Are retro games better value for money?

Discuss and discover all the great games of yesteryear!

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

nwosteve
Posts: 498
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2006 2:15 pm
Location: lowestoft suffolk

Are retro games better value for money?

Post by nwosteve » Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:28 am

It it me or do you get more value for money from retro games?

What i mean is...during then days of the speccy, c64 etc, games seemed to last longer than games do today. You got more for your £10/£15 quid than you do today shelling out for 360/wii games.

Games seemed to last longer. They could be played over and over again. I tend to play new games less than i ever played games years ago.

Is it that the games then were more difficult? Or is it that information on how to finish games is more freely available, with the internet?I dunno.

What do you think?
"You're all going to die." MK3 promo posters

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8712
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Are retro games better value for money?

Post by Dudley » Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:35 am

nwosteve wrote: What i mean is...during then days of the speccy, c64 etc, games seemed to last longer than games do today. You got more for your £10/£15 quid than you do today shelling out for 360/wii games.

Games seemed to last longer. They could be played over and over again. I tend to play new games less than i ever played games years ago.
I tend to disagree. I've certainly played more Burnout Revenge (£18 from the hut) than just about any 8-bit game. And certainly if I go back to most of them now I'm likely to play about 5 mins of most 8-bits at a time, whereas I could lose weeks to Civilisation 4 or GTR2. (And neither of those cost more than £18 anyway)
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

seanmcmanus
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:15 am

Post by seanmcmanus » Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:37 am

I think it's a time and money thing. When you're a kid, you had time to play games to death and limited money so you couldn't just keep buying new ones. Nowadays, you can afford more games and don't have time to play them as much as you used to.

The games development has changed to reflect the market change. In the 80s home computer games were developed for kids, mostly. Nowadays, they're developed for time-poor adults, hence the start of episodic gaming.

User avatar
FatTrucker
Posts: 4724
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: Essex

Post by FatTrucker » Tue Mar 06, 2007 8:50 am

Value is a relative and personal thing so its really impossible to quantify in generic terms.

Overall the production values in todays games are far beyond the games we played as kids, but many games today are designed to have a specific shelf life, to keep people buying new ones, and so tend to be more progressive than challenging, rewarding investment of time as opposed to skill and determination.

The inclusion of the save point and in particular quick saving changed the entire dynamic in terms of the way games were designed.
In the 8 bit days you put more value in your 'lives' because a game over screen meant starting again from the beginning and repeatedly and repetetively playing through (which accounted for the longevity in most older games). Nowadays you're only going to lose a small segment of your hard won game space if you die so games have to be longer from start to finish and offer more diverse content to keep you occupied and wanting to move forward.
Darran@Retro Gamer wrote:I've played all the Bratz games and Barbia Horse Adventures, due to having two girls and they are not rubbish in the slightest.
Feel free to add me on XBL.
Image

User avatar
Spector
Posts: 2495
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:44 pm

Post by Spector » Tue Mar 06, 2007 11:40 am

I played Burnout Takedown for hours and hours, more than most Speccy games at the time. But I do notice that the best games from the past tend to stick in your head, nagging you to go back and play them. I'm not sure having completed Burnout I'd want to go through it twice.

User avatar
SirClive
Posts: 20261
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:25 pm
Location: Planet Sinclair
Contact:

Re:

Post by SirClive » Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:44 pm

Spector wrote:I played Burnout Takedown for hours and hours, more than most Speccy games at the time. But I do notice that the best games from the past tend to stick in your head, nagging you to go back and play them. I'm not sure having completed Burnout I'd want to go through it twice.
I love Burnout Takedown and agree I spend more time on newer single games, but more time in total on old games verus new.
Image

User avatar
Sega2006
Posts: 6381
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 5:29 pm
Location: Stevenage

Post by Sega2006 » Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:42 pm

It depends on your own life style to which are better value. If you have a lot of time on your hands than a new game would be better value, however if you dont have a lot of time than an older game may be better as they dont take up as much time, cost less and can give the same enjoyment. £40 for the latest FPS (Quake 4 when it came out) is alright for me in the Summer or Half term as I have the time to get maximum value. During college months than its bargin bucket or £1 for an MD cart or Saturn Disc or £2 for a NES cart or £3 for a 2600 cart and that should sort me out for the time being. Ive yet to complete DooM 3 as I just dont have the time or concentration.
Watching you sleep since 1990

User avatar
DrBlue
Posts: 307
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 2:32 pm
Location: Lancashire

Post by DrBlue » Tue Mar 06, 2007 3:51 pm

I always begrudge paying 20 quid + for a new game which would buy a carrier bag full of older games at GameStation.

I think older games represent better value NOW than maybe they did when they were first out. I remember that it was a major decision for me to spend a fiver on the ZX spectrum version of Turrican II at the time yet i thought nothing of spending 40 on Zelda:OoT.

I try not to buy a game when it first comes out nowadays. A good example is the XBox game XIII which i recently picked up for 2.99!

User avatar
will2097
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:24 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Contact:

Post by will2097 » Tue Mar 06, 2007 4:31 pm

It's very subjective. back in the day (early to mid-90s) value for money was interpreted as months of game play and/or making the game stupidly hard or packing it with unnecessary features.

I'm a big (big) fan of the original Ridge Racer, the £39.99 I spent on my original PS1 launch day copy probably, pound-for-pound, has given me more enjoyment and fun than the £34.99 I spent on FFVII, with its 100s of hours of gameplay and chocobo breeding and the like. All versus RR one lousy track. Although I enjoyed FFVII very much.

I've (weirdly) played Black, start to finish on the PS2 about 4 times (don't ask) I played HL2, a much deeper game in some respects, once.

Of cause some might argue that the DIzzy games for £2.99 probably represented the pinnacle of gaming 'value for money' but then you can get 'Tomb Raider' for £4.99 today, which probably, only if you enjoy Tomb Raider mind, represents a bargain too. I don't know - 'value is where you find it' - is probably the best answer.

I think there is a combination of factors, some of which reside with the individual, as to whether a game is value for money or not? I don't see much difference between then and now.

Although I'd like to add that the arcade games were lambasted quite frequently during their demise for this very reason of \"lack of value-for-money.\" People, influential people, complained bitterly that straight arcade style games on home consoles represented poor value for money.

...then the DC failed to take off.

User avatar
Antiriad2097
Posts: 26962
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: http://s11.zetaboards.com/RetroLeague/
Contact:

Post by Antiriad2097 » Tue Mar 06, 2007 5:27 pm

This is to some extent the logic behind some of the spots on Weekend Gamer.

The bootfair regulars spot being a prime example.
The Retro League - Where skill isn't an obstacle
Retrocanteen, home of the unfairly banned
Tom_Baker wrote:I just finished watching a film about Stockholm syndrome. It started out terrible but by the end I really liked it.

User avatar
Dudley
Posts: 8712
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:53 pm
Contact:

Re:

Post by Dudley » Tue Mar 06, 2007 6:58 pm

will2097 wrote: Of cause some might argue that the DIzzy games for £2.99 probably represented the pinnacle of gaming 'value for money' but then you can get 'Tomb Raider' for £4.99 today, which probably, only if you enjoy Tomb Raider mind, represents a bargain too. I don't know - 'value is where you find it' - is probably the best answer.
And indeed it works both ways. The Atari Anthlogy pack from the place I linked today works out to less than 10p a game.
Yesterzine - The Literal Magazine Show
http://yesterzine.co.uk | @Yesterzine on Twitter | yesterzineshow@gmail.com

User avatar
will2097
Posts: 3909
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2006 6:24 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire
Contact:

Re:

Post by will2097 » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:52 am

Dudley wrote:
will2097 wrote: Of cause some might argue that the DIzzy games for £2.99 probably represented the pinnacle of gaming 'value for money' but then you can get 'Tomb Raider' for £4.99 today, which probably, only if you enjoy Tomb Raider mind, represents a bargain too. I don't know - 'value is where you find it' - is probably the best answer.
And indeed it works both ways. The Atari Anthlogy pack from the place I linked today works out to less than 10p a game.
10p for a whole game? :D Tch! I remember when 10p used to just get you one go. :wink: Kids today - they don't know they're born. 8)

User avatar
SirClive
Posts: 20261
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:25 pm
Location: Planet Sinclair
Contact:

Re:

Post by SirClive » Wed Mar 07, 2007 3:06 am

Antiriad2097 wrote:This is to some extent the logic behind some of the spots on Weekend Gamer.

The bootfair regulars spot being a prime example.
On the subject of weekend-gamer, we have reached a landmark and 2 of the episodes have now had over 100 downloads and the series has had over 400.
That might not sound a lot, but when it started Opa thought he was only getting 4 people downloading it per month.

Anyone who hasn't seen it should follow the link in my sig. The bootfair regulars bit that Ant mentioned is one of my fave bits so have a look and see what the fuss is about.

Then hassle Opa for a date for episode 6 :D
Image

User avatar
The Penultimate Ninja
Posts: 631
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:49 am
Location: Birmingham

Re:

Post by The Penultimate Ninja » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:04 am

SirClive wrote:On the subject of weekend-gamer, we have reached a landmark and 2 of the episodes have now had over 100 downloads and the series has had over 400.
That might not sound a lot, but when it started Opa thought he was only getting 4 people downloading it per month.

Anyone who hasn't seen it should follow the link in my sig. The bootfair regulars bit that Ant mentioned is one of my fave bits so have a look and see what the fuss is about.

Then hassle Opa for a date for episode 6 :D
I watched the first one, I thought it was pretty entertaining and the half-assed delivery on the bootfair section (not meant as an insult) did make me laugh. I've got a couple more downloaded onto my Zen to watch on the commute to work.

User avatar
SirClive
Posts: 20261
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 2:25 pm
Location: Planet Sinclair
Contact:

Post by SirClive » Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:07 am

Don't judge the series on episode 1, each one gets better and more refined. Episode 1 was a pilot rather than a true episode (Opa gets very embarassed about ep1, but I actually quite like it). Bootfairs inparticular is a much better feature now.
Image

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests