surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
I don't think that Jim is saying that there's something wrong with simple gameplay. There are dozens of games that try to be HD versions of Mario, Sonic, and Castelvania. They've almost all failed. Mario Sunshine, any sonic from between 2000 and 2010, any 3D Castlevania. For each of those, there are games that have gotten it right, too. The Mario Galaxy games for example, arguable Sonic Colors and Sonic 4.
The Video Game industry has had 20 years of experience to learn how improve all aspects of the game from graphics to writing to gameplay.
Metroid 1 was basically unplayable, Metroid Zero Mission was a much better game. Many retro games lacked features which made them anything other than frustrating timesinks.
For almost any game you can show me from the NES and Master system days, I can show you a game that has utilized that concept better... except maybe Tetris.
The Video Game industry has had 20 years of experience to learn how improve all aspects of the game from graphics to writing to gameplay.
Metroid 1 was basically unplayable, Metroid Zero Mission was a much better game. Many retro games lacked features which made them anything other than frustrating timesinks.
For almost any game you can show me from the NES and Master system days, I can show you a game that has utilized that concept better... except maybe Tetris.
Great post Jim. I agree on everything except for saying that retro games are shit compared to today's games (to a degree). I would much rather go play Mario 3 than, say Bomberman Act Zero.
Good points Jim, but why do you act as if so called "retro gamers" are all whiny old little shits who are against progress? Of Course there are some who act like that, but not that many to actually give a damn.
I don't consider myself a retro gamer (and I'm a little too young for that), but I do enjoy the occasional old classic (or not so classic).
I didn't get a snes back in the day and I started with the N64. Now I'm trying to track down older games on the snes I had missed back then and I'm having so much fun, no rose-tinted glasses involved! There are so many good new old games I can choose from it's insane. Of Course I'm exited for the future of gaming and I love all of the new games coming out, But old games have something that really appeals to me.
Because of their simplicity there is more room for imagination and I get a sense of wonder from them, that I don't really get from playing current-gen games (with a few exceptions). Some retro games are really ambitious and in spite of the hardware limitations and the lack of polish, those games still deliver a solid experience. Really impressive. certain "retro games" deserve more credit than they get and they shouldn't be dismissed just because they may not hold up to the memories of a cynical man-boy.
I don't consider myself a retro gamer (and I'm a little too young for that), but I do enjoy the occasional old classic (or not so classic).
I didn't get a snes back in the day and I started with the N64. Now I'm trying to track down older games on the snes I had missed back then and I'm having so much fun, no rose-tinted glasses involved! There are so many good new old games I can choose from it's insane. Of Course I'm exited for the future of gaming and I love all of the new games coming out, But old games have something that really appeals to me.
Because of their simplicity there is more room for imagination and I get a sense of wonder from them, that I don't really get from playing current-gen games (with a few exceptions). Some retro games are really ambitious and in spite of the hardware limitations and the lack of polish, those games still deliver a solid experience. Really impressive. certain "retro games" deserve more credit than they get and they shouldn't be dismissed just because they may not hold up to the memories of a cynical man-boy.
I think mattrod288 needs a time out.
Ad hominem attack is occasionally, ironically funny out of an intelligent brain.
Like when Jim says at the end of every show a variation of, "Oh yea? Well fuck off!"
But plain old bullying, that is not anything but sucking. Don't suck is the eula of the site.
Ad hominem attack is occasionally, ironically funny out of an intelligent brain.
Like when Jim says at the end of every show a variation of, "Oh yea? Well fuck off!"
But plain old bullying, that is not anything but sucking. Don't suck is the eula of the site.
The way games have progressed in the past 20 years, and what we can now do with this interactive medium is astounding. I think the problem is people panning one side or the other based off of trivial things, such as nostalgia or graphics.
I know plenty of retro gamers who refuse to play anything modern, their reasoning being the same as Jim states it, over commercialization, lack of innovation, and too much of the same thing (looking at you FPS). Yet they will play games 2 decades old, games that haven't been innovated for 20 years and haven't changed since their day of release.
The other side of the coin is the modern game player who avoids anything retro because it's too simplistic, has terrible graphics or is childish. Yet they have bought and played every Call of Duty game.
Games have a great legacy, games like Super Mario Bros 3, Super Mario World, Super Metroid, Sonic the Hedgehog, Zelda: A Link to the Past. Games like these are the ones that keep us coming back for years, a near perfect crossbreed of gameplay and design that created some of the greatest games in our short history. Turning away from the legacy is a crime to all games and gamers in the future. However, only viewing the good games of our past leaves us forgetting games like Zelda 2 and ET.
Modern games have the ability to look back at all these classic games, and see what they did right and what they did wrong, and learn from them to make new, better games. Super Mario Galaxy felt like Super Mario Bros 3, but in 3d, and that's a good thing.
