Like to read, don't like to play.

Discuss and discover all the great games of yesteryear!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

User avatar
AlleyKat
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Boss Rush

Post by AlleyKat » Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:49 am

flying_delorean81 wrote:
Antiriad2097 wrote: I'd argue that story led modern games have far less lifespan than older games. Generally I'll play them through once then never feel the need to return as I now know the story. With a score/skill/puzzle based game I'm more likely to return as its the gameplay that is the hook, not its wrappings. Sure, pretty graphics are nice, but they're less important than the core game.
I think you've hit the nail on the head mate.
Seconded!
speed/missile/double/laser/option/?

User avatar
Crunchy
Posts: 2123
Joined: Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:43 am
Location: Claymorgue Castle

Post by Crunchy » Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:10 am

AlleyKat wrote: I tend to get annoyed with that nonsense because its what the "games as art" crowd often mistake for artistry. It aint. Pacman, Bubble Bobble or Ikaruga are closer to being "art" than Metal Gear Solid 4, Mass Effect or The Darkness will ever be.
You've got that the wrong way round. Pacman, Bubble Bobble and Ikaruga are soulless games invented purely as a means to take coins from the player. There was no emotional input when they were made and no substantial emotional connection is ever attempted with the player while the games are being played.
Metal Gear Solid 4, Mass Effect and, to a lesser extent, The Darkness all attempt to engage the player emotionally beyond the game mechanic by using story and character and this was a deliberate design choice by the relevant developers. There is far more "art" in modern games than there ever was in the stuff we used to play.

I play games from all eras. If I want a story driven rpg I'm usually playing a modern game. If I'm looking for run and jump platformer I'm usually playing something fairly old. 2D or 3D, it all depends on what I want at the time. There's absolutely no point in comparing old games to modern games because the two are massively different. Not just with regard to the gameplay and graphics but also in approach, content, design and the player's goals. Length doesn't even come into it. The old games are almost universally short with the illusion of length being given by level looping or repeated plays for highscores. Or the retro speciality that is brutally steep difficulty curves and the dull repetition and pattern learning that the player must endure to get over it. Even longer games like the old japanese rpgs were merely extended through tedious level grinding. Since when has a game's length or the amount of time you put into it been the only measure of its worth anyway? Surely the journey to the end and the things you see and do while getting there are just as important? They are to me, and modern games have generally got retro games beaten hands down in that department.

Anybody who only plays one or the other, old or new but never the two, is missing out IMO. Really missing out.

mohicankid
Posts: 4295
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:53 am
Location: in the darkest of dark places!

Post by mohicankid » Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:01 am

i spend more time playing older games than new...simply becouse i feel that i wasn't given enough time to get to know certain consoles before the next one was pushed in my face...and of course i was at the age where i wanted the latest machine...not the dusty six month old one!

i'm now at the age where i don't care about peer pressure....people can take the censored all they want when they see me playing my saturn.....but i feel that the games releassed on the 32bit gen were by far the best!

graphics wern't the greatest....but most have great gameplay! :D
Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water...

User avatar
AlleyKat
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Boss Rush

Post by AlleyKat » Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:04 am

Crunchy wrote:
AlleyKat wrote: I tend to get annoyed with that nonsense because its what the "games as art" crowd often mistake for artistry. It aint. Pacman, Bubble Bobble or Ikaruga are closer to being "art" than Metal Gear Solid 4, Mass Effect or The Darkness will ever be.
You've got that the wrong way round. Pacman, Bubble Bobble and Ikaruga are soulless games invented purely as a means to take coins from the player. There was no emotional input when they were made and no substantial emotional connection is ever attempted with the player while the games are being played.
Metal Gear Solid 4, Mass Effect and, to a lesser extent, The Darkness all attempt to engage the player emotionally beyond the game mechanic by using story and character and this was a deliberate design choice by the relevant developers. There is far more "art" in modern games than there ever was in the stuff we used to play.
They're still commercial ventures though- Metal Gear Solid 4 is in no way a purer act of creation than Pac-Man. Its still designed to empty your wallet, the creators are just less honest about their creations purpose. Ambition and implied "complexity" really doesnt translate as having soul, either. I've always prefered elegant simplicity to showy bombast, myself.

