My issue with console gaming

[sloan]

I have a difficult time playing games on older platforms for the following reason:

The same look and feel of all games on system "XYZ".

Now allow me to explain. Play one platformer on NES and it is highly similar in look and feel to any of a hundred other platformers on NES. Where this really annoys me is with licensed titles. When I think of the Flinstones, I do not think of Fred jumping and climbing his way through some game designer's predefined platformer obstacle course. Play Flintstones on NES, SNES, or Genesis and notice how the game forces the characters into some contrived search for Dino or whoever and the same platforming confines of virtually every other game on those consoles. Why could a creative game designer not have created a more free-form type of game? Say, for instance, one with an overhead map view ala many RPG's that leads the various characters into possible search quests that involve differing types of game mechanics. Maybe even with differing mini-games thrown on for good measure.

I have thought about this for some time but never quite put it into words until now. It hit home tonight because I played a round of An American Tail: Feivel Goes West on the SNES. I have maybe seen the animated movie years ago and can just about guarantee that the platforming jumping and shooting of Feivel in this game have absolutely no resemblance to the movie. As for the storyline: Maybe the game designers followed the movie slightly. I cannot remember after all these years and I did not play the game very far to compare. I just question why a licensed game like this could not have had a look and feel that more closely tied into the movie's look and feel.

My guess is that many programmers in those days simply took the easy way out and crammed licensed character sprites into generic platforming/fighting gameplay worlds. Rather than making new and interesting game mechanics fit their consoles, they lazily forced every game into the same formulaic confines.

Thoughts?

[Atarileaf]

This is nothing new, platformers were the most popular genre with the NES and on into the 16-bit generation, ergo it was simple business acumen to take popular licenses and slap them into a generic platformer game. The same thing happened with pre-crash systems - a large chunk of games were either space invaders style space games or pacman style maze games because those were two of the most popular types of arcade games.


Play one platformer on NES and it is highly similar in look and feel to any of a hundred other platformers on NES.

Again, same thing is happening today, I could easily take your quote and change it to:


Play one FPS on Xbox 360 and it is highly similar in look and feel to any of a hundred other FPS's on Xbox 360.


My guess is that many programmers in those days simply took the easy way out and crammed licensed character sprites into generic platforming/fighting gameplay worlds. Rather than making new and interesting game mechanics fit their consoles, they lazily forced every game into the same formulaic confines.

Yep, again, sounds exactly like what's happening with modern consoles. Same crap, different genres.

[sloan]

I know it goes on the same with modern consoles for sure. Just used NES and SNES as examples to make my point. Funny that you mention pre-crash systems because my feeling is that with lack of originality it is all headed for the cliff again.

Also, I just cannot imagine paying $50-$60 for formulaic games on 8 and 16 bit systems and not feeling somehow ripped off. How many times can you play the same gameplay concept over and over before you puke?

[wiggyx]

Again, same goes for every generation. Solution? Don't buy licensed crap and every "me too" game out there. Every generation has its gems and truly unique titles. Problem is that there are about 10-20 crap titles for every one of those awesome games.

[sloan]

Solution? Don't buy licensed crap and every "me too" game out there.

But if a person is a fan of a given license, then that person is most likely looking to play a game involving those licensed characters. It just is crap that game developers don't put more time and effort into those licenses and I also wonder why the IP rights holder doesn't demand better in many instances.

[FieryReign]

Also, I just cannot imagine paying $50-$60 for formulaic games on 8 and 16 bit systems and not feeling somehow ripped off. How many times can you play the same gameplay concept over and over before you puke?
You must be very young or aren't looking hard enough. That's what we had, that's what we played. Sorry technology from the 80s and 90s isn't up to your standards of today. What do you expect, sandbox-style GTA games?

I could name tons of games from that era that are not as lame as you describe. Same thing happened during the 32-64 bit era with all of the Mario64ish 3D platformers.

They are licensed games and developers had deadlines. Not sure what you expect? Don't play them if you don't like them.

I can't imagine paying $50-$60 for the same formulaic fps or Madden game on modern systems.

[Jack_Burton_BYOAC]

I know it goes on the same with modern consoles for sure. Just used NES and SNES as examples to make my point. Funny that you mention pre-crash systems because my feeling is that with lack of originality it is all headed for the cliff again.

Also, I just cannot imagine paying $50-$60 for formulaic games on 8 and 16 bit systems and not feeling somehow ripped off. How many times can you play the same gameplay concept over and over before you puke?

Most people didn't own more than a few games of the same genre, and they were usually AAA titles or their sequels if they did. There were a variety of genres to choose from back then the same as now, and gamers were more apt to dabble in them.

Consider my SNES collection at the end of the 90s:

Super Mario World
Super Mario All-Stars
Super Mario Kart
F-zero
Street Fighter II Turbo
Super Street Fighter II
Mortal Kombat II
Killer Instinct
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Final Fantasy II
Final Fantasy III
R-type III
Gradius III
Super Metroid
Mega Man X
Sim-Earth
Lord of Darkness (Nobunaga's Ambition)
Vegas Stakes
Super Pro Action Football
Star Fox

and more.

I don't regret buying any of them.

[M.Buster2184]

You must be very young or aren't looking hard enough. That's what we had, that's what we played. Sorry technology from the 80s and 90s isn't up to your standards of today. What do you expect, sandbox-style GTA games?

I could name tons of games from that era that are not as lame as you describe. Same thing happened during the 32-64 bit era with all of the Mario64ish 3D platformers.

They are licensed games and developers had deadlines. Not sure what you expect? Don't play them if you don't like them.

I can't imagine paying $50-$60 for the same formulaic fps or Madden game on modern systems.

Agreed. Back in the day nobody complained, lord knows I didn't. Also I like to think developers were limited by hardware restrictions at the time, they could only do so much. During the 8 bit/16 bit era, home gaming was still changing and evolving, people were still trying to figure out what they could and couldn't do. As it is, I personally enjoy a good platformer, rip off or not.

[Little Miss Gloom]

It seems to me you have more an issue with licensed games than you do consoles, brother.

Deadlines aside, I'm not sure how much creative control some of these developers had. There were really contrived, uninspired licensed games like ... I don't know, Fievel Goes West, or whatever -- but then you'd have a really interesting take on the source material, like True Lies, on SNES or Felix the Cat, on Nintendo.

And it's already been said, but growing up in the 80s and 90s, unless your parents were rich, your allowance didn't garner enough at the end of the week, so you either saved up for eternity for THAT ONE GAME, or you hoped and prayed for two or three new games on your birthday or Christmas. Growing up, most of my friends had maybe fifteen games in their collection, if that. And they were all of different genres.

I'll be honest, I don't really remember being all that concerned about what genre a game was -- I was more concerned about how much fun I was having with a game (and excited to have a new game.)

[Tanooki]

I think Atari and wiggy nailed it early. This isn't a dislike of older generation it's just a mask for contrived garbage that's shoveled and it's not just licenses. It's just in that era licenses did it most as it was a quickly made game over a few months to cash in in time for a movie or tv show before it was gone. These days its the 'call of duty' err fps genre. No bother to do anything creative, just a new coat of paint and slight tweaks, just like you get with garbage EA sports releases. Do a new engine occasionally to make sure enough people don't catch on, but shovel the same crap at full price. This isn't a console game problem, it's handheld, it's mobile phone games, it's computer games too. Hell I think the computer games probably did it first as everyone wanted to me-too the old text based RPG genre and 'rogue' like ascii/ega based garbage as it was edgy and fresh then.

Perhaps you're just poor at finding a good game to play and keep buying the tripe.

[Little Miss Gloom]

^ What this guy said.

Hell, why are you playing Fievel Goes West and Flinstones, anyway?

[Atarileaf]

I was looking at some footage of the rare NES Flintstones game (can't remember the name) and it looked pretty good, and this is coming from someone who doesn't care too much for platformers.

[sloan]

For the record, I am older than most on these forums, having been a teenager when I got my VCS for Christmas 1981. Next, I have looked harder.

As for "why am I playing Fievel Goes West and Flintstones?" Why not? I have over 4,000 games in my collection and like to play them all once in a while.

For those saying this issue of mine isn't with consoles per se, but with shovelware, that may be partially correct, but hear me out. What I am really getting at is that just because the core engine of NES was a tiling scroller does not automatically mean that game developers could not have gone even slightly sandbox ala GTA with licensed (and even unlicensed) games. Just because PSX was at its core a 32 bit 3D polygon moving machine did not stop some devs from releasing impressive 2D side-scrollers on the console. All it most likely would have taken was a little imagination and ingenuity on the part of programmers, rather than releasing repetitive shovelware.

It just seems to me that when I play a Genesis game, I almost know what it will look and play like, no matter the title. Same goes for N64, Master System, et al. A little creativity would have gone a long way.

[Little Miss Gloom]

I thought this thread was about shitty licensed games catering to lowest common denominator genre tropes. not pushing tech boundaries to enhance entire genres.

I'm confused now.

[wiggyx]

For the record, I am older than most on these forums, having been a teenager when I got my VCS for Christmas 1981. Next, I have looked harder.

As for "why am I playing Fievel Goes West and Flintstones?" Why not? I have over 4,000 games in my collection and like to play them all once in a while.

For those saying this issue of mine isn't with consoles per se, but with shovelware, that may be partially correct, but hear me out. What I am really getting at is that just because the core engine of NES was a tiling scroller does not automatically mean that game developers could not have gone even slightly sandbox ala GTA with licensed (and even unlicensed) games. Just because PSX was at its core a 32 bit 3D polygon moving machine did not stop some devs from releasing impressive 2D side-scrollers on the console. All it most likely would have taken was a little imagination and ingenuity on the part of programmers, rather than releasing repetitive shovelware.

It just seems to me that when I play a Genesis game, I almost know what it will look and play like, no matter the title. Same goes for N64, Master System, et al. A little creativity would have gone a long way.

Zelda.

[Flam]

What I'm confused about it why you own over 4,000 games but seemingly dislike games.

[Zing]

How many times can you play the same gameplay concept over and over before you puke?
It seems you are a bit jaded, or simply playing the wrong games.

I have been playing NES games for 25 years and still enjoy most games. I just played through The Flintstones Rescue of Dino and Hoppy a few weeks ago, and it was enjoyable. I'm currently playing through Mega Man X4, which is the fourth in a series of virtually identical games, with the series itself being a spinoff of another series of virtually identical games. It's still damn fun and interesting.



What I'm confused about it why you own over 4,000 games but seemingly dislike games.
I have a strong suspicion this is precisely why he dislikes games. If I had that many, I would feel stressed out for several reasons.

[Aussie2B]

And it's already been said, but growing up in the 80s and 90s, unless your parents were rich, your allowance didn't garner enough at the end of the week, so you either saved up for eternity for THAT ONE GAME, or you hoped and prayed for two or three new games on your birthday or Christmas.

Heh, if you were getting three new console games from your parents on your birthday or Christmas in the 90s, at around $60-$80 a pop, I think you were already leaning on the side of having rich parents. :P I was more than happy to just get one new game, as were most kids I knew. If I was lucky, maybe I'd get a console game and a handheld game.

Anyway, getting to the main topic, I don't think it's so much a matter of developers taking the easy way out. It's not like platformers are inherently easier to design and program than games in all other genres. In fact, I'm sure they're harder to program than some others. It's more a matter of what's most popular at the time. Licensed games exist mostly as cash-grabs, so for maximum profit, you go with whatever genre is hottest at the time. Simple as that.

Although, when it comes to licensed games, the 8-bit era was probably the best for them, in my eyes as least. Sure, some were absolutely dreadful, like Back to the Future, but many others were really solid, quality games, like Batman, Willow, The Goonies II, DuckTales, Rescue Rangers, TMNT, etc. And looking at that list, the variety really isn't bad at all. Quite a few different types of games there.

[XYXZYZ]

I agree about the licensed platformer games. I always thought that if you want to make a game out of the licensed properties you should make it an adventure type game with plenty of dialog, like an interactive digital comic. For example, if I were going to make a Flintstones game, I'd make an adventure game where Fred has to do some crazy thing for Mr. Slate to get a promotion or keep his job, but it's something that would make Wilma angry so he can't let her find out. And because The Flinstones is a comedy there should be lots of humor.

And it certainly doesn't help that these platformers always tend to suck unless made by one of the major companies, like that Capcom Disney games.

[wiggyx]

Heh, if you were getting three new console games from your parents on your birthday or Christmas in the 90s, at around $60-$80 a pop, I think you were already leaning on the side of having rich parents. :P I was more than happy to just get one new game, as were most kids I knew. If I was lucky, maybe I'd get a console game and a handheld game.

Anyway, getting to the main topic, I don't think it's so much a matter of developers taking the easy way out. It's not like platformers are inherently easier to design and program than games in all other genres. In fact, I'm sure they're harder to program than some others. It's more a matter of what's most popular at the time. Licensed games exist mostly as cash-grabs, so for maximum profit, you go with whatever genre is hottest at the time. Simple as that.

Although, when it comes to licensed games, the 8-bit era was probably the best for them, in my eyes as least. Sure, some were absolutely dreadful, like Back to the Future, but many others were really solid, quality games, like Batman, Willow, The Goonies II, DuckTales, Rescue Rangers, TMNT, etc. And looking at that list, the variety really isn't bad at all. Quite a few different types of games there.

Dear Lord! Where were you shopping for 8 & 16-bit games?! I mean, aside from stuff like FF, Chrono Trigger, and the like, those weren't the prices I ever saw :/

N64 on the other hand...

[Aussie2B]

N64 games were typically cheaper than SNES. Most N64 games were at $60, very rarely $70. $70 wasn't uncommon for SNES, though, and like you said, the RPGs and some other stuff were even more. If you saw differently, then you saw markdowns, not the MSRPs. If you don't believe me, just look at the flyers from the time:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=504415
http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=257543

Nintendo Power is a good source for learning the MSRPs of games back then too.

[Little Miss Gloom]

*facepalm*

You do realize people bought games used, even back in the 90s, right?

[Aussie2B]

Well, duh, but how many parents buy used games to give their kids for Christmas or birthdays? Not many, I imagine, especially back then before there was a GameStop on every corner. The stores where my parents bought games didn't even sell used games, and in all likelihood, the games they were buying were sold at the full MSRP (especially if I was asking for a recently released game, which I imagine most kids do).

[Little Miss Gloom]

The fact that you're busting a nut over semantics doesn't waver the -actual- point in my initial post.

[FieryReign]

My parents weren't rich and I got 2-3 games a year for christmas and birthdays. There were also grandparents, aunts, uncles etc. That is NOT alot of games ,if you picked a crappy game you were stuck with it and played it regardless. And who wanted to sift through pages of dialog as a kid? I usually skipped them if I could, just to get to the action. Instant action and playability is probably why platformers and beatemups were so popular.

There were some great licensed games, it just depended on who made them. You learned to stay away from most anything from Acclaim, THQ, LJN, and Ocean. And games from Capcom, Konami, and Sunsoft were usually of quality.

[kupomogli]

NES and the like may have had a lot of platformers, but there was always the noticeable differences in control, level design, and play style that made one game completely different from the next.

Licensed games like Duck Tales and Alien 3(SNES) are completely different, both being side scrolling platformers, both are great games.

*edit*

Alien 3 is a shooter platformer hybrid, but still a side scrolling platformer. Even with the limitations of the hardware it's a noticeably different game. Games like Ninja Gaiden and Castlevania are also noticeably different for example.

[sloan]

What I'm confused about it why you own over 4,000 games but seemingly dislike games.

If it came across that I dislike games, I gave the wrong impression. I do, however, tire of copycat games on consoles, no matter the generation.

[Atarileaf]

NES and the like may have had a lot of platformers, but there was always the noticeable differences in control, level design, and play style that made one game completely different from the next.

Licensed games like Duck Tales and Alien 3(SNES) are completely different, both being side scrolling platformers, both are great games.

*edit*

Alien 3 is a shooter platformer hybrid, but still a side scrolling platformer. Even with the limitations of the hardware it's a noticeably different game. Games like Ninja Gaiden and Castlevania are also noticeably different for example.

I'm glad you brought up Alien 3 because I was actually thinking of a license that transcended console generations.

In the Pre-Crash era, there was an Alien game on the Atari 2600 that was essentially a pacman style maze game

In the 8 and 16 bit generation, Alien games were side scrolling platform shooters (I agree, Alien 3 is awesome on the Genny/SNES)

In the current and last generation of systems, Alien games are First Person Shooters.

Of course this is not a hard and absolute truth but this seems to support the theory that licensed games were designed to fit into that time periods most popular genres.

[Atarileaf]

If it came across that I dislike games, I gave the wrong impression. I do, however, tire of copycat games on consoles, no matter the generation.

I don't think you came across as disliking games and I agree that pigeonholing almost every license into the prevailing genre of the time can be irritating to fans of that license. How about an Alien Vs. Predator Kart Racing game :D

[Little Miss Gloom]

In the current and last generation of systems, Alien games are First Person Shooters.

Check out Aliens Infestation on DS. It's a 2D metroidvania-type game.

[Atarileaf]

Check out Aliens Infestation on DS. It's a 2D metroidvania-type game.

Looks a lot like the 16 bit games I mentioned, which I really liked. I may have to try to find this one.

This leads to another thought I've had and it relates to the theme of the thread - handheld systems have broken free, somewhat, from traditional genre's and try to be more innovative. Same with IOS games.

[Aussie2B]

The fact that you're busting a nut over semantics doesn't waver the -actual- point in my initial post.

Uh, I was never arguing with or "busting a nut over" any points you were making, semantics-related or otherwise, in the first place. I was just making a silly little observation and sharing my own experience, hence the ":P" smiley. Then Wiggy suggested that the price range I gave was inaccurate/abnormal, so I backed it up. That's it. You're the one wound far too tight here.

[Edmond Dantes]

It just seems to me that when I play a Genesis game, I almost know what it will look and play like, no matter the title.

... I both find this to be true, and to be entirely wrong.

True in the sense that (just to continue your example) there are certain games out there that I play and say "Yeah, that's a Sega Genesis game," or else "this should've been a Sega Genesis game" (X-Multiply being my go-to example).

Wrong, though, in that... well just think about it. Are you really telling me that Shinobi III looks and plays exactly like Shining Force II or Super Hydlide? Cuz that's kind of crazy.

I'm in a weird place right now, because I know what you're talking about even though I also know its kind of irrational and perhaps even provably wrong. In fact, to me that "console feeling" is part of the appeal of console gaming. Like sometimes, all I'm looking for is a game with "that early-gen SNES feel" or "an NES game from near the end of its lifespan." (Yeah, it's not just that consoles have feels, certain points in their lifespans also have specific vibes. I feel its most notable with the SNES).

It's the same with PC gaming too, though. A mid-1990s DOS game doesn't feel like a Windows 95 game, and so on.

Yeah, I should probably sleep before I make our minds explode.

[wiggyx]

N64 games were typically cheaper than SNES. Most N64 games were at $60, very rarely $70. $70 wasn't uncommon for SNES, though, and like you said, the RPGs and some other stuff were even more. If you saw differently, then you saw markdowns, not the MSRPs. If you don't believe me, just look at the flyers from the time:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=504415
http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=257543

Nintendo Power is a good source for learning the MSRPs of games back then too.

1st party games were $60, sure. But not 3rd party stuff.

The one flyer is Canadian, so the prices are artificially high.

And TrU ad prices don't necessarily advertise MSRP.

I worked retail at the time of the N64 launch. If you want to get technical, the MSRP for 1st party N64 titles was 69.99, but NOBODY sold them at those prices.

[Flam]

If it came across that I dislike games, I gave the wrong impression. I do, however, tire of copycat games on consoles, no matter the generation.

I know, that comment was more tongue and cheek

[Zing]

SNES games in Ohio at the time were consistently $50 new, in the early years at least. First party Nintendo games were $40. I bought plenty of these from my local Kmart and Babbage's at those prices. I preferred Kmart, because they accepted returns on open games. Thank goodness, otherwise I would have blown $50 on Bubsy. The only game I recall spending more for was Final Fantasy III, which was $65. I never bought anything from TRU, since they were overpriced. Best Buy was in town by the late SNES period, and they had normal prices. TRU was for chumps.

[JakeM]

Copycat games are like any copycats in film, books, paintings ect. But what makes them really bad is when the controls and graphics are the same. Nowadays its worse than 20 years ago because back then the mascots had their own worlds they lived and fought in, now its just some dudes arm and a rifle on Earth or a planet that looks like it could be Earth.

[Aussie2B]

1st party games were $60, sure. But not 3rd party stuff.

The one flyer is Canadian, so the prices are artificially high.

And TrU ad prices don't necessarily advertise MSRP.

I worked retail at the time of the N64 launch. If you want to get technical, the MSRP for 1st party N64 titles was 69.99, but NOBODY sold them at those prices.

I was just trying to find a couple quick examples so I didn't notice that the second was Canadian, but my point still stands. Flyers might advertise prices LOWER than the MSRPs, if they're doing a special sale or whatever, but they're definitely not going to promote prices higher than the MSRP, so that point makes little difference in seeing how high SNES prices went. Working retail during the N64 launch doesn't mean much in terms of the whole picture. In that era, it was the period immediately after launch when games were typically at their highest. Just compare PlayStation long box prices to the average price of a PlayStation jewel case game. It'd be like saying the average MSRP for a PlayStation game was $60, just because it was a common price point for the early games, despite that for the majority of the PlayStation's lifespan, $40 was more around the average.

You may have worked during the N64 launch, but I was in my late teens throughout the N64 years, buying many games on their release dates at their full MSRPs, and following new releases in general very closely, for the whole lifespan of the system. It definitely was not just the first party stuff priced at $60, although, speaking purely of the period immediately after launch, yeah, then the third party N64 games tended to be the more expensive ones. I have a very good memory when it comes to how much I paid for games, and on top of that, some of my N64 games are still in the shrink wrap with the price tag on (I just cut the plastic around the wrap to open them). And of course, the flyers and other documentation from the time back me up. If you question the example I gave, feel free to search on your own, and, like I said, look at some early/mid-90s Nintendo Power issues, as they list the MSRP for every game reviewed in the Now Playing section. SNES prices were kind of all over the place (some of the really terrible shovelware was as low as $35 at launch), but taken as a whole, it's clear that the average SNES game was more expensive than the average N64 game and usually in the 60-80 dollar range, just as I stated.