The gaming industry is becoming a hulking behemoth with something for everyone, and every day more games are released, whether you want a sweeping story, to have your pants scared off you, or if you just want to shoot up some badguys, or make some points in a simple arcade game. Saying any one era of gaming is better or worse isn't the way to go. We all have fond memories from when we were kids, and how those games made us feel. For some games it was just because they were the only options. Others truly were great, and are what give us those nostalgic rose tented glasses to look back on our childhoods with. But with all the potential that is now at our fingertips, we'd be selling ourselves short saying that games today can't live up to the games of our childhood.
In ways they can't, I'll never be able to be surprised again by Sonic looking at me and tapping his foot, like I was when I was a kid. But you can't go saying that we've reached the highest point of the mountain range, after only reaching the the top of the first peak.
I know plenty of retro gamers who refuse to play anything modern, their reasoning being the same as Jim states it, over commercialization, lack of innovation, and too much of the same thing (looking at you FPS). Yet they will play games 2 decades old, games that haven't been innovated for 20 years and haven't changed since their day of release.
The other side of the coin is the modern game player who avoids anything retro because it's too simplistic, has terrible graphics or is childish. Yet they have bought and played every Call of Duty game.
Games have a great legacy, games like Super Mario Bros 3, Super Mario World, Super Metroid, Sonic the Hedgehog, Zelda: A Link to the Past. Games like these are the ones that keep us coming back for years, a near perfect crossbreed of gameplay and design that created some of the greatest games in our short history. Turning away from the legacy is a crime to all games and gamers in the future. However, only viewing the good games of our past leaves us forgetting games like Zelda 2 and ET.
Modern games have the ability to look back at all these classic games, and see what they did right and what they did wrong, and learn from them to make new, better games. Super Mario Galaxy felt like Super Mario Bros 3, but in 3d, and that's a good thing.
The gaming industry is becoming a hulking behemoth with something for everyone, and every day more games are released, whether you want a sweeping story, to have your pants scared off you, or if you just want to shoot up some badguys, or make some points in a simple arcade game. Saying any one era of gaming is better or worse isn't the way to go. We all have fond memories from when we were kids, and how those games made us feel. For some games it was just because they were the only options. Others truly were great, and are what give us those nostalgic rose tented glasses to look back on our childhoods with. But with all the potential that is now at our fingertips, we'd be selling ourselves short saying that games today can't live up to the games of our childhood.
In ways they can't, I'll never be able to be surprised again by Sonic looking at me and tapping his foot, like I was when I was a kid. But you can't go saying that we've reached the highest point of the mountain range, after only reaching the the top of the first peak.
Uh, guys? He never said all retro games are crap. He just said that many of them hold up worse than others, and denying that games today are worse than back then is a lame argument. And he's right. You ever try playing the original The Legend of Zelda without a guide now? It's almost impossible.
Yes, there are games that hold up fine. But there are also several that didn't, and arguing that "We had it better" is not without more than a few issues. That's all.
Yes, there are games that hold up fine. But there are also several that didn't, and arguing that "We had it better" is not without more than a few issues. That's all.
<3 Agree 100% <3
I think a good portion of us buying those shitty games was Nintendo Power's (pretty much the only game in town, unless you were smart, unlike me, and got Gamepro) grading scale of "Good" to "Excellent". Nintendo apparently never released a bad game according to them... Unless it didn't have that Nintendo Seal of Approval.
Of course, to be completely fair, a lot of those NES games were garbage, but quite a few lasted the ravages of time (find me a better open-world hybrid of RPG/fighing than River City Ransom. No one has done it justice).
Plus, I hated Nintendo-hard. It sucked balls.
I think a good portion of us buying those shitty games was Nintendo Power's (pretty much the only game in town, unless you were smart, unlike me, and got Gamepro) grading scale of "Good" to "Excellent". Nintendo apparently never released a bad game according to them... Unless it didn't have that Nintendo Seal of Approval.
Of course, to be completely fair, a lot of those NES games were garbage, but quite a few lasted the ravages of time (find me a better open-world hybrid of RPG/fighing than River City Ransom. No one has done it justice).
Plus, I hated Nintendo-hard. It sucked balls.
Both sides of this arguement: "Stop liking what I don't like!"
That being said, I think that that this generation will have a much harder time than past generations in creating something that will be considered a classic, simply because of the industry's mindset.
As you say, Jim, it's always been about money, but I think what's marketable now isn't going to be held up as trend setting, fresh, or even enjoyable by future generations.
These days, big publishers make disposable games that we are meant to enjoy for a while, then move onto what we're told is the next big thing.
That being said, I think that that this generation will have a much harder time than past generations in creating something that will be considered a classic, simply because of the industry's mindset.
As you say, Jim, it's always been about money, but I think what's marketable now isn't going to be held up as trend setting, fresh, or even enjoyable by future generations.
These days, big publishers make disposable games that we are meant to enjoy for a while, then move onto what we're told is the next big thing.
The content and variety argument is totally sound. The quality argument is pretty sound too but less so.
In the end, 99% of the games from 20+ years ago are unplayable to me now. The retro fanfare is about financially exploiting the masses' overblown sense of actual game quality though.
In the end, 99% of the games from 20+ years ago are unplayable to me now. The retro fanfare is about financially exploiting the masses' overblown sense of actual game quality though.
Jim, I'm waiting on the day when I finally disagree with you but all you keep doing is keeping me in agreeing with you and wanting to buy you a beer. Another great vid, you hit it on the head.
I can't play most (not all) of the games we grew up now without saying "screw it" and walking away just because I can see all the flaws and bugs where things had to be pushed in weird ways just to get "more power" out of weak hardware. Hell, like you said, I can't even watch Masters of the Universe for 5 minutes any more (its on Qubo late at night now) without feeling like I'm bored out of my mind.. As Nostaglic as I can be, I just don't quite wear the goggles I guess.
I can't play most (not all) of the games we grew up now without saying "screw it" and walking away just because I can see all the flaws and bugs where things had to be pushed in weird ways just to get "more power" out of weak hardware. Hell, like you said, I can't even watch Masters of the Universe for 5 minutes any more (its on Qubo late at night now) without feeling like I'm bored out of my mind.. As Nostaglic as I can be, I just don't quite wear the goggles I guess.
The only difference from then and now is the tech (Touch, Motion, DLC). Every console has its overrated games and underrated gems. And I can like whatever I want, as in Mr.Nuts on the Gameboy Color was enjoyable. I played it many years ago and yesterday.
Agreed.
Also,
"Nostalgia is a powerful drug, especially when your getting it from the long-dead brain of your eight-year-old former self."
Your first "your" should be a "you're".
Also,
"Nostalgia is a powerful drug, especially when your getting it from the long-dead brain of your eight-year-old former self."
Your first "your" should be a "you're".
I remember Jurassic Park being the second game I owned (the first was Sonic 1). I thought they were both awesome when I was 8. I only own and enjoy one of them now. No prizes for guessing which one.
I could've agreed with a lot, then you mentioned Zelda. Just no. I'll play the old Zelda's over Twilight Princess.
I avoided (most) of the commercial tripe back in the 90's. I was only allowed 1 or 2 new games a year, and I made damn sure I knew what I was getting before I got it.
The reasons I say gaming was better back in the 90's is because the main focus of those games were in genres I love. More hits and more flavors of pistachio ice cream for me to enjoy.
Nowadays there is a tremendous amount of FPS (Which I still enjoy to an extent)with a huge MP focus and RPG (which live and die based on the story) with huge budgets and nothing much else. Everything with my tastes has been reduced to a niche market.
For me, subjectively, I liked it better when I had more on the menu that I liked.
Damn straight I am gonna think old times were better... because they were!
The reasons I say gaming was better back in the 90's is because the main focus of those games were in genres I love. More hits and more flavors of pistachio ice cream for me to enjoy.
Nowadays there is a tremendous amount of FPS (Which I still enjoy to an extent)with a huge MP focus and RPG (which live and die based on the story) with huge budgets and nothing much else. Everything with my tastes has been reduced to a niche market.
For me, subjectively, I liked it better when I had more on the menu that I liked.
Damn straight I am gonna think old times were better... because they were!
Saying games were better in the 80s is like saying movies were better when they were all just people walking really fast out of a factory.
Also, games that utilised mode 7 graphics looked awesome back in the day. I'm talking about F-Zero and Super Mario Kart with the scaling backgrounds, but I recently bought those on virtual console and was distressed to discover how horrible the controls are. Can't comment on Starwing though 'cause I've never played it.
Jim, the problem here is that hindsight ALWAYS glorifies the good bits and ignores the bad ones, in EVERY MEDIUM.
People that love 70's music think of Led Zeppelin, not all the crappy music churned out during that decade. Likewise, people love retrogames for the classics, which YES, sometimes are better than current itterations (FFVI is a far, far better game than FFXIII).
So while I agree that it's foolish to look back on the retro era as some golden age when games in general were better, I think you're mischaracterizing retrogamers by insinuating that those who love classic games think like that. Most of us just want good games that have stood the test of time to be remembered. And frankly, it would hurt if more modern games actually took inspiration from what worked in the past.
As you've ranted about yourself, sometimes "innovation" takes preference over "fun" in game design, and I much prefer the later.
People that love 70's music think of Led Zeppelin, not all the crappy music churned out during that decade. Likewise, people love retrogames for the classics, which YES, sometimes are better than current itterations (FFVI is a far, far better game than FFXIII).
So while I agree that it's foolish to look back on the retro era as some golden age when games in general were better, I think you're mischaracterizing retrogamers by insinuating that those who love classic games think like that. Most of us just want good games that have stood the test of time to be remembered. And frankly, it would hurt if more modern games actually took inspiration from what worked in the past.
As you've ranted about yourself, sometimes "innovation" takes preference over "fun" in game design, and I much prefer the later.
The only issue I have with this is the idea that older games are inherently worse, and Chrono Trigger/FFVI rapes your older audience theory.
They're more mature than Heavy Rain.
They're more mature than Heavy Rain.
This is just like the argument that modern music is garbage. The only reason we complain about modern gaming is because we're living in the present. We have to see everything instead of just the gold.
If you wait 15 years, you'll look back and only remember the good games, much like we do now with Retro gaming. So, neither one is better.
If you wait 15 years, you'll look back and only remember the good games, much like we do now with Retro gaming. So, neither one is better.
Hey guys, old books aren't as good as new books
Old movies suck compared to new movies
No one likes old TV
This argument especially sucks, because my favorite genre more or less doesn't even exist these days. It's so hard to find a good TBS, when they were abundant in the early to mid nineties.
Old movies suck compared to new movies
No one likes old TV
This argument especially sucks, because my favorite genre more or less doesn't even exist these days. It's so hard to find a good TBS, when they were abundant in the early to mid nineties.
@Cryotek
You can still play retro games and still have warm nostalgic feeling about them. I still have warm fuzzy memories of Goldeneye, and I can still enjoy it today even though I know from a technical perspective, it's pretty antiquated. All Jim is saying is older games aren't better simply because they're older, and the early 90s wasn't the golden age of gaming.
Also, you're "enchanted" bye the best of that era. But another thing Jim was saying was for every Super Mario World to come out then, there were dozens of Bubsys, Zools, Mr. Nutz, etc. and that you've only hand-picked your favorites.
You can still play retro games and still have warm nostalgic feeling about them. I still have warm fuzzy memories of Goldeneye, and I can still enjoy it today even though I know from a technical perspective, it's pretty antiquated. All Jim is saying is older games aren't better simply because they're older, and the early 90s wasn't the golden age of gaming.
Also, you're "enchanted" bye the best of that era. But another thing Jim was saying was for every Super Mario World to come out then, there were dozens of Bubsys, Zools, Mr. Nutz, etc. and that you've only hand-picked your favorites.
Not directly relevant - but if anyone ever needs a guide to lead you to some good retro games, I can recommend no-one higher than Racketboy.
You can find his site at his name.com or easily via google.
You can find his site at his name.com or easily via google.
Wow, twice in a week that I -strongly- disagree with Jim. The tides certainly have turned.
Three points:
1. For the most part, I don't think retrogamers dismiss new games. There are a subset of people who do, but, generally speaking, I think you're setting up a bit of a straw man. Most retrogamers appreciate what's come but also lament what's lost. That's a -very- different position than what you indicate.
2. The idea that retrogames can go "obsolete" because of "graphics" just doesn't make sense. Now, admittedly, Jim doesn't really argue this point explicitly. But, with his concentration on graphics, sound, and how we have it "better than ever" as gamers.. he's implicitly arguing this. Why? Well, what if you're a fan of side-scrolling shoot'em'ups? What if you're a fan of 2d platformers? Basically, if you're a fan of anything in which 2D design is central to gameplay, you're out of your decade.
If you still don't understand what I'm trying to say, let me put it this way: why do people still play normal Risk? There are new strategy games out with more happening and better presentation. Why do people still play with old playing cards? Why is Monopoly still fun? Why do people still play Rugby when Football is available? Basically, what I'm trying to argue here, is that videogames are GAMES. Games don't go obsolete just because different games come out, and 2D games are inherently DIFFERENT than 3D games. Mario 64, for all it's greatness, plays VERY differently than Mario 3 and SMW. There's just no comparison. Getting rid of classic-style games is the equivalent of getting rid of certain genres or certain sports. It literally makes no sense to think of newer games making older ones obsolete when you realize that games are games and 2D games cannot be subsumed by 3D gaming.
3. I'll be the first to admit that, THANKFULLY, this has really started to change over the past couple years. The new Mega Man games, the new Mario, Hard Corps uprising, the 2D Fighting renaissance, the new Donkey Kong, the new Kirby, etc. etc. However, these are largely labeled "retrogames," so it's hard to say where exactly they stand in terms of this argument. Regardless, this is very much a new phenomena driven LARGELY by retrogamers bitching and asking for new old-style games. In the PSX and PS2 era, 2D games were very much frowned upon. In fact, I'd still argue that 2D games are still treated like 2nd class citizens. Outside of Nintendo, they really don't get the resources or marketing that 3D games get, but at least they're starting to get released again. Literally, Sony USA often refused to release games in the US based purely on whether or not they were 2D....
4. Some of your criticisms of classic games are just wrong. The Legend of Zelda 1 AND 2 are both fantastic games, and I've beaten them both fairly recently. Hell, the idea that you'd criticize LoZ after basically blowing 3d Dot Heroes is borderline hilarious. 3D Dot Heroes is about as close to a HD port of LoZ as we're likely to get. In general, the whole Adventure/RPG genre still follows Legend of Zelda's basic design to a T. Find dungeon. Enter dungeon. Find new item. Use new item. Beat dungeon. Repeat. Also, I don't understand your criticism of Zelda's combat system. I think LoZ, as well as many other classic games, have solid combat systems BECAUSE of their simplicity. This doesn't mean they're better than modern combat systems, but they're different, they operate cleanly, and they require a lot of skill. For example, Ninja Gaiden on the NES has one of the cleanest and tightest controls I've ever experienced. It's exhilarating to play that game well because of how it controls. I don't stop every 3 minutes for 5 minutes of button-mashing a la God of War.
What's funny is that, in many modern non-FPS games, you can see elements of a lot of classic genres. We've really started fusing them together in a way. There almost always tend to be strong elements of Adventure/RPGing (a la LoZ), some platforming, some more classic RPG elements, and some fighting. However, funnily enough, the genre that seems to match the modern God of War/Enslaved/Devil May Cry/new Legend of Zelda/Darksiders/etc etc etc combat system most is.. the beat'em'up. A genre commonly considered long dead and buried may actually be at its pinnacle right under our very noses. I mean, move to area, beat up guys, move to area, beat up guys.. what does this sound like to you?
Sorry about that tangent, but, in general, I don't think modern games have made older games obsolete because there's a significant genre mismatch.
Three points:
1. For the most part, I don't think retrogamers dismiss new games. There are a subset of people who do, but, generally speaking, I think you're setting up a bit of a straw man. Most retrogamers appreciate what's come but also lament what's lost. That's a -very- different position than what you indicate.
2. The idea that retrogames can go "obsolete" because of "graphics" just doesn't make sense. Now, admittedly, Jim doesn't really argue this point explicitly. But, with his concentration on graphics, sound, and how we have it "better than ever" as gamers.. he's implicitly arguing this. Why? Well, what if you're a fan of side-scrolling shoot'em'ups? What if you're a fan of 2d platformers? Basically, if you're a fan of anything in which 2D design is central to gameplay, you're out of your decade.
If you still don't understand what I'm trying to say, let me put it this way: why do people still play normal Risk? There are new strategy games out with more happening and better presentation. Why do people still play with old playing cards? Why is Monopoly still fun? Why do people still play Rugby when Football is available? Basically, what I'm trying to argue here, is that videogames are GAMES. Games don't go obsolete just because different games come out, and 2D games are inherently DIFFERENT than 3D games. Mario 64, for all it's greatness, plays VERY differently than Mario 3 and SMW. There's just no comparison. Getting rid of classic-style games is the equivalent of getting rid of certain genres or certain sports. It literally makes no sense to think of newer games making older ones obsolete when you realize that games are games and 2D games cannot be subsumed by 3D gaming.
3. I'll be the first to admit that, THANKFULLY, this has really started to change over the past couple years. The new Mega Man games, the new Mario, Hard Corps uprising, the 2D Fighting renaissance, the new Donkey Kong, the new Kirby, etc. etc. However, these are largely labeled "retrogames," so it's hard to say where exactly they stand in terms of this argument. Regardless, this is very much a new phenomena driven LARGELY by retrogamers bitching and asking for new old-style games. In the PSX and PS2 era, 2D games were very much frowned upon. In fact, I'd still argue that 2D games are still treated like 2nd class citizens. Outside of Nintendo, they really don't get the resources or marketing that 3D games get, but at least they're starting to get released again. Literally, Sony USA often refused to release games in the US based purely on whether or not they were 2D....
4. Some of your criticisms of classic games are just wrong. The Legend of Zelda 1 AND 2 are both fantastic games, and I've beaten them both fairly recently. Hell, the idea that you'd criticize LoZ after basically blowing 3d Dot Heroes is borderline hilarious. 3D Dot Heroes is about as close to a HD port of LoZ as we're likely to get. In general, the whole Adventure/RPG genre still follows Legend of Zelda's basic design to a T. Find dungeon. Enter dungeon. Find new item. Use new item. Beat dungeon. Repeat. Also, I don't understand your criticism of Zelda's combat system. I think LoZ, as well as many other classic games, have solid combat systems BECAUSE of their simplicity. This doesn't mean they're better than modern combat systems, but they're different, they operate cleanly, and they require a lot of skill. For example, Ninja Gaiden on the NES has one of the cleanest and tightest controls I've ever experienced. It's exhilarating to play that game well because of how it controls. I don't stop every 3 minutes for 5 minutes of button-mashing a la God of War.