I consider games a craft, rather than an art.

Ikaruga, Bubble Bobble and Pacman connect with the player through the gameplay, not facile attempts at narratives or characterisation.

If you want that kind of depth, youre better off with a book or a film. Kojima may be a great games designer, but as a storyteller he's an overcooked adolescent.

Pacman, for example is extremely effective at provoking panic and a sense of confinement. Maybe it will only make you cry in frustration, but its still engaging your emotions.

Perhaps I've given the wrong impression about where I stand with modern games- I do enjoy them and count Resident Evil 4 and Mario Galaxy, for example, as being amongst the best games I've ever played. But as you rightly say, the experiences differ hugely.

I just happen to prefer old school gaming when it comes down to it, simple as that. I think you made some very good points though, dude, we may just have to agree to disagree is all. :)
speed/missile/double/laser/option/?

User avatar
RetroKingSimon
Posts: 3680
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:21 pm
Location: Ohtori Academy

Post by RetroKingSimon » Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:34 am

Antiriad2097 wrote:I'd argue that story led modern games have far less lifespan than older games. Generally I'll play them through once then never feel the need to return as I now know the story. With a score/skill/puzzle based game I'm more likely to return as its the gameplay that is the hook, not its wrappings. Sure, pretty graphics are nice, but they're less important than the core game.
Absolutely, well said! :)

User avatar
RetroKingSimon
Posts: 3680
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:21 pm
Location: Ohtori Academy

Post by RetroKingSimon » Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:43 am

Crunchy wrote:You've got that the wrong way round. Pacman, Bubble Bobble and Ikaruga are soulless games invented purely as a means to take coins from the player. There was no emotional input when they were made and no substantial emotional connection is ever attempted with the player while the games are being played.
Metal Gear Solid 4, Mass Effect and, to a lesser extent, The Darkness all attempt to engage the player emotionally beyond the game mechanic by using story and character and this was a deliberate design choice by the relevant developers. There is far more "art" in modern games than there ever was in the stuff we used to play.

I play games from all eras. If I want a story driven rpg I'm usually playing a modern game. If I'm looking for run and jump platformer I'm usually playing something fairly old. 2D or 3D, it all depends on what I want at the time. There's absolutely no point in comparing old games to modern games because the two are massively different. Not just with regard to the gameplay and graphics but also in approach, content, design and the player's goals. Length doesn't even come into it. The old games are almost universally short with the illusion of length being given by level looping or repeated plays for highscores. Or the retro speciality that is brutally steep difficulty curves and the dull repetition and pattern learning that the player must endure to get over it. Even longer games like the old japanese rpgs were merely extended through tedious level grinding. Since when has a game's length or the amount of time you put into it been the only measure of its worth anyway? Surely the journey to the end and the things you see and do while getting there are just as important? They are to me, and modern games have generally got retro games beaten hands down in that department.

Anybody who only plays one or the other, old or new but never the two, is missing out IMO. Really missing out.
You talk like someone opposed to retro gaming. :shock: I find it frankly shocking that a retro gaming forum user can call all-time classics such as Pac-Man, Bubble Bobble, and Ikaruga soulless! You don't have to be reduced to tears or be scared out of your skin to have been emotionally affected by games. The retro games you mention, and many many more besides, elicit excitement, happiness, and elation in me when I play them, more often than not. They are emotions I'd much prefer to be provoked when playing games, which is why I almost exclusively play older games, from DC and GameCube right back to Speccy and stuff.

