Then it's only a matter of perspective, whether you want to look at it as a historian or as a gamer. I don't see much merit to the first one, unless you're into game design. No matter how historically significant a game, If there's an update of it that's superior in every way, there'd be little practical point to playing the original one. The same way that no one uses an EDVAC (first computer using the Neumann architecture) in this day and age.
Though, given that the space of all possible game designs is so infinitely huge, "the same except superior in every way" case doesn't seem to be all that common.

You may have already seen it, but I recently completed the flash version of Doom, first episode only unfortunately, but despite not having the music it was still a great blast, quite short by modern standards though. Check it out here.. http://www.gamekrunch.com/content/doom

I feel it's important, as a gamer, to remember your history. It brings a new splash of color to videogames. If nobody remembered any game ever, we'd probably be playing Limbo Of The Lost

OH... MY... GOD!!!
I have never heard of this before, though how it has escaped my attention is beyond me.
I've been reading the thread on Neogaf.com linked at the bottom of the Wikipedia page. I'm only about halfway through it, but man...
If there wasn't so much evidence spread over so much of the internet, I'd say this had to be the most elaborate joke ever conceived. And yet, it seems to be true.
It is unbelievable, unfathomable, unprecedented, and other words beginning with "un". I am truly speechless. I look forward to delving further into this story over the next couple of days.

I personally would like to play it, and wish I had a retail copy.

I like rating games I already have, but not from GOG.

Ahem. Remakes anyone? I can name quite a few. Resident Evil 1 on Gamecube, Metal Gear Twin Snakes, Bionic Commando: Rearmed, Super Street Fighter II Turbo HD Remix... That's all I can think off the top of my head.
And although I agree that we should remember the historical significance of certain revolutionizing games, I simply refuse to go back and play Doom with keyboard only controls and blurry low resolutions.
Some games were the way they were because of technical limitations. As long as the spirit of the game remains intact, I'll play the remake and enjoy it more. I'll still respect the impact of the original game, but why torture yourself if you just want to play a fun game? Depends on what you're looking for in videogames, I suppose.

I'd strongly disagree. In terms of graphics of course any game over five years old is going to have dated graphics. I don't think that graphics is as big of an issue in terms of the quality of old games. I grew up playing all kinds of old games because I couldn't afford the new ones.
And Half-Life is a game I can still pick up and play because the shooting is solid and still jells. I still think as a straight up shooter it's a heck of a lot better than most of the shooters I've played in the last few years. Granted, it doesn't have the sophistication of the modern shooter but in terms of simply gunplay I think few, if any games surpass it.

i recently got a samsung nc10 netbook, so that hardware limits me to older games anyway.
so im reliving some very good games that id forgotten i even had until i turned out the loft.
and some games that dont work on modern systems but do on the limited specs of the nc10.
im enjoying playing games like half life 1, opposing force etc again, although i find them decidedly easy now compared to modern shooters.

Play Half-Life on Hard. Granted, it isn't as brutal as the hard setting on most modern shooters but it's still a challenge.

Well thats quite funny, since wen do you need to buy a new computer or console to be considered a gamer? Seems like your just an hypocrite consumer who can't help himself from buying the latest shiny toy off the shelf and then run to show it to your friends.
Your lame excuses and personal opinions on how good GrAphikz are won't become an objective view if you scream they are in a forum.
Ahahahahahaha, Portal's main concept is... portals! and that was stolen from Prey. Add some stolen cliches like a pet companion cube (pet rock?) or the cake is a lie (there is no spoon) and mix it all up with targeted brainwashing marketing for a couple months and you got a full fledged game.
On a side note: Valve sucks at making games, they only release a SDK, let people make mods and then buy them. If it was'nt for the quake engine half-life would'nt exist or be famous at all, and even if it did they would have died soon without Counter-Strike.
Halo was'nt the first game with HP regeneration, that goes to show how little you know about old games. And you know what was that Halo did good? Marketing. All you need to get a game sold is marketing.

Wow, um, I'm just going to deal with this part, first, Portal was created by the team Valve hired after they saw their game Narbacular Drop, which is a similar portal puzzle type game. ND was released a year before Prey. And the big thing about Portal is its absolutely mind-bending puzzles, things like portaling 10 feet in the air to drop into another portal, so you can get high enough to slap a portal somewhere else. Preys portals are not used in nearly the same way (from what I have read, at least). Basically, its like saying that Tolkiens books and the Warhammer 40k books are completely the same, because they both fight orcs. And the companion cube has nothing to do with a pet rock, and "the cake is a lie" is literal, as you were promised cake. "There is no spoon" is about the world actually being all an illusion, which it isn't in portal (or if it is, it is, as Grin from The Mighty Ducks: The Animated Series would say, "An illusion that really, really hurts" :) ) Also, the idea that Half Life would have died without counterstrike is absurd, as Half-life was a runaway success long before CS came around. As well as the fact that Half-Life 2 and the episodes sold like hot cakes, even though you have to buy CS:Source seperately ( so no ones buying them for CS of any type). And so they used the quake engine, most games use an engine developed by someone else, as engine development is VERY VERY expensive.
Anyway, on todays games, I'm calling Sturgeon's Law "90% of everything is garbage". We just don't remember the garbage (Anyone remember Bubsy the Cat? Anyone? And of course we can go back to the original Atari with the infamous E.T.(I've actually played that, hugely annoying))

I know I tend to ramble, but sometimes I get the feeling the people who respond with such hostility towards my comments, simply refuse to understand what I'm saying.
I never said that you needed to buy a powerful rig to be considered a gamer. In fact, I'm conceding that I've had enough of continually upgrading my hardware. I realized that after years of being obsessed with framerates, draw distances, texture depth, etc... I noticed that the entertainment level in games plateaued once you reach a certain point of acceptability.
Also, I'm never objective. I just like to push people's buttons and start flame wars. But I think we've beat off this horse enough. Unless people still want to argue... I'm more than willing, but I get the feeling it's getting nowhere and people are getting tired of this topic.
That being said, just remember that you're all wrong and I'm always right.
End of story.

Actually, (in response to Revenantactual's post) Prey was in development loooong before ND was made. Because of several issues, 3D Realms eventually held the game and moved on. Of course, we all know that Prey was finally finished now, so that's good. Don't think that I hate Portal-- in fact I think that the use of portals were more cleverly implemented then the portals used in Prey.
Anyway, I love my old games. But I don't hate my new games-- in fact, I adore them. Seriously though, who cares about retrophelia? Evidently if you're here, you love old games too. Or you're lazy and just want fair prices and quick downloads. Or you like to argue....whatever. :)