• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Retro Gamers and why they need to get over it

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
Link to original post: [drupal=3590]Retro Gamers and why they need to get over it[/drupal]



So as most of us know, there are many types of gamers who lurk about the net. The fanboys of any of the big three, Modern FPS lovers, JRPG-haters, the list goes on. But the particular Persona I'd like to ***** about right now would be that of the retro elitist, a particularly nasty version of the Retro Gamer.

So let's get one thing straight, I have nothing wrong with old games. Many of my favorite games are from years and years ago when dinosaurs roamed the earth and graphics were laughably poor compared to today. With that out of the way, I would like to tell you a simple truth: video games age terribly, as in, probably the worst out of any other medium. Yes, there are old games that do still look surprisingly good or actually feel really good on the eyes but for the most part, the graphics on older games look pretty bad in retrospect. Take the first Crash Bandicoot, that game may have looked alright back then but these days it just looks crude and ugly. Or how about the first Mortal Combat? That game looks strange and kind of ugly these days (and I'm not just talking about the Genesis version). Or how about a more recent game? Shadow of the Colossus is only five years old but still doesn't look nearly as good as it did back in 2005.

Now, you may be ready to argue that graphics aren't everything and that's it's the game play that matters. Well, old games don't age well in that category either. Many old games are missing several key elements from modern games that make them better. First of all, not being able to save your game freaking sucks. Yes, I know that many games allowed you to but this wasn't the case for most of them. And yes, while many games did have passwords writing down pages of these things was really annoying. But wait, it's nostalgic so that must mean that it's instantly better than just choosing "load game" and being done with it. Or how about the insane difficulty of many older games? Do you realize that most of the time games were hard for bull**** reasons? Like how in old RPGs they made the game "challenging" by keeping key information from you or never even hinting to where you're supposed to go next. Or in some platforming poor jumping physics made platforming more difficult than it needed to be. Or how in many cases the only reason why you'd die is because a bunch of enemies came out of nowhere and killed you and if you wanted to get past it then you better have it all memorized. Do you really think that this was a good thing? Do you really want games to be so difficult to the point where only the most devoted of gamers can finish them? And those two things are just the tip of the iceberg, I'd go farther but I won't in hopes of avoiding "lol tl;dr."

Games are in fact, better these days. I don't care what you remember, I don't care how nostalgic it is, games are better now. Hell, many excellent games would only be half the games they are today if they were made back then. These days games can tell better stories (do you really want a majority of the plot to be restricted to the manual?), be more artistic (can you imagine the previously mentioned Shadow the Colossus in 16-bit?), and just be better (can you even imagine how many game play elements just wouldn't work in the old days?). Despite all of this, nostalgia will tell you otherwise. In the words of the American Politician George Ball, "Nostalgia is a seductive liar." Games are not as good as you remember them, you don't want to know how many games I went back and played only to realize that they are nowhere near as good as I remember them.

I don't care what you remember, the truth of the mater is that games then are not as good as you remember them. If you're one of those people who are convinced that games were actually better back then, you need to move on. If I never moved on, I would never have discovered all of the great games made these days and would still be playing a Genesis. Old games are not better than modern ones, open your eyes and realize that.

tl;dr: What's wrong with you? Stop being so lazy and go and read the whole thing. It will take you around maybe five minuets if you're slow.
 

Firus

You know what? I am good.
BRoomer
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
7,681
NNID
OctagonalWalnut
3DS FC
0619-4291-4974
I'm half in agreement with you and half not. I definitely agree that being stuck on past games is foolish -- you'll miss out on a whole lot if you refuse to play anything new just because it's new. Of course, you'll miss out on a whole lot if you do the opposite, as well -- refuse to play old games and stick to only new ones.

Nostalgia will definitely deceive you at times, but it's not always deceptive. You can go back and legitimately enjoy older games that you remembered being amazing, though you can definitely go back and find that a game you remembered being awesome...isn't. I recall when I finally got Crash Bandicoot: Warped last fall. I had played that game all of the time with one of my friends before I had moved, and hadn't played it in years (it had literally been about 8 or so years), so I had nothing but fond memories of it. I went back and played it, and the nostalgia was definitely there, the game was enjoyable...but it was so easy. I beat it in about a week's time. On the other hand, I can still go back today and enjoy Donkey Kong 64, which consumed somewhere around a year of my childhood.

It's really just a matter of the game. Some games you'll build up nostalgia for and that's the only saving grace, others you'll build up nostalgia because the game really was that good.

Ultimately, I agree with you that nostalgia can deceive you and games may not be as good as you remember them -- but I disagree with the generalization that games today are simply better than they used to be. Some of my absolute favorite games have come from this generation -- all of the Ace Attorney games, TWEWY, and Mirror's Edge -- but I don't own all of the old consoles that I own for no reason. I still find myself falling in love with games as recent as Soul Calibur II and as old as Pac-Man 2 all over again.

Getting stuck in the past is a bad idea, but forgetting the past altogether is a much larger mistake.

...Then again, with my title, what else did you expect me to say? =P
 

StealthyGunnar

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
2,137
Location
West St. Paul, MN
Link to original post: [drupal=3590]Retro Gamers and why they need to get over it[/drupal]



Or how about the first Mortal Kombat?
Fixed. I love Mortal Kombat Triology, but I'm not going to say that it's better than most games today. Even the Old Legend of Zelda games are fun, but the graphics lack in comparison. I'm playing Ocarina right now and I don't even know what to do or where to go. Old games like that do leave out basic important info.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
Well, Firus, I wasn't saying that all old games are trash and that you should just forget about them and move on. As I said, some of my favorite games are older titles. The point I was trying to make is that it's dumb to live in the past and ignore the new. I'm sorry if I made it sound like you should completely forget older games, that's not what I was trying to say at all.
 

Firus

You know what? I am good.
BRoomer
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
7,681
NNID
OctagonalWalnut
3DS FC
0619-4291-4974
Oh, all right. Sorry, I tend to misinterpret things...a lot of the time.

Well, you get my point in any case.
 

Pakman

WWMD
BRoomer
Joined
Apr 5, 2005
Messages
6,861
Location
Phoenix Foundation
Retro gaming is about style, challenge and replay-ability as much as it is nostalgia if not more so. I've gone back and played Contra 3, Mario 1-3, Super Mario World and Toejam & Earl pretty frequently especially in recent years.

Involved games with lots of hours of gameplay that require saving are more often than not, one and done. I will not play Bayonetta, any of the old Halos, Mirror's Edge, and Assassin's creed again. Hell I don't even feel like playing new super mario bros wii again and that was designed to be retro.

New games can be considered retro as well and be successful. Megaman 9 and 10 are prime examples of this. I still play people in Tetris and Dr. Mario(although i play the newer versions.) My favorite DS game is Contra 4. The most enjoyment I've gotten out of a Wii game is Geometry wars.

Retro is a style more than a time period. Retro gaming is for people who don't care for cut scenes, long drawn out stories, and complex controls. They want a simple to learn control scheme with challenging obstacles. They don't want infinite lives and checkpoints every 5 minutes. They want short challenging games that they can jump right into.

TL;DR DON'T HATE
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
Retro is a style more than a time period. Retro gaming is for people who don't care for cut scenes, long drawn out stories, and complex controls. They want a simple to learn control scheme with challenging obstacles. They don't want infinite lives and checkpoints every 5 minutes. They want short challenging games that they can jump right into.
I get that, but games generally are better these days due to many improvements to game play, graphics, ect. over the years. But this is all subjective, for instance, I'd rather go and play Arkham Asylum then any of those old games that you listed.