User avatar
hydr0x
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 1:31 pm
Location: Germany

Post by hydr0x » Sun Sep 14, 2008 1:21 pm

AlleyKat wrote:They're still commercial ventures though- Metal Gear Solid 4 is in no way a purer act of creation than Pac-Man. Its still designed to empty your wallet, the creators are just less honest about their creations purpose.
No, what he meant was that Pac-Man was designed to only last a certain time for your money. Arcade games are designed against the player, trying to end his virtual life so he has to spend another coin. The main reason they are still so good is that of course they have to be good enough to get you to actually spend another coin when you die. That doesn't mean the designers didn't want to create a special game, but if you've read a couple of interviews with the old Atari guys and other Arcade developers you can certainly see that they were forced to build their games in the way I just described.

Opposite to this, retail games (not just modern retail games though) don't have to do that and allow the designer to unchain himself from this. (Especially) modern games try to guide you through a special experience. That's also why some of them are so ridiculously easy. They are not meant to be challenging. They want to give you a good relaxing time for 20 hours and that's it.

Having said that, often enough the need to let the player die every now and then led to better games and I'm happy to say that it actually doesn't matter which route the designer had to go, both ways allow to create equally good games and for us gamers it just means greater diversity.

User avatar
David
Posts: 3877
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:05 am

Post by David » Mon Sep 15, 2008 4:11 am

I simply don't have time to play video games any more.

I haven't even had any console turned on in about 2 or 3 months.

yet I am on here every day :?

User avatar
ToxieDogg
Posts: 8356
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:54 am
Location: Vice City, a.k.a. 'Liverpool'

Post by ToxieDogg » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:41 am

AlleyKat wrote:
flying_delorean81 wrote:
Antiriad2097 wrote: I'd argue that story led modern games have far less lifespan than older games. Generally I'll play them through once then never feel the need to return as I now know the story. With a score/skill/puzzle based game I'm more likely to return as its the gameplay that is the hook, not its wrappings. Sure, pretty graphics are nice, but they're less important than the core game.
I think you've hit the nail on the head mate.
Seconded!
Thirded :D
Sig pic temporarily removed...The Magnificent 7 will ride again 8)
Lost Dragon wrote:The 1st rule about Feedback is..

You do not give Feedback!

User avatar
ToxieDogg
Posts: 8356
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 8:54 am
Location: Vice City, a.k.a. 'Liverpool'

Post by ToxieDogg » Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:44 am

AlleyKat wrote:I tend to get annoyed with that nonsense because its what the "games as art" crowd often mistake for artistry. It aint. Pacman, Bubble Bobble or Ikaruga are closer to being "art" than Metal Gear Solid 4, Mass Effect or The Darkness will ever be.
Although of course, games like Dragon's Lair and Space Ace literally are 'art' ;) ;)
Sig pic temporarily removed...The Magnificent 7 will ride again 8)
Lost Dragon wrote:The 1st rule about Feedback is..

You do not give Feedback!

User avatar
C=Style
Posts: 9053
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 4:07 pm
Contact:

Post by C=Style » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:04 am

I also have suffered from this lack of enthusiasm for older titles. It's obvious that as time has moved on so has gaming and therefore to a certain extent gameplay has been bettered in several areas since the 8-Bit days. I also struggle to play long sessions on these computers/consoles as I find many of the games to simplistic and lacking depth, however C64 and Speccy games still have their own unique charm and I enjoy playing short sessions on both machines. Thanks to modern day handheld consoles, I am able to play C64/Speccy on the move or when I'm doing my night shift and it suits these times perfectly.

I have some serious respect for those hardcore retro gamers who play exclusively on the C64/Speccy/Amiga etc as I've found it's the only true way to enjoy the era without comparing/spoiling it by mixing up your gameplay sessions with modern games. It's not for me I'm afraid as I would feel like I was missing out on far too much but appreciate the hardcore gamers that do it and their reasons why.
Image

User avatar
GarryG
Posts: 3249
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 7:33 am
Location: The cold wet bit above England...

