Is classic gaming better than modern gaming?

[Kid Fenris]

Of course I've tried them, but like most things in life, the originals, the ones that you first played are the ones that stay with you.

And that's why nostalgia is the opiate of classic gaming. You must overcome it unless you're comfortable with burning out on the hobby when you reach adulthood.

Pot increases cholinergic activity in the brain and reduces oxygenated blood flow to the brain. This sedates as well and creates a feeling of euphoria in the user, basically having an antidepressant effect. Any activity that the user partakes in during drug usage will be more enjoyable to them. Also with the reduced oxygen to the brain comes reduced brain function. In this condition the drug user may find 3D games to be too complex or too demanding.

So... simple-mindedness + excessive happiness = simple games.

See also: Anthony1's post history.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Is that kinda what you were getting at?

I'd say that it's very well related and accurate. The Zombie guided tour of the Wax Museum thing was driving the uncanny valley bit home with a specific description. Figured it would also save a looking up for anyone unfamiliar with the term as a bonus.

It takes a special game to take that repulsion and tension of a facsimile reality and utilize and play off it just right to make a game that is better off for it. That knowledge/talent certainly isn't common, at least by my reckoning. Most of this is all value judgments and experience preference, but I'm sure every one here has played a game that targeted realism, hit the mark yet felt flat or weird because something was very off putting. And there you have it.

EDIT: Found this webcomic...

That would be me without DP or the internet.

[mr obscure]

classic/retro gaming is better.
Why? look at modern disney games and disney games for nes .
Case closed.

Modern games is all about graphics,gameplay sucks ass and its way to complicated.

exsample: my dad can play on the nes.Anything better then that snes/genesis becomes trouble too many buttons.
Look at the wii,simple games rule.
retro or modern is not the key,keeping things simple is.

[kedawa]

The thing that makes many modern games unbearable for me is the amount of non-interactive filler that the player is forced to put up with.
Loading times have regressed back to 1980's home computer levels, and cutscenes and such are just out of control.
The way things are going, in a decade gaming will consist of watching a movie that requires you to shake the remote every now and then in order for it to continue playing.

[chilimac]

The thing that makes many modern games unbearable for me is the amount of non-interactive filler that the player is forced to put up with.
Loading times have regressed back to 1980's home computer levels, and cutscenes and such are just out of control.
The way things are going, in a decade gaming will consist of watching a movie that requires you to shake the remote every now and then in order for it to continue playing.

"Filler". That's exactly what it's about these days. Sadly, it's not only the non-interactive parts that are filler, but also the interactive. Think about games like God of War and Devil may Cry. First you have to watch the story segments, then the tutorials, then the load screens, then more story, and then you get to play. But what do we find ourselves mostly doing when we finally do get to play? Walking from point A to point B. You're just pushing up on the stick to move forward and saying to yourself, "nice graphics". And then out of nowhere a few bad guys magically appear for you to wallop on to give you the illusion that you're playing a game and not just taking a tour through the latest graphics engine.

There are very few obstacles. One time you may have to flip a few switches in a specific order to open a door. Next time you move some stone blocks around to solve some simplistic puzzle that was put in just to pad the play time. Combat is repetitive. No real skill is needed, you just dial a combo over and over. There might be some platforming segments, but they're not challenging in any way. And when it's all over... No reward. No satisfaction. Just a sense of relief from your misery. You think to yourself, "think god that's over with. Now I can move on to something that might actually provide some entertainment".

And all of this can be had for the low, low price of $60. What a F-ing joke!

[chilimac]

http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2009/0...ing.html#links

"If there is a single change that we can point to, it is that video games used to be tests of skill, and so were challenging (and frustrating), whereas now they are tests of having free time, and so hold the player's hand through the game (and are boring). Today's video game is more like a movie -- as long as you turn the crank on the side of the projector, eventually you'll experience the entire thing. That is the opposite of playing a game, since you are never guaranteed to win a game."

[Atarileaf]

And that's why nostalgia is the opiate of classic gaming. You must overcome it unless you're comfortable with burning out on the hobby when you reach adulthood.



See also: Anthony1's post history.

Reach adulthood? Did you think I was 16? I'm pushing 40 and don't feel burned out playing my classic collection. If anything I'm enjoying it more as time goes on.

Classic or modern, remember that we're just talking about games. Its a hobby, nothing more. So yes, I'm quite comfortable and I'm not burning out. Lose the psycho-babble like I'm depriving myself of some grandious entertainment. We're talking about video games here.

[Atarileaf]

The thing that makes many modern games unbearable for me is the amount of non-interactive filler that the player is forced to put up with.
Loading times have regressed back to 1980's home computer levels, and cutscenes and such are just out of control.
The way things are going, in a decade gaming will consist of watching a movie that requires you to shake the remote every now and then in order for it to continue playing.

Thats why I miss the old PC adventure games that Lucasarts were so famous for. Games like that have disappeared and were far more entertaining then the mindless gory shooters that seem to be the rage with teen males.

[Kid Fenris]

"Filler". That's exactly what it's about these days. Sadly, it's not only the non-interactive parts that are filler, but also the interactive. Think about games like God of War and Devil may Cry.

The joke here is that Devil May Cry, the original at least, is harder and has more elaborate gameplay than most of the simplistic "classic" games people in this thread so misguidedly prize. Putting cinematic scenes in a game doesn't make it a movie any more than the opening text crawl of Blade Runner makes it a book.

Reach adulthood? Did you think I was 16? I'm pushing 40 and don't feel burned out playing my classic collection. If anything I'm enjoying it more as time goes on.