TL;DR DON'T HATE
I NEVER SAID THAT I DON'T LIKE OLD GAMES. I OUTRIGHT STATED THAT SOME OF MY FAVORITES ARE OLDIES. WHY DOES EVERYONE THINK OTHERWISE!?
 

firelord767

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
116
Location
East Northport, LI, NY
IDK BUT ALL CAPS ARE FUN

Retro as a style would be subject to change as time passes. I mean, i'll feel so old when they start calling some of my favorites "Retro". Stuff like Brawl, for example, will be ancient and outdated in a good ten years.

"Stop playin' Brawl, gramps. Super Smash Bros Skirmish is what the hip, young crowd is playing."
 

Purtle

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
229
Location
Massachusetts
I don't think you were misinterpreting Firus, I got that vibe/message as well.

Seeing your reply to Firus, I do agree with you now. It is dumb to live in the past and not accept new games. There are still plenty of new games that are just as trash and crappy as some of the old games that are trash and crappy though.


You can't really generalize all old games. You can't generalize anything, ever.

I do sort of agree with Pakman though.

It's all opinions though really.
 

Jim Morrison

Smash Authority
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
15,287
Location
The Netherlands
Despite there being so many **** games, we don't care because we look at the jewels who actually did it right. They weren't insanely difficult, they were fun and are still fun. I had no trouble completing the great games from "back then" because it was just as clear where you had to go as games these days (think pokemon, Spyro, other adventure games).
 

Jam Stunna

Writer of Fortune
BRoomer
Joined
May 6, 2006
Messages
6,450
Location
Hartford, CT
3DS FC
0447-6552-1484
I agree with the general point of the blog, but I'll go on the record as saying that this generation is not as impressive as the last one. The PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation had the perfect mix of technological improvement and gameplay innovation. This generation just seems like more of the last one, just in HD and online. Those aren't bad things, but I'm definitely underwhelmed, and probably a little spoiled because the last generation was just that amazing.
 

UberMario

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
3,312
Agree with: video games age terribly, as in, probably the worst out of any other medium.

Even though I mostly play older games, I do agree that their graphics tend to age poorly, but I don't care about graphics at all if they aren't blatant eyesores. *cough*Missle Command Game Over*cough*

Neutral with: Or how about the insane difficulty of many older games? Do you realize that most of the time games were hard for bull**** reasons?

While I do agree that most of the reasons games were difficult were from ridiculous reasons, such as overpowered rubberband ai in racing games, games today (on average) are WAY easier than they should be, I understand that it's so casual gamers can get into them too, but it's kind of disappointing that you have to go out of your way to find an actually difficult 1-P game

Disagree with: Games are in fact, better these days.

See the statement about game difficulty. In the past what attracted gamers to playing games was trying to tackle difficult quests, so the game developers tended to make the games harder because of that, but currently we're in an age where causal gamers vastly outnumber competitive/hardcore gamers, and likewise the difficulty of games shot downward so it has become reasonably easy to win in. Also, game soundtracks have lost some of their luster as of recently aswell. Back when they were chiptunes and/or MIDI-based, the composers had a limited amount of notes that could be played at one time, so they had to make awesome soundtracks to counter that. (Usually making the songs play an insane amount of notes rapidly to "simulate" more channels) Nowadays it's pretty difficult for me to remember OSTs from games, even from some of my favorite series such as Mario, and it's not because of the increased sizes of the soundtracks (which have increased in length and amount of songs per game). Also, it feels like the main emphasis of game developers today is to create a game to be basically an interactive movie, rather than being based mostly off strategy, reflexes, timing, and technicality like in the past. Now I'm not saying that all of them are like that, several genres, most notably the fighter genera, still play very similarly to the way their 2D "ancestors" did, but for the most part the emphasis of gaming is changed and so I prefer the older ones. I do try newer games, but I just have a strong preference for the classics, maybe it's mostly due to my disinterest in graphics quality and my love for the chiptune genera of music, but that is how I feel. In my honest opinion, gaming has peaked twice, once from about 1986-1992, and again from 1995-2003, though that's just me.
 

Firus

You know what? I am good.
BRoomer
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
7,681
NNID
OctagonalWalnut
3DS FC
0619-4291-4974
Involved games with lots of hours of gameplay that require saving are more often than not, one and done. I will not play Bayonetta, any of the old Halos, Mirror's Edge, and Assassin's creed again.
It's funny that you mention Mirror's Edge, actually, because I would say that, aside from the checkpoints and infinite lives, it's quite similar to retro games in that you can jump right in and play through to the end fairly quickly. I love it to death, but it's not a very long game at all, and once you know what you're doing and you're used to everything you can easily finish the game in one sitting. At least, that's what I've found. I've replayed it 7 or so times.

I see where you're coming from, though, and I find myself switching between the two styles. Sometimes I may feel like a more complex game, sometimes I'm looking for something straightforward and simple. A game can be great either way, it just has to excel at what it does.

Like Purtle said, it's all opinions. If you have a preference or a lack thereof, that's up to you.

I agree with the general point of the blog, but I'll go on the record as saying that this generation is not as impressive as the last one. The PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation had the perfect mix of technological improvement and gameplay innovation. This generation just seems like more of the last one, just in HD and online. Those aren't bad things, but I'm definitely underwhelmed, and probably a little spoiled because the last generation was just that amazing.
I would have to agree with this. Last generation was amazing, and the GameCube is my favorite console of all time.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
I agree with the general point of the blog, but I'll go on the record as saying that this generation is not as impressive as the last one. The PS2/Xbox/Gamecube generation had the perfect mix of technological improvement and gameplay innovation. This generation just seems like more of the last one, just in HD and online. Those aren't bad things, but I'm definitely underwhelmed, and probably a little spoiled because the last generation was just that amazing.
I have to agree with this entire post. Last gen brought us so many good games and so many awesome franchises while this generation I can count all of the new franchises that I actually care for on one hand. This generation just feels like on big disappointment to me.

it's kind of disappointing that you have to go out of your way to find an actually difficult 1-P game
I agree here. I don't want some insanely difficult cheap NES sort of challenge but it would be nice to actually die more than a few times on some modern games.

Disagree with: Games are in fact, better these days.

See the statement about game difficulty. In the past what attracted gamers to playing games was trying to tackle difficult quests, so the game developers tended to make the games harder because of that, but currently we're in an age where causal gamers vastly outnumber competitive/hardcore gamers, and likewise the difficulty of games shot downward so it has become reasonably easy to win in. Also, game soundtracks have lost some of their luster as of recently aswell. Back when they were chiptunes and/or MIDI-based, the composers had a limited amount of notes that could be played at one time, so they had to make awesome soundtracks to counter that. (Usually making the songs play an insane amount of notes rapidly to "simulate" more channels) Nowadays it's pretty difficult for me to remember OSTs from games, even from some of my favorite series such as Mario, and it's not because of the increased sizes of the soundtracks (which have increased in length and amount of songs per game). Also, it feels like the main emphasis of game developers today is to create a game to be basically an interactive movie, rather than being based mostly off strategy, reflexes, timing, and technicality like in the past. Now I'm not saying that all of them are like that, several genres, most notably the fighter genera, still play very similarly to the way their 2D "ancestors" did, but for the most part the emphasis of gaming is changed and so I prefer the older ones. I do try newer games, but I just have a strong preference for the classics, maybe it's mostly due to my disinterest in graphics quality and my love for the chiptune genera of music, but that is how I feel. In my honest opinion, gaming has peaked twice, once from about 1986-1992, and again from 1995-2003, though that's just me.
Sorry to say it, Uber, but the a majority of the post can be summed up with "old games have better OSTs." Which I do agree with (I rarely remember any tunes from newer titles), but I disagree with you stating that games don't rely off of skill or anything anymore. And as for the interactive movie bit... when done well I like it but when you just constrict it to a bunch of QTEs... not so much.
 