Post by GarryG » Mon Sep 15, 2008 7:50 am

Well I play a range of things without making any conscious decision as to whether the game is old or new.
I spent ages playing through Dark Wizard on the Mega CD, I spent a fair amount of time playing through all the Legacy of Kain games, and more recently God of War 2. Luminies has recently had quite a bit of time taken up on it, as has Spore and the revenge of the gator game on the Gameboy (emulated on my PDA)
I realise some ‘normal’ gamers would call all of the above ‘Retro’, or old!
Crunchy wrote: There is far more "art" in modern games than there ever was in the stuff we used to play.
Doesn’t that depend on your definition of ‘Art’?
Certanly in one very real sence The latest GTA has much more ‘Artwork’ content than something like REZ. But does someone spending a month to animate twenty different ways od bashing a car, or crushing a coke can make it a more artistic game?
Is REZ, or something Like Fluid, or even D2/E0 intrinsically more artistic because of the design concept?
Crunchy wrote: There's absolutely no point in comparing old games to modern games because the two are massively different.
I agree, every aspect is so different it makes no sense to do a direct comparison.
Crunchy wrote: The old games are almost universally short with the illusion of length being given by level looping or repeated plays for highscores.
Again, I agree. But you seem to say this like it’s a bad thing! Surely that is one of the very design constructs that give the long lasting playability that keeps people going back to them even today, even in the mainstream through mobile phone gaming?

User avatar
neuromancer
Posts: 1581
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2006 6:04 pm
Location: /dev/null
Contact:

Re: Like to read, don't like to play.

Post by neuromancer » Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:57 am

theMot wrote:I find these days im more into reading and study old games rather than playing them.
For a long time I was exactly the same. I was reading Retro Gamer for a couple of years whilst hardly ever actively playing games on any platform. It's only in the last two years that I've actually re-engaged with gaming - I have slowly built a collection of the classic consoles that I either used to own or wished I could have owned.

Like (I assume) many people I didn't have the luxury of having every system when they were current, it was a choice at every turn: Speccy (not C64, Amstrad, Oric, BBC etc); Megadrive (not SNES, PC Engine etc), Playstation (not Neo Geo CD, Saturn etc) and so forth.

To a large extent I still read more about, and tinker with, the consoles and old hardware more than I play. Generally I'll read about a classic game which piques my interest then track a copy down to enjoy on the original hardware.

I do often find myself with an uneasy feeling that I *ought* to be playing on something because I've gone to all the time and trouble to obtain the necessary hardware and software, rather than really *wanting* to play for the enjoyment.

Other times I can lose an entire evening totally absorbed in gaming, but generally it'll be a game of reasonably recent vintage (Dreamcast, Xbox, Gamecube) or slightly older than this (Saturn). Of the older generations I'll usually have a quick blast on a Megadrive or SNES title, although I'll be playing more Speccy games once I have sorted a decent Xbox emulator out.

User avatar
pforson
Posts: 2735
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:32 am
Location: uk london
Contact:

Post by pforson » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:38 am

I've always spent more time reading about games than playing them.

when I do play I find that I much prefer to play 'old' games on new hardware (ZXDS on DS, ScummVM on PSP). Most 'new' games I play are retro styled. For instance, the last modern game I enjoyed was Hotel Dusk.
WANTED: Amiga CD32 games. PM me. :)

Image

User avatar
AlleyKat
Posts: 1812
Joined: Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:18 am
Location: Boss Rush

Post by AlleyKat » Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:53 am

ToxieDogg wrote:
AlleyKat wrote:I tend to get annoyed with that nonsense because its what the "games as art" crowd often mistake for artistry. It aint. Pacman, Bubble Bobble or Ikaruga are closer to being "art" than Metal Gear Solid 4, Mass Effect or The Darkness will ever be.
Although of course, games like Dragon's Lair and Space Ace literally are 'art' ;) ;)
Ironically enough, given my previous moan, I really rather like those games. AND I really liked Metal Gear Solid*, to boot. :)

I be da king of inconsistancy!

*MGS 2 is where the series jumped the shark in my opinion- those interminable bloody codec messages where Raiden's girlfriend would whine endlessly at him were the nadir of all gaming.
speed/missile/double/laser/option/?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests