http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31896311
http://tahiriheditor.newsvine.com/_news/2009/07/13/3023311-top-5-reasons-modern-games-beat-retro-ones
One comment expressing how I see it:
QuoteToday's games look and sound better, but I would argue that they don't play any better, feature better stories, or are more fun than older games. Take Punchout for example. The new version on the Wii is basically a rehash of the same tried and true game play introduced in the mid-80's (albeit with a coat of fresh paint and the option for motion controls that add little to the game beyond that of the traditional button-based scheme).
Ooo...another one:
QuoteI prefer the cartoon look of older games over the ultra realistic graphics.
I will always be playing "old" games because video games are being released in mass quantities too fast, & I'll never be able to keep up. :(
I like new games fine, but old games are simply more fun. I've beaten SMB3 like 20 times, but still have tons of fun playing it.
The only thing I agree about is preferring older games to new ones. I have to say Nintendo is really living up to their name. Leave luck to heaven! (begin sarcasm) Sure let's just release the same games over and over again and lets see where it takes us! Great idea! Let's do it with the next system too! Groovy! Wait! Let's make a system that basically is the Gamecube that has a controller that you can shake around so that you get tired after 2 hours of playing or if you are a dumb American throw it into your TV! Sugoi! (end sarcasm) Don't get me wrong I love Nintendo to death but I am really shocked to see all these cheapo multiplayer "party" games and to find that the few decent games that are on Wii are also on Gamecube. But one might say, oh, well they have the virtual console. Well, that is kind of sad, that emulation is the only redeeming feature for a system, when you can just emulate on your PC for free (if you own the game ;D). And Blake Snow, you suck. Never ever write an article about a video game ever again. Just go an burn your journalism degree. Better graphics? Better controls? Multiplayer? More captivating? Better reasons? Hmmm, that one is nowhere to be found. How about great single player for people like me who like to play games alone? Where were you when my mind exploded as a 4 year old when games went from a text, to games that looked like blocks, to games with many more dots that kinda looked like real things? Where were you when the socks of little kids like me where blow off when they saw an adventure like the original Final Fantasy and Castlevania? Or later when I got older and got my pants blow off when I saw the Saga and Suikoden series? Where did the challenge go? And, most of all, where did the fun go? Now that game are becoming somewhat acceptable and "in", mediocre and crap games are raining down like the next great flood. And what is the emphasis on multiplayer? Why would you give a single player game a bad review because it lacked multiplayer? I for one play games to get AWAY from people. If I want to be around people I go out into the real world like to a bar or a concert or something along those lines. There are some games that are fun playing with friends but when your only friends are Simon Belmont and Sonic The Hedgehog it's kind of hard to play 2+ player (unless you are tails :P ). Back in the day, most games (more or less) where good or at least decent and you knew right away if a game sucked. You weren't lulled in by super graphics and lighting or "innovative" designs. I remember the days of spending whole months playing games. Now you can beat most games with in a few days to a week, unless it's an RPG. Sorry for this rant, I hope I didn't go too far off the deep end. 8)
You might want to separate any future rants you might have into paragraphs - more people are likely to read it.
Quote from: nohara3 on July 15, 2009, 06:20:15 pm
(begin sarcasm) Sure let's just release the same games over and over again and lets see where it takes us! Great idea! Let's do it with the next system too! Groovy!
I'm sick of all the same old shit. I was hoping Punch Out!! was going to work more like a sequel, not a remake.
Why don't we ever see Nintendo's characters getting older & advancing? F-Zero GX worked like that, but it was developed by Sega. All we're getting are remakes marketed to new gamers that make old school players so damn bored, & I have NO MOTIVATION to play them anymore.
Quote from: nohara3 on July 15, 2009, 06:20:15 pm
And Blake Snow, you suck. Never ever write an article about a video game ever again. Just go an burn your journalism degree.
The article says there's going to be another one:
But hold those tomatoes -- we know there are two sides to every story. Tune in next week when we name the "Top 5 reasons retro games beat modern ones." Clever, huh?If anyone hasn't noticed, I was listening to Longview :)
Quote from: Jedi QuestMaster on July 15, 2009, 07:27:55 pm
You might want to separate any future rants you might have into paragraphs - more people are likely to read it.
Quote from: nohara3 on July 15, 2009, 06:20:15 pm
(begin sarcasm) Sure let's just release the same games over and over again and lets see where it takes us! Great idea! Let's do it with the next system too! Groovy!
I'm sick of all the same old shit. I was hoping Punch Out!! was going to work more like a sequel, not a remake.
Why don't we ever see Nintendo's characters getting older & advancing? F-Zero GX worked like that, but it was developed by Sega. All we're getting are remakes marketed to new gamers that make old school players so damn bored, & I have NO MOTIVATION to play them anymore.
Quote from: nohara3 on July 15, 2009, 06:20:15 pm
And Blake Snow, you suck. Never ever write an article about a video game ever again. Just go an burn your journalism degree.
The article says there's going to be another one: But hold those tomatoes -- we know there are two sides to every story. Tune in next week when we name the "Top 5 reasons retro games beat modern ones." Clever, huh?
If anyone hasn't noticed, I was listening to Longview :)
Thanks for pointing that out, I'll have to check that out to see if it changes my mind about him.
Probably my biggest gripe with newer games is that they abandoned 2d for 3d without fully realizing the potential of 2d.
A good tiny essay-thing.
I will probably play old games by myself while the new ones are a lot more appealing to most gamers. I have a friend that I always talk about retro games but when it comes to playing a game we pretty much play xbox 360 or ps3.
New games have a better multi-player experience, huh?
I submit that Warlords is the greatest multi-player game that has ever existed and shall always remain so.
The problem with 3D over 2D is that developers have all but stopped making 2D games, which pretty much destroyed certain genres. You can say "at least they still make 2D games for handhelds" but I'd love to see what could be done on a next-gen console. None of the recent Mario or Zelda games (since the N64) that are on consoles play anything like the older titles, and it's a crying shame. I don't mind when a developer branches out w/ their properties (I love me some Sonic Adventure, for instance, and Metroid Prime just plain rocks), but don't just relegate the original gameplay to handhelds, particularly if you're just going to cock it all up anyway! It's pretty sad that the last decent 2D Zelda title was made by Capcom rather than Nintendo.
Beyond that, the new games are all style over substance, flash and noise signifying nothing. It isn't a classics vs new, as the games for the PS2 easily trump those for the PS3, Wii and 360. I'd rather play the first four RE titles over 4 and 5 any day. And what the hell happened to Squaresoft? I mean, Infinite Undiscovery? Last Remnant? Is that the BEST you can do??? I remember when their stand-alone titles were highly anticipated and kick-ass to boot. Heck, I'd play Threads of Fate sooner than I'd play Infinite Undiscovery!
Then you've got developers thinking that console gamers want to play watered-down PC games. And not the GOOD PC games either, just FPS all the time. The sad part is I think I had more fun with Gears of War than just about any other 360 title. You know your console has failed when that's the truth.
But I really think we should just give it time. Seems like every time there's new technology or even just a new system, developers don't know what to do. It's like when 3D was the new thing, all the 3D games sucked, hard. It took awhile for decent titles to get produced that actually benefitted from 3D. And the fact that certain 2D titles sell as hotly as they do (Mega Man 9, anyone?) makes me optimistic for the future. Hopefully developers will see that there's a market out there for all kinds of games, not just fps pc ports and fmv-heavy extravaganzas. We just have to wait and see.
Well, it's looking great actually! Retro Gaming is 'in'.
I would call this age: The rebirth of 2D games.
And games like Contra, Gradius and Wario will always be 2D :D
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31966146/ns/technology_and_science-games/ns/technology_and_science-games
EDIT: Not very good reasons.
Yeah I agree...I didn't like the first reason at all.
What the hell? New games have beter multi? What about contra? Buble boble? A good fighting game? SATURN BOMBERMAN?! I dont understand the world anymore.
QuoteSATURN BOMBERMAN?!
\
THIS IS CORRECT.
Newer consoles are at least better equipped for multiplayer. Four controller ports instead of two and online co-op capabilities come to mind.
The saturn and dreamcast had online capabilities. Most systems have multitaps for more players. Most games nowadays are simply awful. Most good new games are 2d. Tatsunoko vs capcom, arcana heart, sf4. When it comes to newer consoles, the ps2 dominates them all.
The Saturn had online capabilities?? Whoa, didn't know that. Either way, the Dreamcast is considered to be in the same generation with PS2 and Gamecube, so it's not saying much...
Yeah, the Saturn had a BLAZING FAST 28.8kbps modem.
Yea, sory i always forget the dreamcast is with the ps2 and gc they gave up on it so quickly.
I like the Dreamcast.
Quote from: Nightstar699 on August 02, 2009, 10:00:20 pm
What the hell? New games have beter multi? What about contra? Buble boble? A good fighting game? SATURN BOMBERMAN?! I dont understand the world anymore.
All I can say is amen.
I like the last reason - I could throw an NES controller at someone's laptop & not worry on my side (the thought crossed my mind in Iraq when I used a USB NES RetroPort to use my NES gamepad to play Smash Bros. on someone's laptop :P).
I'm scared that these "clumsy old video games" aren't going to be around when I'm 80. These machines can't last forever...
Wonder what Mario's 100th birthday would be like...