What's funny is that, in many modern non-FPS games, you can see elements of a lot of classic genres. We've really started fusing them together in a way. There almost always tend to be strong elements of Adventure/RPGing (a la LoZ), some platforming, some more classic RPG elements, and some fighting. However, funnily enough, the genre that seems to match the modern God of War/Enslaved/Devil May Cry/new Legend of Zelda/Darksiders/etc etc etc combat system most is.. the beat'em'up. A genre commonly considered long dead and buried may actually be at its pinnacle right under our very noses. I mean, move to area, beat up guys, move to area, beat up guys.. what does this sound like to you?
Sorry about that tangent, but, in general, I don't think modern games have made older games obsolete because there's a significant genre mismatch.
I think the ratio for good/bad games is about the same, but they were just harder in general back then and we all know Sterling hates things that are hard. Thats why he loves Dynasty Warriors so much.
Jim, I love you to death, but here, you're wrong. I don't think any of us retro-gamers look back fondly on garbage like Jurassic Park for the Genesis (though Jurassic Park for the SNES had its moments... completely different game, but I digress...) There is still a ton of shit games, and there were always shit games. Just watch a bit of Angry Video Game Nerd ( http://www.cinemassacre.com/category/avgn/ ) and you'll see tons of old shit that nobody remembers fondly. most of the Retrogamers get that (hell, go onto the xbox game room forums and you'll see tons of complaints about how they only released garbage games that nobody wanted every week)
There are also tons of great games that have stood the test of time. just about all the big-name Nintendo releases (that were made in-house) are great (even Zelda and its first sequel) but they do cater to a different sensibility than today's games. Games back then didn't hold your hand, a lot of them left you wondering where to go next, and that exploration (as far as zelda goes) was part of the fun. I remember going in to school and trading tips at the playground, "oh, i finally found the 4th level, here's how you do it!" Even before the NES, on the Atari, as awful as much of the atari games were, there were tons of great experiences (berzerk for atari is still one of my favorites, and if you lived through that time, beating my friends at Combat was a great memory, too.)
the same goes for movies: modern releases don't exactly beat out some of the classics. they will still play The Sound of Music every fucking year, even though we have newer movies than that. Old doesn't mean shite, it just means it was made in a different era with different design ethos.
There are also tons of great games that have stood the test of time. just about all the big-name Nintendo releases (that were made in-house) are great (even Zelda and its first sequel) but they do cater to a different sensibility than today's games. Games back then didn't hold your hand, a lot of them left you wondering where to go next, and that exploration (as far as zelda goes) was part of the fun. I remember going in to school and trading tips at the playground, "oh, i finally found the 4th level, here's how you do it!" Even before the NES, on the Atari, as awful as much of the atari games were, there were tons of great experiences (berzerk for atari is still one of my favorites, and if you lived through that time, beating my friends at Combat was a great memory, too.)
the same goes for movies: modern releases don't exactly beat out some of the classics. they will still play The Sound of Music every fucking year, even though we have newer movies than that. Old doesn't mean shite, it just means it was made in a different era with different design ethos.
Has anyone watched the Angry Video Game Nerd? Most games from that era were THAT!!! Sure there were Mario Bros and Castlevania and Mega Man, but so many more were, Milon's Secret Castle, Ghostbusters, and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
I've stopped going back to games I played when I was young. It ruins my memories. But I'm man enough to admit that 90% of what I used to remember as ground breaking is trash today. Expensive trash too.
I think everybody agrees that there are still many great Retro Games, no doubt about it. However, I agree with Jim that some people do have the mindset that Retro, by its very nature, trumps Nowtro. I'm in my twenties now and I grew up playing games. Nevertheless, all of my favorite gaming experiences are from the past two generations. It might just be a matter of taste, but it is unfortunate that some of the holdouts won't ever have those experiences.
Yeah, retro gamers are dumb. But so are the guys who sit and say each successive CoD, Halo, Madden, or insert-super-mature-manly-game-here is the only game that matters.
And I played Zelda 1 like 3 years ago, it was still pretty decent. Of course, I still remember the general direction to go to get to each dungeon...
And I played Zelda 1 like 3 years ago, it was still pretty decent. Of course, I still remember the general direction to go to get to each dungeon...
Honestly, I never got the movie games as a kid. We all got a few stinkers, but I knew they were shitty and I focused on the good stuff.
There really are some retro games that stand up to the test of time, and I know it's not all nostalgia because I still play them. Ninja Gaiden 1-3, Mario 1-3, Zelda 1-2 (I have no idea why you said this wasn't that great. Ironically it was basically redone with 3D Dot Game Heroes), Contra, Mega Man, Shining Force, Final Fantasy, Sonic, Shinobi, Gunstar Heroes, Gradius, Star Force, R-Type, and on and on.
