Retro Gamers and why they need to get over it

[Sucumbio]

games suck these days. it's all about how good it looks, how many bells and whistles they have. Pitfall brought me more enjoyment than CoD ever could, and that is fact. But I realize I'm in a serious minority.

 

[Black Mantis]

Maybe I should have used a picture of Bioshock instead because everyone I know that has played that game has told me that it had an amazing story.

 

[Firus]

*Large Image*

Sorry, doesn't change anything. They're video games, not movies. If the gameplay isn't good, it doesn't matter how good the plot is, you're either not going to want to keep playing to find out the rest of it or you'll torture yourself to get there.

 

[finalark]

FFX

Oh come on! Am I the only one who actually liked the Game play in this one!?

games suck these days. it's all about how good it looks, how many bells and whistles they have. Pitfall brought me more enjoyment than CoD ever could, and that is fact. But I realize I'm in a serious minority.

Hate to burst your nostalgic bubbles, but games are not all about graphics and additional features these days. And don't act like trying to outdo your competition in graphics is something brand new. I mean come on, one of the earliest Genesis models had "16-Bit High Definition Graphics" written on it.

Maybe I should have used a picture of Bioshock instead because everyone I know that has played that game has told me that it had an amazing story.

Wait, you still haven't played Bioshock yet? Go out there and head to rapture, but ignore the sequel.

And the fact that Bioshock had awesome game play in addition to it's solid atmosphere and story helps too.

 

[Firus]

I mean come on, one of the earliest Genesis models had "16-Bit High Definition Graphics" written on it.

Ahahaha, it's true, I have one of 'em myself. Of course, the irony of it all is you can get the exact same Genesis without that on it, so I'm not sure what makes the graphics so "High Definition".

And the fact that Bioshock had awesome game play in addition to it's solid atmosphere and story helps too.

Yeah, the thing is, a game may have an amazing plot and that may be why you play it -- it just needs more than plot to supplement it. TWEWY had an amazing plot (at least, I thought so), and half the time I was playing I had one goal in mind: to uncover more of the plot. But the game had amazing music and innovative gameplay to back that up.

I think the only exception to the rule is the Ace Attorney series, and that's because they're borderline visual, interactive detective novels as it is.

 

[Black Mantis]

Also,

 

[Hyper_Ridley]

I mean come on, one of the earliest Genesis models had "16-Bit High Definition Graphics" written on it.

Pfft, the Megaman 1 box has "state of the art graphics" written on it. Top that

 

[finalark]

TWEWY had an amazing plot (at least, I thought so), and half the time I was playing I had one goal in mind: to uncover more of the plot. But the game had amazing music and innovative gameplay to back that up.

Replace "TWEWY" with "Shenmue" and you'll have my thoughts on that Dreamcast gem. To bad the plot ended abruptly with you wanting to know what happens next only to quickly realize that Sega will never make a Shenmue 3. Ever.

 

[vanderzant]

I think that the goggles of nostaglia can also make gamers biased towards the latest installment in a long-standing franchise (i.e. Mario, Zelda, etc.).

I'll go ahead and say that I'm going to keep buying every new generation in the Pokemon series until either A. I stop playing video games altogether, or B. Nintendo stops making them. No matter how 'bad' or repetitive the series gets. Know matter how much Nintendo milks it, I KNOW I'm going to clock at least 200 hours in Pokemon Black/White. It's just the affect that Red/Blue/Yellow had on myself and my generation.

But despite this, you could not conceivably convince me that the 3rd of 4th generations were better than the 1st or 2nd. New features, more challenges, better graphics, improved controls do not always = a better overall gaming experience. I've replayed RBY/GSC probably close to around 50 times since they were released over 10 years ago. But I've only ever played through Sapphire and Pearl more than once. I know there would be plenty of gamers who loved the first few generations of Pokemon, but dropped the series altogether after Ru/Sa.

Overall, it comes down to what you judge a game by. If I'm judging games by the entertainment I received from them, then Pokemon RBY is always going to come out on top for me. I LOVED a lot of Nintendo's other RPG's this generation such as TWEWY and Fire Emblem, but I'll probably never get over my love for the retro.

 

[El Nino]

I've never played a game more addicting than Tetris.

I don't think I ever will.

So I disagree that new games are in general better than the old. I think that some new games are good, but it's one of those case by case basis things.

When I was a kid, my grandparents gave me and my brother a toy that was sort of like this:
http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/image76128-vcp.html

You're supposed to swing the ball up and catch it in the cup. We never figured it out, but we soon discovered that it could be used as an improvised weapon against each other, so it all worked out in the end.

The divide between retro and new gamers is similar.

When I was a kid (in a time before HDTV), my mind would convert 8-bit pixels into complex alien terrain. You didn't need to make it look like a NASA spaceship; in my mind, that batch of pixels was a spaceship, and it was on a mission to defend the planet (or some other noise). You didn't need to give me a story; I just made up my own.

Who is Dig Dug? And why is he sticking pumps into random animals and filling them up until they burst in what could only be an excruciating death? I still have no clue. But I may have popped a dragon or two in my day.

The thing is--and this is just for my view, not some objective critique--we already live in a 3D world. And now games are starting to emulate that world. Few new games are as alien as the 2D pixelated realms of that bygone era.

So that's just me. I like some new games, but I'm not as drawn to them as I was once drawn to their predecessors. I'm not really looking for an interactive movie when I buy a game. I'm not looking for a deep story either. I just want to dig for a dragon or two. Is that too much to ask for?

 

[Jam Stunna]

GET OFF MY LAWN!

Quiet, old man!

 

[Hyper_Ridley]

@Pokemon stuff:
For some reason I can barley stand the main 3rd gen games despite loving abilities and double battles. And then 4th gen was the most fun I had in Pokemon since 2nd gen despite so many people hating it, lol.




I guess my attitude when it comes to older games, is that I love the games/parts of them that I feel they did right, but I'll be the first to point out stuff that I'm glad was changed in newer titles.

 

[finalark]

@El Nino: Yeah, all admit that it is pretty cool to be able to look at the graphics and interpret them however you'd like. However, they still had a ton of limits on them and I'd prefer many of the graphical styles of the games today over crude, 8-bit images.

Plus I'm pretty sure that something that looked like this would have been impossible back in those days:

 

[El Nino]

Quiet, old man!

I'll quiet down when you punks get off my lawn.

@El Nino: Yeah, all admit that it is pretty cool to be able to look at the graphics and interpret them however you'd like. However, they still had a ton of limits on them and I'd prefer many of the graphical styles of the games today over crude, 8-bit images.

Okami was an awesome game.

I think gamers now are making visual art a mandatory element. Some games work with it; others just take it for granted.

But I think also that part of the genius in games like Pac-Man and Tetris is that the visual quality never mattered. Pac-Man doesn't get any better rendered in 3D. It's a 2D game that forces you to think in 2D.

The thing that concerns me is that games might be reaching a plateau now. It's as if innovation is running inverse to technological capability or something.

Granted, Starcraft 2 is out, and it's all my coworkers have been talking about. If I had to pick what has been the most beneficial technological advance to affect video games, I'd have to say online play. I'd say it tops improvement in graphics and all that.

 

[Sucumbio]

Hate to burst your nostalgic bubbles, but games are not all about graphics and additional features these days. And don't act like trying to outdo your competition in graphics is something brand new. I mean come on, one of the earliest Genesis models had "16-Bit High Definition Graphics" written on it.

If my tongue were any further in my cheek with what I'd said you could have said I had a mouth boner.

In all seriousness, it's the gamers that change. Lets take a mid-generation video game. Majora's Mask (one I know you particularly like). Now imagine playing it for the first time at say... 6 years old. Now imagine playing it for the first time at 16. Or maybe 36? You should be able to imagine the difference in experience. Granted not being in your mid-30's means you may not know how it feels, so I can fill that gap for you. It sucked. It was HARD. I mean, I had to have help to beat a lot of OoT, but MM, even WITH faqs I still couldn't bring myself to complete it, it just didn't do it for me. Now I think back to when I was 6. Pitfall was all the rage. My folks in their 30s/early 40's got this thing cause they were the target audience (remember the atari was 500 bucks retail, and the replacement for home pong games.) They couldn't get past the 5 minute marker. 3 guys, and they'd make it to 18:30 on the clock (it started at 20:00 and counted down for those of you who don't know). Me? Played it to 0. Got me a patch too cause we took a poloroid and that's what you did, you sent it in and activision sent you a patch. I mean here I am 3 decades+ younger than my folks and I'm doing circles around them.