Probly like Mickey Mouse's
Here's my rebuttal of every point they attempt to make:
1) They're cheaper - Funny thing is, I can buy the original Super Mario Bros game for a quarter. Try buying Super Mario Galaxy or whatever the next Mario game will be for that price. It's certainly true that at the time many games cost more than they do today, especially considering inflation, but just because something is cheap doesn't mean it's good. I've eaten plenty of $1 frozen pizzas, but I've yet to have a good one.
2) They have better multiplayer features - I think it's hilariously telling that the author of this list talks about multiplayer options involving playing games with people that aren't in the same room as you are. There were plenty of old school games that had multiplayer features, and those features were, in many ways BETTER because the other person had to be sitting there in the same room as you. I think a lot of that is lost now with MMOs and online gaming. Besides that, the author seems to think that party and coop games are some new creation. Finally, I love the bit that opens this about mulitplayer experience playing second fiddle to single player. I think a lot of games today do it the other way around, and fall pretty flat because of it.
3) They have better controls - Having MORE controls doesn't mean they have BETTER controls. Back in the day, you'd get an Intellivision controller with a ton of numbered buttons all over it and wonder who the dumbass was that thought that was a good idea. Now you've got a controller w/ almost the same amount of buttons AND when you push two of them at the same time they have another feature! This isn't a good game design, and it's certainly not better controls. Mario, Sonic, Link... they all controlled just fine and they only needed TWO BUTTONS to do it! The fact that the picture used is of the wiimote pretty much says it all. The one console with the absolute WORST control is being held up as a shining example of good game control. You have to wonder if the author has ever even played a wii game. Or any games. I "can play the way" I "like," huh? What if the way I like doesn't involve flayling my arms around? I also love how this person seems to think that older games of the SNES era had to scrambling for a manual to learn how to control them. No, the ONLY games I've had to crack open the manual to understand have been from the PS2 era on up. Nowadays, games take half their time giving you a tutorial right in the middle of the damn game!
4) They have better graphics - Um, yeah if you like grey and brown and crappy filters. It's like watching a cartoon versus watching cgi. I'm never fooled into thinking i'm watching anything other than a cartoon in either case, but the cartoon doesn't try to trick me, and i'm not usually distracted by the fact that it's a cartoon. Besides that, so many games today look like each other, you can barely tell them apart. Is that MGS 4 or RE 5??? Oh now wait that's GoW 2. Nevermind.
5) They're more captivating - Way to throw in something totally subjective and ill-defined! I've spent way longer playing most retro games then I have playing any of the new titles for the 360 or wii, so I guess I just don't agree with this assessment.
the old games have a special atmosphere that newer games cant replicate
Yeah, develepors need to understand that just because you can make it all 3d and realistic, doesnt make you have to or should. Im 15, so i missed out on the time when video games were good. But im guessing that back in the day, doom or wolfenstein were very special, cause there werent many like it. But today nearly everygame is a firstperson shooter. So its like, why bother.
Good post Mobiusclimber, I think I agree with everything you said. :)
Personally I like to test the hypothesis that newer=better by looking at my own gaming experience.
I have 4 consoles, in order of generation (oldest first):
Famicom
Superfamicom
N64
PS2
If newer really equalled better you would expect me to play the newest system the most, but this doesn't hold up. In order of the amount of time I play them, my list looks like this (most hours played first):
1. Famicom
2. N64
3. PS2
4. SuperFamicom
The Famicom wins hands down. Partially this may be because I have the most games for it (though I have tons of games for each system) but I think its more just that there are a lot of quality, fun arcade-style games for that system.
The PS2 has way better graphics, etc but the gameplay isn't always as good. At the same time I can't say as a strict rule that older=better because some PS2 games are really good.
It seems to cut across game genres. Sports games on newer consoles are as a rule way better than on previous ones. I almost never play baseball games on the older consoles for example because the gameplay and graphics are invariably better on newer consoles (where the designers have worked out some of the bugs in the earlier versions).
For shooting and arcade style games though I think the older systems and especially the Famicom hold up well. Galaga for example is about the simplest game with the simplest graphics around and yet I've spent god knows how many hours playing that one. Best 300 yen I ever spent.
The PS2 was probably the last great console tho. This generation of games has been uniformly boring, at least to me. It might just be that most of the new games are either very North America-centric (as in, most of the RPGs are WRPG as opposed to JRPG, most of the other non-sports games are FPS titles) and I'm just not a big fan of Western-style games. The only console that isn't almost totally like this is the Wii, which suffers because of its gimmicky controller. News flash Nintendo: IT DOESN'T WORK FOR 80% OF GAMES! So yeah, for me, it's mostly just this current generation that I can't get into. Last generation was pretty good, but not my favorite. Genesis/CD x SNES x TG CD is probably my favorite console war, tho I'm also partial to late period PS1/early period PS2 x Dreamcast x Gamecube, tho the GC is the weak link there (same w/ PS1 x Saturn x N64, which is even worse for me since I'm not a huge fan of the Saturn).