And I knew what the cool cartoons were too. I skipped shit like Doug, Smurfs, and other wastes of my time. I watched Transformers, Robotech, Beast Wars, G.I. Joe, etc.
Obviously there is some truth to what you're saying. People look back at old games with rose-tinted glasses a lot (ironic much? *Cough* FFVII *Cough*). But I think you're going well out of your way to pick only the worst retro games and exaggerate how bad it all was.
And finally, you don't mention any of the reasons why people feel like today's games are lacking. Way too easy, way too focused on casualization, and recreating movies, etc. A lot of those concerns are completely valid. All you have to do is look at the platforming in Enslaved to see how someone with different taste than you can prefer an older game that requires much more player interaction.
There really are some retro games that stand up to the test of time, and I know it's not all nostalgia because I still play them. Ninja Gaiden 1-3, Mario 1-3, Zelda 1-2 (I have no idea why you said this wasn't that great. Ironically it was basically redone with 3D Dot Game Heroes), Contra, Mega Man, Shining Force, Final Fantasy, Sonic, Shinobi, Gunstar Heroes, Gradius, Star Force, R-Type, and on and on.
And I knew what the cool cartoons were too. I skipped shit like Doug, Smurfs, and other wastes of my time. I watched Transformers, Robotech, Beast Wars, G.I. Joe, etc.
Obviously there is some truth to what you're saying. People look back at old games with rose-tinted glasses a lot (ironic much? *Cough* FFVII *Cough*). But I think you're going well out of your way to pick only the worst retro games and exaggerate how bad it all was.
And finally, you don't mention any of the reasons why people feel like today's games are lacking. Way too easy, way too focused on casualization, and recreating movies, etc. A lot of those concerns are completely valid. All you have to do is look at the platforming in Enslaved to see how someone with different taste than you can prefer an older game that requires much more player interaction.
well.. yeah, nothings changed. im not the type to have ever said that the industry was better in the past.. ive actually argued this with people before. but at the same time, with games becoming bigger and the industry growing at a rapid pace.. id say that things have probably been magnified due to the size of the industry. we have so many games thrown at us nowadays, and the accessibility to gaming events is so much greater that i think things could be perceived as much worse.
also, yeah... licensed games were much better in the 16 bit era than now. i dont think its because intentions have gotten any more rotten - but because actual good developers worked on licensed games in that era. some of your examples were for games i didnt even like back then.. you threw out jurassic park for genesis and bart vs whatever.. i didnt like those games as a kid. look at who developed them though.. now you could point at capcoms disney games, their marvel games and licensed beat em ups in arcades like avp, cadillacs and dinosaurs, and the dungeons and dragons games. those werent made by some small no name dev whose entire history is filled with making licensed trash.. they were made by devs that worked on classics like final fight, street fighter, and mega man. also, i hated biker mice for mars when it was on tv, i also never played the super nintendo game until like 2009. guess what.. i absolutely love it. it was just plain fun, and i didnt even like isometric racing games as a kid..
of course, all of this is subjective. but really, i dont think games are that much better now than they were then. you say you have so much more variety and that gaming has aged with us.. so naturally we should like it better. but as they say, you never miss what youve never had. youre comparing classic games to something that didnt even exist. i mean, if it werent for the retro-revival (and what do you think of modern games that play just like retro games?) and psn/xbla/wiiware... i dont think id be all that into games these days. most of the popular games of today just dont interest me all that much.
its just my preference, its not so much a retro or nostalgia issue. i like platformers, action games, and fighting games... i dont care for shooters and sandbox games all that much. those kinds of games get the most attention nowadays, but thankfully the industry has progressed to a point (that was missing in the last 2 generations imo) where new games in the style of previous generations can be created and garner a general amount of success.
i wonder if we'll eventually start to see indie games that are done in the style of original playstation or ps2 games in the coming years. i bet we'll be on something else, and that will naturally be a point of noastalgia for many and probably do well.
anyways, yeah... i somewhat agree and somewhat disagree.
also, yeah... licensed games were much better in the 16 bit era than now. i dont think its because intentions have gotten any more rotten - but because actual good developers worked on licensed games in that era. some of your examples were for games i didnt even like back then.. you threw out jurassic park for genesis and bart vs whatever.. i didnt like those games as a kid. look at who developed them though.. now you could point at capcoms disney games, their marvel games and licensed beat em ups in arcades like avp, cadillacs and dinosaurs, and the dungeons and dragons games. those werent made by some small no name dev whose entire history is filled with making licensed trash.. they were made by devs that worked on classics like final fight, street fighter, and mega man. also, i hated biker mice for mars when it was on tv, i also never played the super nintendo game until like 2009. guess what.. i absolutely love it. it was just plain fun, and i didnt even like isometric racing games as a kid..
of course, all of this is subjective. but really, i dont think games are that much better now than they were then. you say you have so much more variety and that gaming has aged with us.. so naturally we should like it better. but as they say, you never miss what youve never had. youre comparing classic games to something that didnt even exist. i mean, if it werent for the retro-revival (and what do you think of modern games that play just like retro games?) and psn/xbla/wiiware... i dont think id be all that into games these days. most of the popular games of today just dont interest me all that much.
its just my preference, its not so much a retro or nostalgia issue. i like platformers, action games, and fighting games... i dont care for shooters and sandbox games all that much. those kinds of games get the most attention nowadays, but thankfully the industry has progressed to a point (that was missing in the last 2 generations imo) where new games in the style of previous generations can be created and garner a general amount of success.
i wonder if we'll eventually start to see indie games that are done in the style of original playstation or ps2 games in the coming years. i bet we'll be on something else, and that will naturally be a point of noastalgia for many and probably do well.
anyways, yeah... i somewhat agree and somewhat disagree.
B1ackTea: Games are getting shorter? Tall claim considering so many games in the retro era can be beaten in under an hour.
Citizen Kane and Dr Strangelove can't be compared to Avatar? Weird comment. You can't really compare The Blob to The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford either.
Citizen Kane and Dr Strangelove can't be compared to Avatar? Weird comment. You can't really compare The Blob to The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford either.
Many old games that were good then are still good now. They just don't play like the newer games today or have some of the same mechanics and luxuries.
The Original Legend of Zelda and Zelda II hare hard to quantify as bad games.
There are bad games and then there are games that just didn't age well.
Is The Legend of Zelda a bad game? No.
Has The Legend of Zelda aged well? No.
There are lots of games we can say this about.
However, were developers cutting content just to make additional revenue back then? Ir making them only playable in the internet? No and that's the problem this generation of gaming really faces. There's a lot more stuff that might be harder to look back on fondly because we won't be able to have it all. And the industry being so focused on short-term profitability as they were in the old days, they're not even preparing for these issues.
Nintendo always tucked away all thier old games and IPs for a rainy day, but Atlus' original Devil Summoner game for Saturn and PSX? They lost the source code for the English version of that and Atlus Japan isn't going to drop a dime on re-localizing a game that niche into English.
There are bad games and then there are games that just didn't age well.
Is The Legend of Zelda a bad game? No.
Has The Legend of Zelda aged well? No.
There are lots of games we can say this about.
However, were developers cutting content just to make additional revenue back then? Ir making them only playable in the internet? No and that's the problem this generation of gaming really faces. There's a lot more stuff that might be harder to look back on fondly because we won't be able to have it all. And the industry being so focused on short-term profitability as they were in the old days, they're not even preparing for these issues.
Nintendo always tucked away all thier old games and IPs for a rainy day, but Atlus' original Devil Summoner game for Saturn and PSX? They lost the source code for the English version of that and Atlus Japan isn't going to drop a dime on re-localizing a game that niche into English.
You're absolutely right. While I admit that sometimes I still see through those nostalgia-goggles, it's absolutely correct. I had an argument the other day with some miserable guys who claimed hard games don't exist anymore, and that games are dumb these days. I made the point that you made about all of the tie-in games like Cool Spot and McKids back then, and how some games were just hard because they were designed poorly.
They didn't buy it, and they thought Demon's Souls was a top-down shooter. I died a little bit inside.
They didn't buy it, and they thought Demon's Souls was a top-down shooter. I died a little bit inside.
@cryotek
Unfortunately some have gone bad over time (i.e. aged poorly. I mentioned Goldeneye in my last post). The good/bad ratio hasn't really changed per se, but "the good old days" when you look at them now, really weren't as good as we thought after all.
Unfortunately some have gone bad over time (i.e. aged poorly. I mentioned Goldeneye in my last post). The good/bad ratio hasn't really changed per se, but "the good old days" when you look at them now, really weren't as good as we thought after all.
Never been a fan of 'retro' games myself. I like my eye-candy. I'm shallow like that. Viva la Next Gen Gaming!
While I'm at it, I also think videogame sequels are - mostly - a good thing. It's all about iteration and the games industry is almost unique in it's opportunity to improve and expand (creatively and technically) on it's previous offering in a franchise. There are occasional duds, but mostly, all I see is steady progress. Well, I'm not complaining.
While I'm at it, I also think videogame sequels are - mostly - a good thing. It's all about iteration and the games industry is almost unique in it's opportunity to improve and expand (creatively and technically) on it's previous offering in a franchise. There are occasional duds, but mostly, all I see is steady progress. Well, I'm not complaining.
follow
