better. I believe I have the ability to convince manythat new games are better.