Why classic gaming?

[T2KFreeker]

Hell, question I have is; Why Not Classic Gaming?

The retro gaming circle is a fun one. I've had a blast showing people stuff they hadn't seen before even though the system might be very old. The look of bewilderment on people's faces when they see the sheer amount of games released for the C64 or the Amiga still cracks me up. People look at my Dreamcast collection and had no idea that many games had released for it and I don't even have half the library! Tracking the stuff down and enjoying the games for what they are is half the fun. It's just cool stuff to have around and generally much better than the constant regurgitation's we seem to be stuck with the last few years. The games were just built better back then.

[genesisguy]

I don't understand the idea of modern games being more complex and needing more time to play? I guess load times and cut scenes take more time. But I can sit down with any GTA game and essentially figure it out on my own. Zelda 2 on the NES I still have trouble with to this day.

[Edmond Dantes]

Yeah that's always confused me too. Modern games are, if anything, simpler--or when they're not, they're usually more "cluttered" than complicated.

I mean, is Prince of Persia: Sands of Time really any more complicated than the original Prince of Persia? Essentially its similar gameplay, just more acrobatics and you can rewind time if you mess up.

People of course assume new=different, but a banana is still a banana.

[Emperor Megas]

I don't understand the idea of modern games being more complex and needing more time to play? I guess load times and cut scenes take more time. But I can sit down with any GTA game and essentially figure it out on my own. Zelda 2 on the NES I still have trouble with to this day.

Zelda (1 or 2) isn't really a good example of what the majority of games were like BITD though. Even still it's simpler and less time consuming than it's modern counterpart, IMO. Most video games were linear and you could play through them in an hour or less. The average game now-a-days takes double digit hours to complete. Compare Super Mario Bros. to Mario Galaxy. Metal Gear to Metal Gear Solid 4, etc..

[Aussie2B]

Just because you COULD play through those games in an hour or less doesn't mean you would. In fact, I'd say that's one of the highlights of classic games. Once you mastered them, they became very replayable without a huge commitment. But good luck beating Super Mario Bros. on your first attempt. Most classic games took a lot of practice, so they offered both longevity for the initial completion and quick playthroughs later on.

[T2KFreeker]

One of my all time favorite shooters is easily R-Type. Is it a memory game? Sure. Still, it laid down the groundwork for most that followed and is still hard as nails today. Being a huge shooter fan, I usually enjoy the 8 through 32 bit eras the most because the best games, with a few rare occasions, released then. Gradius, Raiden, Salamander, The Star Soldier Series, Thunder Force, the list goes on and on. The platformers were better too for the most part. Great example is Megaman 9 and 10. Capcom went back to the old 8 Bit style because they knew it would work. It did too. The 2D Castlevania games have been notorious for being superior to the 3D games. It is what it is. Turrican, Bonk, Zool, all of this stuff was awesome and still is. If you can play through the Shadow of the Beast games and not be impressed with what they were doing back then, then something is wrong with you. Flashback, amazing title! Speaking of Psygnosis, want to see something amazing, check out Agony on the Amiga. One of the lesser known side scrolling shooters that more people should indulge themselves in. Amazing game for it's time and still awesome now. See, and I didn't even need to bring up Zelda, Mario, or Sonic.

[Doonzmore]

The same reason why people still read Hamlet and To Kill A Mockingbird and watch Citizen Kane in film class. A good game is a good game, as previously stated.

Just because you COULD play through those games in an hour or less doesn't mean you would. In fact, I'd say that's one of the highlights of classic games. Once you mastered them, they became very replayable without a huge commitment. But good luck beating Super Mario Bros. on your first attempt. Most classic games took a lot of practice, so they offered both longevity for the initial completion and quick playthroughs later on.

I pretty much feel the same way. I would much rather play Aladdin on the Genesis than say, Resident Evil 4 (which is one of the few games I played for more than 5 hours at a time, loving every minute of it) just because I know I can sit back and enjoy it in its entirety within 2 hours.

[genesisguy]

Zelda (1 or 2) isn't really a good example of what the majority of games were like BITD though. Even still it's simpler and less time consuming than it's modern counterpart, IMO. Most video games were linear and you could play through them in an hour or less. The average game now-a-days takes double digit hours to complete. Compare Super Mario Bros. to Mario Galaxy. Metal Gear to Metal Gear Solid 4, etc..

Yeah maybe now I can play through Mario 1,2, and three in an hour. Same with Zelda. But that's years after playing and mastering those games. Game guides were much harder to get BITD before the internet. You actually had to sit down and figure out what you were doing. Ever draw your own map to the original Metriod and because you wanted to or thought it was fun, but because Google was not there?

I still stand by original point. I hadn't played any video games from 2000-2008 and when I got a PS2 in 2009 I found there to be a certain level of "hand holding" in games like GTA. I could even level my player up with as many weopons as possible before starting the first mission. All I got in Zelda was a wooden sword... and dang gummit we liked it!!