posted
I disagree with the thread's original topic, the article at hand. I think the general gist of it is, "old games are better than new games," and I couldn't disagree more with that statement. Yes, games such as Joust still grab my attention on a constant basis, because yes, they're great games, but to say the entire gaming industry of that time was greater than it is now is an uncomfortably generalized statement.
First of all, not as many kids feel the way the article leads you to believe that they do. The world of gamers isn't that cut and dry.
You speak of lack of gameplay, then cite games such as Pac-man (move, eat dots, avoid ghosts, rinse, repeat. Is there a point to this? Is there some salvation in the end, or is Pacman doomed to the eternally haunted maze?) and Space Invaders, the extremely slow, shoot-down-one-at-a-time-because-the-game-can't-handle-two-lasers "classic" that's, to be frank, unbearably painstaking. I have a game on my TI-83 calculator called Phoenix that's better than Space Invaders. Point is, yes, there are some absolutely great classics -- Joust and 1942 -- but there are also some horrendous ones.
"They were innovative," says the article. Yeah, no kiddin' -- they were the only ones of their kind. It's hard not to be innovative when there's nothing else out there. Their gameplay, however, is, in my opinion, highly overrated.
Generally, I have to agree with Noemon:
quote: I think that the gaming industry is cranking out classics at about the same pace it has since the beginning.
Yeah, even with all of our bells and whistles, we've still got bad games. Ecco the Dolphin and State of Emergency, for example: Completely wasted potential. Meanwhile, we have our gems, just like the old days did. Super Smash Brothers Melee. Halo (overrated, I think, but still quite good). Splinter Cell.
This thread seems to have diverged near the end into a "what makes a good game?" tangent, which would make for a much more interesting discussion, I think. twinky's run-down of each genre and how the switch to 3d has affected them is right on the money. I personally believe that graphics aren't nearly as important as gameplay, but, well. Take Metroid Prime. It completely revamped the Metroid series while sticking to the same general Metroid concept (you have to get this suit/weapon/item before you can open this door to get this suit/weapon/item so that you can go back and open this door ...), a change that was in my opinion for the better. I thoroughly enjoyed the FPS aspect of it. (WARNING: Bad Pun Alert) It's a Prime example what today's gaming potential can lead to.
Anyway, my point seems to have gotten muddled: You can't simply say, "games were better back then," any more than you can say "music was better back then," or "clothing was better back then." You could argue that games are better now, if only because we've got better capabilities now than we had in the 80s, but that comes down to a matter of opinion. I personally enjoy Mario 64 much more than I enjoy Mario Brothers 3.
The fact that they're starting to release old games for the game boy and cell phones says something to me: It says that old games are being played when you're waiting for the bus, or sitting in the waiting room at the doctor's. Yeah, they're good, but if I'm at home with time on my hands, Pac-man doesn't stand a chance against Wolfenstein or Metroid Prime.
twinky: On a slightly related note, I enjoy Starcraft far more than I enjoy Warcraft III, with the exception of a few of the rarely-seen well-made custom maps on B.net. I'm curious to hear why you like WCIII so much.
posted
>> Well, I never played Fusion, but I have played Super Metroid so I can compare it to that. The difference is that in Super Metroid I felt like I was exploring the way I chose, but in Metroid Prime it was if my path was preset. I find the clue I'm supposed to find (conveniently marked in another color for me), I do what it tells me to do, and then I'm off to the next room in the sequence. There's a definite right way to do it. << (Tres)
You do know that you can turn the "help" feature off, right? Fusion also has a "help" feature. I think the addition of "help" has nothing to do with the move from 2D to 3D. There's a right way to do everything in Super Metroid, too; the difference is that you have to wander around getting lost for hours on end before you figure out what it is. Prime at least tells you where the next "plot point" will be, if you want it to. It doesn't tell you that you have to go there right away, though. Playing Prime I frequently got distracted by a new door I could open or a new area I could reach while I was on my way to somewhere else and would just go off exploring. I found it much easier to differentiate between rooms and areas in Prime than in Fusion or Metroid on the Game Boy or Super Metroid because the third dimension means that rooms don't have to be single-texture rectangles. It's much harder to get lost in Prime.
>> Prime also has the problem that it's just darn confusing sometimes, with all the graphics, and with the possibility that things are behind you, above you, or beside you without you knowing it. <<
Again, I don't find it that way at all. In the real world, if things are behind you you can't see them. If they're above you you can't see them. Being put inside Samus' suit takes the Metroid games from unbearable to amazing for me. And I definitely prefer having more options...
>> (A better example is the recent Zelda games. In the old ones you had a limited number of things to do [you could burn, blow up, or whistle - that's about it.] But in the more recent ones, as the world became more complex, they basically had to tell you what to do, because there were so many things to try that you couldn't possibly do them all [or if you had to it took forever] - and many of the things you might think of trying weren't animated, so they just couldn't be allowed.) <<
You know, I found what I could stand to play of LttP to be every bit as linear as Wind Waker. But then, some of my favourite games are completely linear -- Planescape: Torment is a prime example. System Shock 2, another great game (though one that was too scary for me to play for too long), is also completely linear.