Zook

Perpetual Lazy Bum
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
5,178
Location
Stamping your library books.
I was having a debate with one of my friends the other day about whether or not the first Zelda was hard. He said it was really difficult because the game gives you so few clues and you need to start over from the same place every time you died, and I argued that those were, well, bull**** reasons. If a game was designed like that today, it wouldn't be considered 'hard,' just poorly designed.
 

Browny

Smash Hater
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
10,416
Location
Video Games
meh, I can't agree with almost anything you say. Sure there are examples of games that are bad to play now, but imo games were so much more enthralling back then.

Ill look at an example I like to remember often, Perfect Dark 64

Perfect Dark isnt amazing because of how many hours you can play it in a row and not get bored today (its not very long at all, more like minutes) but because it reminds us of an age where developers would go that extra distance, and the rest, to make games amazing. That game had it all, perfectly balanced difficulty scaling, original storyline, very memorable weapons (which gamers in this world dont know what a farsight is?), lengthy single player campaign, the most customiseable multiplayer possibly ever, rankings, stat tracking and a tutorial like no other.

Now its not that those qualities made it a great game, but compared to modern FPS games, it makes them look and rightfully so, very lazy. Everyone takes the easy way out and offers the bare minimum to qualify as a passable game. Stick a title on it like halo or james bond and youve got a multi-million seller. I have never gotten the same feeling of awe playing a game thinking 'is there anything the devs didnt do?' as playing PD64 and at the same time, they have countless times more resources, money and ability yet they choose not to. Good graphics, smooth controls and online multiplayer are all stock-standard which an FPS should get slammed for if it doesnt have it and thats just about all you will ever see. Gone are the days when devs dared to be different and we benefitted from it.

To me, the only modern game that has truly made me feel anything like PD64 and many other 'retro game' such as DK64 and golden sun 2 was Dragon Age: Origins. It was refreshing to see a game where as much as possible in an rpg genre was put into one game, even if it missed a few elements, it definitely made me feel the same as those 2 games did.
 

Melomaniacal

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
2,849
Location
Tristate area
What if I still genuinely love retro games? In my case, it's not a matter of "they aren't as good as you remember," because I still play most of them. I just beat Super Metroid for the millionth time last week, and I'm going to start another SMRPG game. I've been playing Kirby's Avalanche with friends, as well as the old Sonics and random other old games.
 

Melomaniacal

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Messages
2,849
Location
Tristate area
SNES and N64 aren't retro.
Well, I didn't mention anything about N64.
I figured it counted since he was mentioning SOTC, Crash Bandicoot, and Mortal Combat, and SNES is older than that. Not to mention that I'm playing some games that came out before some of you were born (namely Sega and NES games, not SNES games).

So, what do you call retro?
 

Zook

Perpetual Lazy Bum
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
5,178
Location
Stamping your library books.
Well, I didn't mention anything about N64.
I figured it counted since he was mentioning SOTC, Crash Bandicoot, and Mortal Combat, and SNES is older than that. Not to mention that I'm playing some games that came out before some of you were born (namely Sega and NES games, not SNES games).

So, what do you call retro?
I generally consider the 8-bit era and everything prior to that retro. I grew up glued to my SNES, I just consider that old. xD
 

Darkshadow7827

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
1,532
Location
Lower reaches of Shelbrunkand
Not to speak for Finlark but I would assume his use of "retro" refers to SNES and maybe N64. I'm only assuming this because a lot of old school gamer elitists talk about the glory days of SNES (and I guess N64).

The only statement I don't like from finlark is "Games are in fact, better these days." It's mainly cause you said "in fact" but I get your point and won't get hung up on petty wording. What's important is that I understand your concept - and I agree. My brother used to play JRPGS but only old school ones - time/turn based. He refuses to play real time battle or any other variation battle system type games. While I do believe some older games are on par if not better than current games, some current games are better than old. I'll give you this though, a lot newer games are a bit easy. I don't think I've ever seen a game as hard as Battle Toads, haha. Couldn't make it past the 3rd level.

