surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
send message
follow
followers
I can certainly see where you're coming from. I do love some retro games, but as much as I love them I think "Retro Gamers" seem to think their complaints about new games are more important because they love mega man 2 or battle toads.
The way I see it is everyone has different gaming tastes, and that will continue to help the industry move forward, cause more great games to be released in the future.
Also your mentioning of Rob Leifeld just made me throw up in my mouth.
The way I see it is everyone has different gaming tastes, and that will continue to help the industry move forward, cause more great games to be released in the future.
Also your mentioning of Rob Leifeld just made me throw up in my mouth.
i see what your saying aswell but i agree with squirrelyg. they were great for their time but time being time it moves forword. for example - to state sonic the hedgehog 4 sucks because its not 100% retro (which covers almost all s4 hate) is a weak ignorant argument. as time moves on so do we. their are plenty of new games to enjoy
'But you say that because you don't have taste.'
Really, are you discussing taste here? In my mothertongue, there is a proverb about how tastes should not be discussed. You probably wanted to say: you don't have my taste. Well, yeah, would be a boring world if everyone had the same tastes.
'Christ, you sound like an amateur.'
An amateur of what? Compared to whom? Who are you to say that?
'Quick question: Who's the better artist? Bill Watterson or Rob Liefeld?'
Since I don't think you can put numbers on art, comparisons are useless.
'Dead Space had great visuals and art style, but that's a team of Europeans I'll never know.'
So, all those Amercian, british and Japanese teams I will never know, can't be part of a 'community'. Welcome to the internet and globalization.
'These games are successes because they are reflective of a more concentrated notion due to a singular vision, and therefore inhabit a simplicity of gameplay that appeals to a wider audience. '
So, the smaller the team, the better the vision? Mass Effect 2 wants to have a talk with you.
Really, are you discussing taste here? In my mothertongue, there is a proverb about how tastes should not be discussed. You probably wanted to say: you don't have my taste. Well, yeah, would be a boring world if everyone had the same tastes.
'Christ, you sound like an amateur.'
An amateur of what? Compared to whom? Who are you to say that?
'Quick question: Who's the better artist? Bill Watterson or Rob Liefeld?'
Since I don't think you can put numbers on art, comparisons are useless.
'Dead Space had great visuals and art style, but that's a team of Europeans I'll never know.'
So, all those Amercian, british and Japanese teams I will never know, can't be part of a 'community'. Welcome to the internet and globalization.
'These games are successes because they are reflective of a more concentrated notion due to a singular vision, and therefore inhabit a simplicity of gameplay that appeals to a wider audience. '
So, the smaller the team, the better the vision? Mass Effect 2 wants to have a talk with you.
Jim always takes an extreme position on his Jimquistions (which is what makes them fun), but in all reality there is sometimes a superiority about retro gamers that can be annoying. They can sometimes have a tendency to be very derisive about "new" games that is just simply wrong. The people that play Call of Duty today, are ironically the same ones that in a few years may well be tomorrow's "retro" gamers - going on and on about the glory days of when games were good and today's games are shit.
I've actually been around (and a gamer) since the invention of PONG, since the very beginning of video gaming... but I've also been an adult that entire time and don't have the lense of childhood that often seems to color people's perspective. To be honest, it seems that a lot of "great" games of the past, were mostly great because people played them with their siblings or buddies or while sitting on Dad's knee. This does make the game great... but great to that person and others of that generation - not necessarily when compared to today's games.
I'm sorry... but technology DOES make things better. I would much rather have my new HD flatscreen TV than my old black and white TV with bunny ears that had a fuzzy picture. I have wonderful memories of black and white (like gathering around the TV and watching the first man walk on the moon)... but that memory is special because of the event and the people... not the TV (console) or show (game).
... not sure if I'm explaining things right... but I have no problem with retro gamers, enjoy the games - but recognize that today's games are simply tomorrow's retro games. In other words, don't disparage them or those that play them.
I've actually been around (and a gamer) since the invention of PONG, since the very beginning of video gaming... but I've also been an adult that entire time and don't have the lense of childhood that often seems to color people's perspective. To be honest, it seems that a lot of "great" games of the past, were mostly great because people played them with their siblings or buddies or while sitting on Dad's knee. This does make the game great... but great to that person and others of that generation - not necessarily when compared to today's games.
I'm sorry... but technology DOES make things better. I would much rather have my new HD flatscreen TV than my old black and white TV with bunny ears that had a fuzzy picture. I have wonderful memories of black and white (like gathering around the TV and watching the first man walk on the moon)... but that memory is special because of the event and the people... not the TV (console) or show (game).
... not sure if I'm explaining things right... but I have no problem with retro gamers, enjoy the games - but recognize that today's games are simply tomorrow's retro games. In other words, don't disparage them or those that play them.
You should looks at this situation as a teaching moment. That way we can all appreciate the older games and gain some perspective on them while enjoying the current generation of games. The world's big enough that all types of gamers can get together have a good time with what they love. You obviously have a lot of passion for games but lose some of the anger and I think you could have a better discussion.
"Since I don't think you can put numbers on art, comparisons are useless."
Alright, now that the stupidest thing that could be said, has been said, we can move forward feerlessly.
"There's also the matter of community. And by that I mean between player and game maker. Dead Space had great visuals and art style, but that's a team of Europeans I'll never know."
You need to substantiate this point.
As for your overall contention, it seems to me you're getting hung up on Jim's over-sensational title and missing the spirit of his argument. He's not actually arguing that all old games are utter shit, but rather that not all old games are utterly superb. The ratio of good to bad games, originals to sequels etc., was about the same then as it is now.
Alright, now that the stupidest thing that could be said, has been said, we can move forward feerlessly.
"There's also the matter of community. And by that I mean between player and game maker. Dead Space had great visuals and art style, but that's a team of Europeans I'll never know."
You need to substantiate this point.
As for your overall contention, it seems to me you're getting hung up on Jim's over-sensational title and missing the spirit of his argument. He's not actually arguing that all old games are utter shit, but rather that not all old games are utterly superb. The ratio of good to bad games, originals to sequels etc., was about the same then as it is now.
@Byronic Man
Alright, my phrasing there is probably off, but just comparing an artist to another in terms of perceived 'quality' is very odd to me.
Alright, my phrasing there is probably off, but just comparing an artist to another in terms of perceived 'quality' is very odd to me.
I think Jim was just saying retro games are not "untouchable" and he certainly didn't say they all suck. I think he meant it more for the people who only play retro stuff and act like today's situation is so much worse, when in fact, it's pretty much the same.
I do enjoy quite a bit of retro games, but to stance they are beyond reproach is terribly misguided. Also, the idealistic notion that they were all made 'for the love of it' is utterly ridicuous. There is so much archaic (read as: terrible) design in NES (and many SNES/Genesis) and back that retro gamers don't like to own up to. Ignoring the save system issues, the CONSTANT out of nowhere attacks/obstacles that kills your characters were solely added to prolong your gametime by making you start over completely.
Then there are games like Megaman where the enemies attacks can go beyond all walls until they hit you. Games were designed to kill you immediately so you'd be forced to memorize everything to beat the 2-3 hour game. Yes, they are the foundation for the industry, but that doesn't mean their design can't be criticed, nor does it mean that many, many of these games have aged horribly.
Then there are games like Megaman where the enemies attacks can go beyond all walls until they hit you. Games were designed to kill you immediately so you'd be forced to memorize everything to beat the 2-3 hour game. Yes, they are the foundation for the industry, but that doesn't mean their design can't be criticed, nor does it mean that many, many of these games have aged horribly.
I love retro games but I hate when people think today's gaming is dead. If anything we shouldn't go back to retro gaming because then there would be a lot less of us around. To say that we should go back to a time when the vast majority of the public didn't see the reason to even pick up a video game. If anything retro games should be used as a learning tool for the games of today.
One thing that retro games do well is the level of simplicity that a lot of newer games are missing. Games don't have to feature twenty million buttons in order to be fun to enjoy. Peggle is a game that I find has a great balance. It is easy to beat to master is another question.
One thing that retro games do well is the level of simplicity that a lot of newer games are missing. Games don't have to feature twenty million buttons in order to be fun to enjoy. Peggle is a game that I find has a great balance. It is easy to beat to master is another question.
As someone who plays 50% 2D old and new games and 50% AAA commercial titles I think all styles have their good and bad points.
One of my biggest critisms of modern games is that they are aimed at gamers with much less skill then in the past ie ppl who are totally new to the genre.
The worst part been that the tutorial built into the main game. Ive forgotton how many times ive been told how to jump and crouch in an FPS with the difficulty ramping up at a snails pace.
Why should any experienced gamer have to play through hours to easy crap just to get to the good bits.
Back in the day games were tough but the skill level of most gamers were of a higher level due to been used to them. I would take a guess that the main reason Jim sucks at playing games is due to rarly getting past 50% completion due to him been a reviewer and having limits on his gaming time.
One of my biggest critisms of modern games is that they are aimed at gamers with much less skill then in the past ie ppl who are totally new to the genre.
The worst part been that the tutorial built into the main game. Ive forgotton how many times ive been told how to jump and crouch in an FPS with the difficulty ramping up at a snails pace.
Why should any experienced gamer have to play through hours to easy crap just to get to the good bits.
Back in the day games were tough but the skill level of most gamers were of a higher level due to been used to them. I would take a guess that the main reason Jim sucks at playing games is due to rarly getting past 50% completion due to him been a reviewer and having limits on his gaming time.
I'm getting that you're not happy about seeing the games that you love get disrespected, or the idea that the kind of games you enjoy might die out in favor of stuff like Mass Effect 2 and Red Dead Redemption.
That makes sense to me. I couldn't play either Mass Effect 2 or Red Dead for more than a few hours without feeling totally disengaged. If all games were like those two titles, well, I wouldn't be writing about videogamaes anymore, that's for sure. The good news is, we don't have to worry about that. There are nearly as many quality "retro" games coming out today as in the 80's and 90's. No retro fan has a right to complain in a day and age when Retro City Rampage exists for us to enjoy.
But that's all beside the point.
The point is, getting mad at Jim because he has an opinion that differs from yours is silly. Next time, take Jim on for his points, and leave the anger and name calling at the door.
That makes sense to me. I couldn't play either Mass Effect 2 or Red Dead for more than a few hours without feeling totally disengaged. If all games were like those two titles, well, I wouldn't be writing about videogamaes anymore, that's for sure. The good news is, we don't have to worry about that. There are nearly as many quality "retro" games coming out today as in the 80's and 90's. No retro fan has a right to complain in a day and age when Retro City Rampage exists for us to enjoy.
But that's all beside the point.
The point is, getting mad at Jim because he has an opinion that differs from yours is silly. Next time, take Jim on for his points, and leave the anger and name calling at the door.
I'm sorry if I came across as angry. I just hope I don't explode into a tantrum and post...a Ziggy cartoon? I don't know. What's the rebuttal to Marmaduke? The taste comment was also ill-advised on my part. It was reckless and I am in need of a proper internal editor.
To me, it's amateurish for a game blogger/ critic to knock a classic game without "substantiating" the points. Let's settle some connotation here: "amateur" to me is someone who tries, but honestly, could do better (like this blog post being amateur). I don't plan on agreeing with some straw logic (that Zelda is crappy by standards set today) just so someone can validate a greater point. The Jimquisition set me off, true, but I can't say the whole thing incensed me to the point of picking over every sentence. I chose to take umbrage with the use of Zelda as a sacrificial lamb because A) it's a chance to talk about a favorite game, and B) explain why most retro titles should be held in some regard. To paraphrase Rowdy Roddy Piper, "Old school is cool!"
I don't discount anything modern. I just feel that there's a bit of miscommunication in why older titles are still appreciated, and it's not a matter of nostalgia. It is my belief that the lessons learned decades ago are constantly feeding our experiences today. Enjoying retro games is following that evolution back to its point of origin sometimes. By no means play ONLY older games, but acknowledge the influences.
Like I said, even the shittiest retro games can be mined for that one tidbit of gold. I certainly don't go out of my way to have a collection of bargain bin titles, but games like "Magician" stand out because they might fit into an odd genre. Or sometimes it's the introduction of a concept that'll get picked up by another game down the line. For another example, take "Trog" for arcades. This game was a shameless rip off of the pac-man formula, but the power-ups and animations make it fun enough for a few killable hours. It wasn't a classic, but it fed my gaming addiction at a time when everyone else was into POGs and watching Melrose Place. Or worse, Milli Vanilli?
It's because I played games before, that I'm playing games now; and I choose to hold even the most garbage titles on a pedestal for that reason. It's like that with Jim and Sonic. Is it such an absurd notion that some of these games deserve adulation to the point of being placed in a museum exhibit?
http://www.artofvideogames.org/
Technology DOES make games better as a whole, I just don't think it necessarily makes better games. Time and experience improves everything.
As for visual value, I got my notions from Scott Mccloud. Understanding Comics, natch. Apologies to Mr. Liefeld. Even though all of your male's faces look like the just headbutted a bottle of India Ink, you still created Deadpool. Who wears a mask, so there.
and yes, @Sub I do think the games I listed were successes because they were limited to a smaller team's input. They didn't have the resources of whole studios and as such had to be more resourceful. That's not a knock against Gearbox or Visceral, who make great games while still employing hundreds of people. I'm just saying its similar to how games were made before, and those lessons are being applied today for modern creators.
To me, it's amateurish for a game blogger/ critic to knock a classic game without "substantiating" the points. Let's settle some connotation here: "amateur" to me is someone who tries, but honestly, could do better (like this blog post being amateur). I don't plan on agreeing with some straw logic (that Zelda is crappy by standards set today) just so someone can validate a greater point. The Jimquisition set me off, true, but I can't say the whole thing incensed me to the point of picking over every sentence. I chose to take umbrage with the use of Zelda as a sacrificial lamb because A) it's a chance to talk about a favorite game, and B) explain why most retro titles should be held in some regard. To paraphrase Rowdy Roddy Piper, "Old school is cool!"
I don't discount anything modern. I just feel that there's a bit of miscommunication in why older titles are still appreciated, and it's not a matter of nostalgia. It is my belief that the lessons learned decades ago are constantly feeding our experiences today. Enjoying retro games is following that evolution back to its point of origin sometimes. By no means play ONLY older games, but acknowledge the influences.
Like I said, even the shittiest retro games can be mined for that one tidbit of gold. I certainly don't go out of my way to have a collection of bargain bin titles, but games like "Magician" stand out because they might fit into an odd genre. Or sometimes it's the introduction of a concept that'll get picked up by another game down the line. For another example, take "Trog" for arcades. This game was a shameless rip off of the pac-man formula, but the power-ups and animations make it fun enough for a few killable hours. It wasn't a classic, but it fed my gaming addiction at a time when everyone else was into POGs and watching Melrose Place. Or worse, Milli Vanilli?
It's because I played games before, that I'm playing games now; and I choose to hold even the most garbage titles on a pedestal for that reason. It's like that with Jim and Sonic. Is it such an absurd notion that some of these games deserve adulation to the point of being placed in a museum exhibit?
http://www.artofvideogames.org/
Technology DOES make games better as a whole, I just don't think it necessarily makes better games. Time and experience improves everything.
As for visual value, I got my notions from Scott Mccloud. Understanding Comics, natch. Apologies to Mr. Liefeld. Even though all of your male's faces look like the just headbutted a bottle of India Ink, you still created Deadpool. Who wears a mask, so there.
and yes, @Sub I do think the games I listed were successes because they were limited to a smaller team's input. They didn't have the resources of whole studios and as such had to be more resourceful. That's not a knock against Gearbox or Visceral, who make great games while still employing hundreds of people. I'm just saying its similar to how games were made before, and those lessons are being applied today for modern creators.
This blog post totally misses the point of the Jimquisition. Like Elsa said, Jim always pushes it to the extreme, but you can't take that as face value. The actual message Jim had, as I understand it, is that placing retro games at the top simply because they're retro is stupid. Not that retro games are simply stupid, across the board.
This blog post totally misses the point of the Jimquisition. Like Elsa said, Jim always pushes it to the extreme, but you can't take that as face value. The actual message Jim had, as I understand it, is that placing retro games at the top simply because they're retro is stupid. Not that retro games are simply stupid, across the board.
I was going to respond to your points, then discovered you didn't actually have any. You just extrapolated your own meanings from my video and went off on a rambling tour of madness.