In other words, linearity in games is not a crime.
In Wind Waker, they tell you what to do next to advance the story. Just like in Prime if you leave help on. They don't tell you about the million other things you can do in the world if you see fit, that's left to your own discretion. I don't really see a problem there.
>> But in some games it becomes a problem because it muddles the information you are getting. For instance, I've played a couple of games where you could attack only things adjacent to you, but the 3-D graphics made it near impossible to tell the difference between adjacent and a short distance apart. In others, stuff will be hidden behind some 3-D object, or the graphics will be so detailed that you can't easily make out the background from key units and game elements. << (Tres)
I have exactly the opposite problem. I find the hordes of stacking units in StarCraft incredibly annoying and thought that was a step back from even WarCraft II. Thankfully they fixed it in WarCraft III -- but then, they fixed a lot of things in WarCraft III, which I'll get to in a minute.
You'll have to give me examples, because I really find 3D graphics much more clear in terms of conveying information about the battlefield than 2D graphics. For turn-based RTS games it's not such a big deal, though.
>> I haven't seen any where the 3-D graphics actually provide more useful info than a 2-D system would - although 3-D does look better. << (Tres)
Then you've evidently never played Myth, a game which would have been impossible without 3D. When you aren't restricted by the game in terms of how you have to look at the world -- i.e., you're given full control of the camera -- it's much easier for me to grasp how things fit together on the battlefield.
Again, you'll have to give me specific examples rather than just using words like "often" if you want to get me to understand where you're coming from. If I can't picture it I won't be able to understand your view.
>> If I want realistic, I'll go outside into the real world. << (Frisco)
There's a difference between good graphics and realistic graphics. With the power of current graphical hardware, fantastical worlds can be made immersive and "realistic" while differing starkly from the real world you see outside. You can only do this if the graphics are good. Bad graphics just don't draw you in to the game world. Graphics are important.
>> On a slightly related note, I enjoy Starcraft far more than I enjoy Warcraft III, with the exception of a few of the rarely-seen well-made custom maps on B.net. I'm curious to hear why you like WCIII so much. <<
There have been a couple of threads that touched on this, and I know that some people here feel the opposite of how I feel just as strongly as I. However, here's why I love War3 and why I don't miss SC at all (note that I'm comparing SC+BW to War3+TFT):
I prefer the WarCraft universe. That's a personal thing. I've been waiting for War3 since War2 came out; SC was just a nice detour on the way.
Low unit cap. The high unit cap (200) in SC combined with the low unit grouping size (12) made armies very difficult to manage as you approached your food limit (particularly as the Zerg), particularly given the 2D isometric view. Units disappear behind other units or mill around and are just generally hard to select and command. Basically, I much prefer small armies where I'm able to control each of my units.
Upkeep. The notion that you can support a massive army without paying an economic penalty just makes no sense. Upkeep is simple, but adds another level of depth to planning economics in the game. Also, it helps keep armies smaller.
Balance. SC was somewhat prone to rock-paper-scissors (or in this case, Terrans-Protoss-Zerg); this was obviously mitigated by playing on larger maps and with more than two players, but it still bothered me on occasion. War3's four races don't have this problem as much, though it's not something that can ever be totally escaped in an RTS where the races aren't identical.
Heroes. They make battles much more interesting. 'nuff said.
The Scroll of Town Portal. One of many things in War3 that help to finally rid us of players who turtle. The TP was more or less required once upkeep was implemented, too, since leaving units at home is wasteful when upkeep is involved. It puts the focus of the game much more on exploration and combat rather than town management.
Simpler tech tree. Keeps bases smaller and less cluttered, allowing for more interesting battles in bases and removing siege units from their position as near-prerequisites to victory.
posted
The main reason I defended the article was because I don't think it's saying that older games are better. I think it's trying to point out that the "fun" in older games is based on the same principles as the "fun" in modern games, and better graphics and better tech doesn't make the newer games automatically into better experiences than the older ones. But it lists just as many modern classics as it does ancient classics — Deus Ex, GTA, etc.
However, a lot of people ARE in the habit of pointing out the problems in modern games while glorifying older ones, so it is definitely worth pointing out that both eras have their classics and their duds.
It's also worth pointing out that an older classic (Joust) and a new classic (Vice City) are equivalent only when you consider them in their own context. Back when the competiton was E.T. and Pitfall, Joust was amazing, and was worth hours of your time — hours that I willingly spent as a seven-year-old kid. But if its direct competition were ever Vice City, Joust would die a quick and painful death. The industry has definitely moved forward and built on the shoulders of the classics to great even better, more immersive experiences. But the efforts and skills of the developers in either era deserve the same kudos and admiration.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if its direct competition were ever Vice City, Joust would die a quick and painful death.
Well, I've come across several occassions where I had to choose between an old classic (ones I'd never even played before) and a newer "favorite," and the classics have consistently been the better choice for me. Direct, head-to-head, the classics usually win. I've had Gamecube for a while now, but I haven't been able to get into any of the games, instead choosing to play some old NES games my friend just gave me.