Looking at it, yeah it looked ********, lol. But that was the thing then, you were supposed to look at the giant blocky graphics and decipher what was what. Oh! That's pitfall harry, that stick with a box and 2 little boxes for feet. Those are the alligators. Yeah! I mean the graphics were barely passable. Nintendo did gangbusters for many reasons but one huge reason was because their "sprites" were far better looking, the NES was just a much better system, capable of so much more. But tbh, the whole video game industry has been set upon a doomed path ever since its creation. Why? Because -obviously- each generation of console, each generation of game design and technique, is going to be an "improvement" on the last. Your rant here is preaching to the choir, fin. The "retro" gamer is one who enjoys playing older games that they played years and years ago. It's not about how games were so much better back then, because kids today, the 6 year olds, have just has much fun kicking their parent's *** in Wii Sports as I did in Combat.

System innovation is largely failing, as the trends in system innovation are falling closer and closer to the lines that PC's follow. The games follow the system, so not to beat a dead horse, but games of today vs even 10 years ago are largely the same, or at least set out to achieve the same goals depending on genre.

Just take the path of Nintendo. (for now we'll say that Sega took a back seat pretty much the whole time to Nintendo, always competing, never setting the stage.)

NES - huge innovations over atari, et al. D-pad was invented. 8-bit graphics, true sprite handling, music done through sound trackers like s3m, mod, midi, etc.

SNES - minor innovations , but same basic architecture.

*PSX - huge innovation that Nintendo originally contracted Sony to help produce, but dropped and Sony ran with it

N64 - again, minor innovations, still using carts, new controller scheme

GC - finally a true innovation (but is it?) with the disc system, another controller re-design (much better imho) and the same expected minor innovations of improved graphics/sound/processing.

Wii - Another big turn, larger discs, but most important, the new wii-mote controller, "channels," and online interaction.

* Sony's 3 home systems, PSX, PS2 and PS3 all disc systems, all standard d-pad/shoulder-key controllers, all basic improvements from one to the next in sound, graphics and processing speed. Basically the exact opposite of innovative, they're literally PC-clones, you may as well be PC gaming.

* Microsoft's 2 systems, XBox and Xbox360, both disc systems, slightly variant on the controller, but largely based on the similar, Nintendo-invented D-pad/should-key design.

* both sony/microsoft's latest systems excel at their online gaming experience, something that Nintendo really only included in their Wii to remain "on par" with the competition, and it may be said that this is in itself a major innovation (mastering online play is indeed a challenge for developers, even website-based online games can suck hard.)

So the point of all that? If you look closely you'll see that major innovations in console design is actually quite rare between generations. You also see that Nintendo is largely if not solely responsible for ALL of the major innovations in video gaming. Ever.

Now taking this, and considering the games on these consoles, what do we have? We have super-processing mini-computers trying to make pitfall for 6 year olds. I mean lets face it, a video game is geared toward a specific audience. With terabytes at disposal what CAN you do with all that? What's a kid gonna do? Before it was easy. Up on the joystick and your paddle moved up, down was down, fire and the ball would stick to the paddle. Now? Well shoot, now there's online chat-while-you-play, run-n-gun in "real" virtual environments that really do look real to the naked eye (from about 20 feet away). HD, I mean seriously, you didn't notice this trend years ago? The gap? The problem with FILLING that gap?

Imagine you're a first year programmer. Your first assignment is to make a chess game. You do so, with crappy 2-d graphics, but the chess engine is solid. You feel REALLY proud because you had to program this on a 20 year old computer.

Now 5 years later, you're an expert at the programming language. You're given a brand spankin' new state-of-the-art computer. "make a chess game." you know how to already, but instead of making a crappy 2-d version, you bust out all the stops, 3D, voice-overs for a chess tutorial, fancy boards. What do you have? You have Chessmaster2000 for the Apple ][e vs Chessmaster3000 for the Apple ][vx

Was it really "better?" Sure if by better you mean 3-d is better than 2-d. That hearing some dude talk instead of having to read the tutor info is "cooler." But the chess engine, well it was identical. So in that respect, no it wasn't better, it was the same.