But yea, I won't write a wall of text explaining why I like "X" old game and "Z" new game. It's preference and your main point was to not get hung up on older games, and at least give the newer games a shot. This I can agree with.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
But yea, I won't write a wall of text explaining why I like "X" old game and "Z" new game. It's preference and your main point was to not get hung up on older games, and at least give the newer games a shot. This I can agree with.
This is pretty much the point I'm trying to get across. I'm not saying that it's wrong to like older games or anything like that, what I'm trying to hammer home is, as you said, "not [to] get hung up on older games, and at least give the newer games a shot."
 

Glöwworm

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
1,417
Location
CA
you can't call anything retro but this:



Before the era of electronic ping pong, hungry yellow dots, plumbers, mushrooms, and fire-flowers, people waited in line to play video games at roller-skating rinks, arcades, and other hangouts. More than fifty years ago, before either arcades or home video games, visitors waited in line at Brookhaven National Laboratory to play “Tennis for Two,” an electronic tennis game that is unquestionably a forerunner of the modern video game.
 

UberMario

Smash Master
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
3,312
but I disagree with you stating that games don't rely off of skill or anything anymore.
I didn't say they don't, I just said the emphasis has been drawn away from that.

SNES and N64 aren't retro.
Well, they aren't really modern, they are kind of in that in-between stage between modern day and true retro (pre-1991), so I just feel it's easiest to call everything pre-2001 retro just for the ease of argument.
 

Anth0ny

Smash Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
4,061
Location
Toronto, Ontario
So what you're implying is
among a sea of horrible, horrible views
that Brawl is better than Melee.



AND THAT WOULD BE DOWN RIGHT NUTTY
 

Black Mantis

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
5,683
Location
Writing my own road...................
From a story telling perspective newer games blow older games out of the water. Every metal gear game had an amazing story. No game made in the 80's can compare to metal gear's story. I would say the 90's but Final Fantasy 7 came out during that time, which had an amazing story and somehow controversial for its time. The 2000's had some pretty good games story wise as well.

Lol I'll even give Subspace Emissary a small amount of respect because it was slightly amusing.
 

M.K

Level 55
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
6,033
Location
North Carolina
Well of course they do. And they should.
As we get later in generations, kids are more exposed to the grandeur of storytelling, gore, drama, comedy, and horror. It takes ever-increasing story-telling experiences to engorge a child between the slimy grips of a controller.

No longer does it simply take a space invader shooting a bunch of ships to please children.
 

soju

SD God
Joined
Jun 11, 2009
Messages
1,186
Location
Being a Scrub
You may be right. . .
BUT, JRPGs aint got shiz on mah Legend of Dragoons! ! !!! !!

P.S. Shaq Fu= Greatest Lame Fighting Game EVER!!!!
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
From a story telling perspective newer games blow older games out of the water. Every metal gear game had an amazing story. No game made in the 80's can compare to metal gear's story.


I would say the 90's but Final Fantasy 7 came out during that time, which had an amazing story
FF7 did not have a good story, but that's a debate for another time.

The 2000's had some pretty good games story wise as well.
This is true.
 

finalark

SNORLAX
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
7,829
Location
Tucson, Arizona
Lol thats a Metal Gear game. A bad one because Kojima said he didn't like it, but still a Metal Gear game none the less.
Kojima didn't like the first Metal Gear? I didn't know that.

Oh, and if you're looking for a game from the 90s that had a good story you should try Metal Gear Solid.


Yep.
 

Firus

You know what? I am good.
BRoomer
Joined
Apr 7, 2008
Messages
7,681
NNID
OctagonalWalnut
3DS FC
0619-4291-4974
...I think you'd have a really hard time arguing that any game in the '80s had a very fleshed-out story at all. 8-bit graphics with very little text can hardly compare to hi-def cutscenes and voice acting.

But not everyone plays video games for story, some people prefer a less complex story, as is evident by some posts in the thread. Storytelling alone does not make a good game.
 
Top Bottom