Perhaps I'm just looking for something different than twinky in my games (all the fun in Metroid is in the getting lost!) But game makers should be producing at least SOME titles that cater to those of us who'd prefer simpler games more focused on fun and gameplay than graphics or complexity. Something as basic as InkLink surpasses most of the stuff sold at high prices in the gaming stores these days, in my view.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Warcraft III illustrates to me one way in which games really have progressed, namely the amount of memory they have at their disposal. In terms of the graphics needed for the game to work, they really could have done it on the NES, since it is still pretty much 2-d when it comes to gameplay. But one of the attrations of that game, to me, is that they have such a variety of stuff, which they couldn't have managed during the NES era.
I do find myself agreeing with that article in some ways. Some old games had types of play that they just don't try any more. One I think of is Bubble Bobble. It is a totally unique experience. It doesn't have much of a story of anything, but it is still great fun.
On the other hand, there are a lot of games that they make right now that they couldn't have back then. I know I liked Half Life more than any side scrolling shooter that I have played (Even Contra, but I don't own Super Metroid, so Tresopax doesn't have to kill me). The extra dimension made for a lot more ways doing things, rather than just shooting as fast as possible. So I guess I'm kind of nuetral on this.
P.S. Geoff: What games have you designed? Have any been released yet?
Posts: 285 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly there are some true classics that are incredibly fun even today--I could spend a long time playing Pac-Man, Space Invaders, or Asteroids. The fun of these games is really basic--it has to be, because there were no great graphics to help them along. But aside from their classic status, they still wouldn't be able to compete today, at least not without a serious sprucing up. Even Missile Command would probably need a graphics overhaul.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about "Populous: The Beginning". That's one of my favorite all time games. Are they ever going to make a sequel to that?
Posts: 16 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
>> Well, I've come across several occassions where I had to choose between an old classic (ones I'd never even played before) and a newer "favorite," and the classics have consistently been the better choice for me. Direct, head-to-head, the classics usually win. I've had Gamecube for a while now, but I haven't been able to get into any of the games, instead choosing to play some old NES games my friend just gave me.
Perhaps I'm just looking for something different than twinky in my games (all the fun in Metroid is in the getting lost!) <<
You must be looking for something different than me I too have old favourites, but I don't go back to them often. When I do, it isn't for very long (e.g. I play Battletoads on a friend's console about once per year for a couple of hours, which is more than sufficient for me to get my fill of side-scrollers for the year).
I definitely can't stand getting lost in a 2D world where all of the rooms look the same
>> But game makers should be producing at least SOME titles that cater to those of us who'd prefer simpler games more focused on fun and gameplay than graphics or complexity. Something as basic as InkLink surpasses most of the stuff sold at high prices in the gaming stores these days, in my view. <<
This begs a few questions, though.
First, are there enough people like you that such a game would sell?
Second, is there anything in the "simpler" gameplay milieu that hasn't been done by a "classic" already?
Edit:
Populous had a sequel, but only one as far as I know.
posted
There was a new Populus game a couple of years ago. I thought about getting it, but somehow it didn't look as captivating as the first two. Got poor reviews, I think. In any case, I thought that the first one was a great idea that wasn't all that much fun to play, but the second one, with the Greek god brought into the game, was phenomenal. Back in my Amiga days I spent months playing Populus II.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:First, are there enough people like you that such a game would sell?
I'm pretty confident there are, just based on the percentage of the people I know who seem to feel that way.
A better question is whether or not the people who'd like such games would actually buy them, though. The problem is that there's a natural heavy bias in favor of good graphics, and it has a strong impact on their first impression (and therefore what they buy.) Give the average person Mario 64 and Mario 3 and I suspect that after a few moments of play they'll virtually all claim that 64 is the superior game. But make them play each for several days and I'd bet a large percentage switch that opinion, after the novelty wears off.
quote:Second, is there anything in the "simpler" gameplay milieu that hasn't been done by a "classic" already?
Probably not much. But the same goes for more complicated stuff. Almost all the games made today are rehashes of old ideas. Almost all first person shooters are the same game, for instance. It's just a matter of making more effective or less effective manifestations of that game. The same goes for simpler games.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Fusion also has a "help" feature. I think the addition of "help" has nothing to do with the move from 2D to 3D. There's a right way to do everything in Super Metroid, too; the difference is that you have to wander around getting lost for hours on end before you figure out what it is. Prime at least tells you where the next "plot point" will be, if you want it to. It doesn't tell you that you have to go there right away, though. Playing Prime I frequently got distracted by a new door I could open or a new area I could reach while I was on my way to somewhere else and would just go off exploring. I found it much easier to differentiate between rooms and areas in Prime than in Fusion or Metroid on the Game Boy or Super Metroid because the third dimension means that rooms don't have to be single-texture rectangles. It's much harder to get lost in Prime. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I've been waiting for War3 since War2 came out; SC was just a nice detour on the way.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