Compare this scenario to today's games vs the games before. Compare, I dunno, Brawl! Take Brawl vs SF2. Which is "better?" Graphically? Brawl of course, looks sharp in comparison. Better sound handling, more sprites moving at once, on and on, yeah it's "better."

Which is a better fighting game? Well if its balance that you consider to be the deciding factor, SF2 wins!

Anyway, this post has gone longer than I originally intended, but I hope my point is clear. "retro" games and gamers are not about dismissing the improvements that, over time, technology's leaps afford us. It is about pure entertainment, plain and simple. I may not be able to beat MM. I may play CoD for 5 minutes and think "yeah, F this, this is gay." But I'll always be able to throw mega man in, and beat that ***** into submission without even one continue, and that's fun.

 

[Black Mantis]

Which is a better fighting game? Well if its balance that you consider to be the deciding factor, SF2 wins!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSBjqSV40Uw&feature=related

 

[X1-12]

new games are too easy



oh wait demon's souls is arriving in the post tomorrow...

 

[REL38]

Sorry, doesn't change anything. They're video games, not movies. If the gameplay isn't good, it doesn't matter how good the plot is, you're either not going to want to keep playing to find out the rest of it or you'll torture yourself to get there.

I gotta agree with this

I remember playing through MGS2 for the first time and the gameplay was so frustrating
Despite the great story, I felt like I had to force myself to endure the wonky controls for over a month of on and off playing

 

[Firus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSBjqSV40Uw&feature=related

Okay...your point is...?

Would you like me to go ahead and post all of the glitches that Brawl has?

For that matter, are you actually trying to argue that because of that glitch, SF2 is less balanced than Brawl? Brawl is already pretty imbalanced, forget all of its glitches.

You really ought to start actually explaining your posts instead of just posting a picture/YouTube video and acting as if you've proven a point.

 

[finalark]

I remember playing through MGS2 for the first time and the gameplay was so frustrating
Despite the great story, I felt like I had to force myself to endure the wonky controls for over a month of on and off playing

For me it was the opposite. I loved MGS2's game play but hated the story.

Mostly Raiden and how his relationship with Rose pretty much took over the plot about the Patriots and whatnot.

You also see that Nintendo is largely if not solely responsible for ALL of the major innovations in video gaming. Ever.

First 16-bit Graphics:

First analog stick:

First 128-bit graphics and Online Play:

Anyway, this post has gone longer than I originally intended, but I hope my point is clear. "retro" games and gamers are not about dismissing the improvements that, over time, technology's leaps afford us. It is about pure entertainment, plain and simple. I may not be able to beat MM. I may play CoD for 5 minutes and think "yeah, F this, this is gay." But I'll always be able to throw mega man in, and beat that ***** into submission without even one continue, and that's fun.

I suppose it really depends of what you're looking for in a game. While old games tend to be more about entertainment new games (the ones that don't suck) tend to be about pushing the limit with what you can do. Not just in terms of graphics, but in terms of atmosphere, story and game play.

 

[Black Mantis]

Okay...your point is...?

Would you like me to go ahead and post all of the glitches that Brawl has?

For that matter, are you actually trying to argue that because of that glitch, SF2 is less balanced than Brawl? Brawl is already pretty imbalanced, forget all of its glitches.

You really ought to start actually explaining your posts instead of just posting a picture/YouTube video and acting as if you've proven a point.

The point is that there is no such thing as a perfectly balanced game. Players are always going to find methods in which some characters are going to be better than others.

 

[GunmasterLombardi]

It's the fact that games back then brung a lot more to the table.

I'm doing a 100% run with Spyro the Dragon is still amazing. It has a special charm and innovation that even Mario has yet to achieve. I've realised that the game is rather short and the camera isn't perfect, but if you gain the 20th century mindset and notice the detailed visuals, still outstanding soundtrack, and platforming/combat elements, you see it as one of the best 3D platformers ever. It even has modern day things like saving/loading progress.

 

[Supreme Dirt]

For me it was the opposite. I loved MGS2's game play but hated the story.

Mostly Raiden and how his relationship with Rose pretty much took over the plot about the Patriots and whatnot.



First 16-bit Graphics:

First analog stick:

First 128-bit graphics and Online Play:

I suppose it really depends of what you're looking for in a game. While old games tend to be more about entertainment new games (the ones that don't suck) tend to be about pushing the limit with what you can do. Not just in terms of graphics, but in terms of atmosphere, story and game play.

First Space Shuttle

Genesis failed because... Remind me again why the SNES beat out the Genesis?

Saturn failed because of the Saturnday fiasco and the whole "we have not 1, not 2, but 8 processors!"

Dreamcast failed because it was before its time. And lack of third party support.

Honestly, there are some games who have stood the test of time, such as Super Mario Bros., Super Smash Bros., Perfect Dark 64, Zelda: Link's Awakening, and many others. But go back and try to get through Final Fantasy on the NES. I had to buy a Wonderswan Colour and the game in order to play it again.

Not hating on newer games. Melee is one of my favourite fighting games of all time. Brawl is one of my favourite multiplayer platformers. Super Mario Galaxy is freaking amazing. Once I get a PS3, I'll catch up on all kinds of games I've missed.

People need more of a balance. There are plenty of good games, both old and new.

 

[Firus]

The point is that there is no such thing as a perfectly balanced game. Players are always going to find methods in which some characters are going to be better than others.

Yes, and I completely agree.

But Sucumbio wasn't saying SF2 is perfectly balanced, he was just saying it's MORE balanced than Brawl. I thought that was pretty obvious.

 

[UberMario]

Genesis failed because... Remind me again why the SNES beat out the Genesis?

Mostly Mario, better sound quality, (Look up a game like Toy Story on Youtube, type Genesis for one search and SNES in the other and see how much clearer the sound bytes the latter is), Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, Turbografx-16 doing BETTER than it in Japan . . . . .

Saturn failed because of the Saturnday fiasco and the whole "we have not 1, not 2, but 8 processors!"

That, and it was stuck in between a rock and a hard place. Though it came out before the Playstation and Nintendo 64, it was $100 more expensive, and had less support. Playstation blew the other consoles out of the water with it's 3rd party library, while the Nintendo 64 was the "latest" system, had 64-bits in comparison with Sega and Sony's 32-bit systems, allowing for better models. (However the use of cartridges limited the texture quality of N64 games, which is why they don't necessary always look better)

Dreamcast failed because it was before its time. And lack of third party support.

Pretty much this, it came out so early that when the PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube came on the markets Dreamcast was already three years old, hurting the "new factor".

*independent from above*

Not to make this a SF vs. SBB discussion, but I feel that the tier list is more pronounced in Street Fighter games because there are less options available in order to fight with.

 

[firelord767]

The SEGA consoles didn't really fail, considering that they, for the most part, were good. That's all that matters, meaning marketing does not. The Genesis was a great platform with some pretty awesome games, like Sonic 2 and stuff. The SEGA Game Gear had a very interesting library, with their versoin of Sonic 2 being pathetic but Triple Trouble and Tails Adventures are still brilliant compared to Sonic CD. Game Gear stuff is just what i know from Sonic Gems Collection. The Saturn was just a bad system IMO, but i'm not one to talk, considering i know snot about it. The DreamCast failed? Are we talking about the same Dreamcast here? Sonic Adventure 2 is the best game the universe has ever seen, period. Fans still cry for Shenmue 3 to this day. The Dreamcast pwned, even if it didn't sell. Dreamcast sales is just a sign as to how many people missed one of the best video game consoles ever. That includes me.

Can we really compare Street Fighter and Brawl? Did Street Fighter even have different stages to battle on that actually effect the battle? Did Brawl have an HP bar sprawled across the top of the screen? The answers are both no, really. That means that we can't argue about them. Something more acurate would be SB64 vs. SSBB, or the first Street Fighter to the most recent.

 

[finalark]

Just because Sega failed didn't mean that they didn't do stuff first.

Honestly, there are some games who have stood the test of time, Perfect Dark 64

Test of time? Perfect Dark did not age well.

Like, at all.

 

[Hyper_Ridley]

Heheh, for me it's the opposite, Perfect Dark is one of the few FPS games I still enjoy today as much as I did when it was new. Tons of weapons with different functions, lots of multiplayer options down to renaming the team colors, counter-op mode...

The only thing I don't really think has aged well are the graphics, which is a given.

 

[Ganonsburg]

What was this about retro gaming?

 

[SkylerOcon]

FFX

Any Square-Enix game not called The World Ends With You having a good story.

I love that joke.

@OP: I agree. It seems that while we have some retro games on the really, really good end of the spectrum (Mega Man 2, Super Metroid, Super Mario Bros.), we have others on the bad end (the original Zelda). Just like the first movies, the first games have not aged well at all.

 

[Firus]

The SEGA consoles didn't really fail, considering that they, for the most part, were good. That's all that matters, meaning marketing does not.

Yeah...whether they did well in sales or not, all of Sega's systems are pretty good.

The Genesis was a great platform with some pretty awesome games, like Sonic 2 and stuff.

The Genesis is a great console. The SNES might've sold out the Genesis in the end, but the 16-Bit console war was one of the closest -- the Genesis did not fail by any stretch of the imagination, it gave Nintendo a pretty big run for their money.

The SEGA Game Gear had a very interesting library, with their versoin of Sonic 2 being pathetic but Triple Trouble and Tails Adventures are still brilliant compared to Sonic CD. Game Gear stuff is just what i know from Sonic Gems Collection.

The Game Gear is awesome. Its battery life is subpar at best, especially for requiring 6 AA batteries, but the system itself is great.

Plus, it had this...odd, I guess you could say, commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBLr4wbiR6E

Sega's marketing may not have paid off, but between that and "Genesis does what Nintendon't", Sega's marketing campaigns were quite amusing.

The Saturn was just a bad system IMO, but i'm not one to talk, considering i know snot about it.

The Saturn was a good system, but half of the problem with it lies in that a large portion of its library never made it out of Japan, and half of it was that once it was finally starting to get somewhere, Sega released the Dreamcast and made it moot.

The DreamCast failed? Are we talking about the same Dreamcast here? Sonic Adventure 2 is the best game the universe has ever seen, period. Fans still cry for Shenmue 3 to this day. The Dreamcast pwned, even if it didn't sell. Dreamcast sales is just a sign as to how many people missed one of the best video game consoles ever. That includes me.

The Dreamcast is indeed an amazing console, despite its failure in sales. Sonic Adventure 2 is debatable in its greatness -- I love it, but there are a myriad of people who seem to absolutely loathe it -- but the Dreamcast is great.

Can we really compare Street Fighter and Brawl? Did Street Fighter even have different stages to battle on that actually effect the battle? Did Brawl have an HP bar sprawled across the top of the screen? The answers are both no, really. That means that we can't argue about them. Something more acurate would be SB64 vs. SSBB, or the first Street Fighter to the most recent.

The only comparison that was made was balance as far as fighters go. Sucumbio was really just trying to make a point, not trying to start an entire discussion over how comparable they are. >_>

Any Square-Enix game not called The World Ends With You having a good story.

I love that joke.

^ Truth.

 

[REL38]

For me it was the opposite. I loved MGS2's game play but hated the story.

Mostly Raiden and how his relationship with Rose pretty much took over the plot about the Patriots and whatnot.

My general disdain towards the game (aside from playing as Raiden) is mostly due to how I played the heck outta MGS3 since of last year

I found backtracking through the series was the problem in regards to the controls :/



In regards to the OP, I find that nostalgia can gear anyone into believing older games are better than those of today
Where their judgement is clouded by nostalgia

For instance, a friend of mine loves GoldenEye since he grew up with it
I played it a few months back with him and it sucked

He thought it was great while I thought it was medicore/borderline garbage

 

[omgwtfToph]

Melee is one of my favourite fighting games of all time. Brawl is one of my favourite multiplayer platformers.

HAHAHA i love you

btw yeah some people take the whole retro thing waaay overboard but FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH I'm currently replaying FF6 and I ****ing swear it is the best RPG like ever >:O and my 2nd favorite RPG is probably like Persona 4 so this isn't nostalgia or anything like that

some old games are just, really really good! but so are some new games

that's all there is to it

 

[El Nino]

While old games tend to be more about entertainment new games (the ones that don't suck) tend to be about pushing the limit with what you can do. Not just in terms of graphics, but in terms of atmosphere, story and game play.

That's the thing I'm concerned about. I think we're approaching that limit right now.

Just like the first movies, the first games have not aged well at all.

If you've ever seen a phone app that was based off of Pinball, Pong, Tetris or the Snake Game, then it would seem that the classics have actually reached a point at which they've stopped aging.

According to the great web oracle (wikipedia), Microsoft began in 1975 as a software company. The company that would become Sony began in 1945 as a radio repair shop. Nintendo began in 1889 as a card company.

The difference between new and retro lies in those origins. A game is what happens when you're bored and crumpling up paper and throwing it into a trashcan. Add a point system and trick your brain with the right risk/reward ratio and now you have something that people would want to play. It doesn't matter how well-rendered the trashcan is.

Cards are indifferent to technology. You can play solitaire, chess and poker on the computer. It's the concept that makes a game a game.

The question is, are there any new games out right now that you guys think might last into the future as technology continues to advance? (Besides Starcraft...and no, Farmville doesn't count.)

When the world was a black screen and you could only generate simple batches of pixels, you had a blank canvas to work with. Now it seems that most games must include characters and a story. Whoever is most capable of rendering an alternate reality and giving the player a good experience has made a good game. Not all games follow that format, but that seems to be the new standard.

So I'd argue that new games, with this new standard, are actually more limited than their predecessors.

tl;dr - Nevermind. You kids keep doing what you're gonna do. I'm going to go take my vitamins and take a nap.

 

[Sucumbio]

That's the thing I'm concerned about. I think we're approaching that limit right now.

That was my point as well, really. The games have reached apex, in other words. Ok maybe not total apex, perhaps games can be 100 percent photo realistic, as in using actual footage, and still be fully controllable, but we're so close to that now you may as well say it is that. Game developers have so much power at their fingertips they've become lazy where it counts, concentrating so hard on the look and feel and neglecting the most important thing, content.

And TBF, fin, NEC did in fact "invent" the TG16 before the genesis came out (in japan, anyway), but I just don't count Sega in the big scope of things, mainly cause they've disappeared. And no, they didn't invent the first analog stick, that would be Atari and the 5200 console. Nintendo's was 3 months prior to the Saturn, but upon further reading apparently the n64's stick was technically a digital one, but yeah, I'm biased against Sega, I'll concede to that.

 

[Black Mantis]

Melee is one of my favourite multiplayer games of all time. Brawl is one of my favourite multiplayer platformers.

It had to be done.

Side note I plan on buying the 1st Bioshock real soon so I can see why people say it had an amazing story.

 

[Black Mantis]

Any Square-Enix game not called The World Ends With You having a good story.

I love that joke.

 

[Big-Cat]

Kingdom Hearts 2

That game had a somewhat confusing storyline, but it's still a good game save for the Roxas portion.

The retro gamers thing is what I notice amongst a good chunk of the "Malstrom gamers" if you've ever heard of the guy, especially when it comes to "purity" of the retro games. Note this is my perception of them which may have some inaccuracies.

My biggest beef with retro games is that they had unnecessary difficulty and that said difficulty was a result of poor programming and design. I'd probably beat the original Metroid without cheat codes if you had save stations (I think the Japanese release did) and had a map. I don't like being lost and having to draw likely inaccurate maps and bombing or hitting everything I see. I like my difficulty to come from strategizing, spacing, timing, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against retro games. They show how far we've come in game design. Not everything's going to be great the first time.

 

[SkylerOcon]

KH2

I give it about a week before Dane Cook steals this one.

Seriously, Kingdom Hearts had a good story when I was in middle school. Now that I've had the time and ability to read and watch things that are actually of quality, I realize that it's only good if you're in middle school.

 

[finalark]

I give it about a week before Dane Cook steals this one.

Seriously, Kingdom Hearts had a good story when I was in middle school. Now that I've had the time and ability to read and watch things that are actually of quality, I realize that it's only good if you're in middle school.

Quoted for truth. I was about sever or eight when the first KH came out and I thought it was awesome at the time. So I was in middle School when KH2 came out and I thought that that too was awesome. Then I grew up and started being told stories with some actual quality in them.

A while back I decided to play though KH1 and 2 for the fun of it and found that the story was laughably poor. And this also pertains to about ~85% of the rest of Square Enix's games.

[COLOR="SandyBrown"
In regards to the OP, I find that nostalgia can gear anyone into believing older games are better than those of today
Where their judgement is clouded by nostalgia

For instance, a friend of mine loves GoldenEye since he grew up with it
I played it a few months back with him and it sucked

He thought it was great while I thought it was medicore/borderline garbage[/COLOR]

Same exact thing, word for word, happened to me roughly a year ago.