Classic or modern, remember that we're just talking about games. Its a hobby, nothing more. So yes, I'm quite comfortable and I'm not burning out.

I'd say you burned out a long time ago. You apparently play little beyond your old favorites. You're dedicated to the older games you remember fondly. You have no real interest in modern games. What's that if not burning out on the game industry?

There's no shame in it. As you say, it's just a hobby.

[WhatsMyUsername]

To be honest I used to play all over, depending on my mood. I'd play games on my super Nintendo and then switch to Gamecube after an hour. However now with xbox's new party system (letting up to 8 people get in a group and chat) I find myself spending most of my time with my 360. It's really because of the ability to talk and joke around with a big group of friends now. Offline I doubt I would touch my 360 but the party system has changed things, at least for me.

[chilimac]

The joke here is that Devil May Cry, the original at least, is harder and has more elaborate gameplay than most of the simplistic "classic" games people in this thread so misguidedly prize. Putting cinematic scenes in a game doesn't make it a movie any more than the opening text crawl of Blade Runner makes it a book.

Wrong! Super Mario Bros is a more complex and challenging game than DMC. I'll tell you why. In SMB every second or two the player is forced to make a decision that could cost him a life, you're constantly having to make adjustments in momentum and jump height. Screw up, and at any moment you could be starting all over. There is a great deal of timing, reflexes and concentration involved. And there's no down time to think about other things. You take your mind off of the task at hand and it's over. The only reason you might think it to be easy is because Nintendo has provided you with so many extra lives.

But in DMC taking time to enjoy the view is part of the gameplay. I'd go so far to say that it is the primary activity the player will engage in and that it was designed to be an atmospheric experience, like a movie. You're supposed to feel it rather than just play through, and the hack n slash gameplay is there to give the player the illusion of gameplay. It's a distraction. Most regular enemies are simple to kill and do not pose a serious threat. And yes, later on they do become more challenging, but only because you haven't yet figured out the trick to killing them, and the same goes for bosses. But once you know the tricks, it becomes a cakewalk. Not so for SMB. With SMB, the player is being challenged every second... there are so many more opportunities to screw up. But with DMC, the challenge comes only when facing new enemies and bosses.

And I guess you might say that DMC's combo system is more complex than Mario's jump and shoot fireballs, but keep in mind that you don't need to use those combos to complete the game. They're mostly there for show, and to speed through the monotony. You see? Capcom is rewarding you when you kill faster, because they realize that the real punishment is the gameplay itself, and the only reward the game can offer is that of relief of having to play it.

[Kid Fenris]

Wrong! Super Mario Bros is a more complex and challenging game than DMC. I'll tell you why. In SMB every second or two the player is forced to make a decision that could cost him a life, you're constantly having to make adjustments in momentum and jump height.

Super Mario Bros. doesn't offer constant challenges. It's easy to learn to evade the enemies, and it's just their placement that presents difficulty. The game cuts the player plenty of breaks, since Mario can absorb one hit as long as he's eaten a mushroom; only the pits present instant death. In fact, I think that's why Super Mario Bros. has aged relatively well. It doesn't hit the player with as many sudden bullshit problems.

Lots of older games favor the sort of challenge you're talking about, the kind that stems from one-hit kills and the constant threat of game-overs. But that's mostly a cheap way to extend a short game or get more money in an arcade machine. It's enforced by basic repetition and pattern memorization, which are far less satisfying methods of challenging the player than reflex-driven complexity and strategy. It's telling that the old Mario-style action games that hold up the best are often the ones that don't immediately kill the player at the touch of an enemy.

And I guess you might say that DMC's combo system is more complex than Mario's jump and shoot fireballs, but keep in mind that you don't need to use those combos to complete the game.

You've never played Devil May Cry, have you? The fight with the fireball-spewing scorpion alone is more demanding of concentration and reflexes than anything the 8-bit age ever threw at a player.

Capcom is rewarding you when you kill faster, because they realize that the real punishment is the gameplay itself, and the only reward the game can offer is that of relief of having to play it.

OK, now I'm wondering if you're just a put-on.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

You've never played Devil May Cry, have you?

Or how about the ass-whoopin' on a disc known as Ninja Gaiden (XBOX)?

[T2KFreeker]

Coming up with the distinction as to what is classic gaming is a hard thing as many people believe that the 128 bit generation now is classic. So, tyring to decide if I like Classic gaming more than the modern stuff is also hard. I can say that I enjoy the 16-bit and 32-bit generations the most the systems that released between the Turbo Grafx 16 and the Playstation/Saturn era are some of my favorites. It just seems to me that there was so much more creativity going on there from everyone. Granted, everything wasn't a hit, but I also find some true gems in there that would never fly well today due to the obsession of today's gamers on graphics standards. Tempest 2000 comes to mind. The game is awesome and on a system that didn't do too well, but all in the same, I love that game. 3DO had some amazing games as well like GEX or even the Shockwave series. Sega Genesis had Sonic and the Shining Force games. Turbo Grafx had the Bonk games and the Crush games. These are the games I like the most, well not these particular titles only, but the games from this era. Some of the most creative stuff ever.

[chilimac]

Or how about the ass-whoopin' on a disc known as Ninja Gaiden (XBOX)?

Yes, I've beaten NG, so I know very well the challenge it can provide. But I have to say that it's not of the good kind of challenge, and it's not something I ever want to play through again. Mostly because the challenge comes from not being able to see your opponents attacks coming due to poor camera angles. You just hold down the block button while dodging left and right while waiting for an opportunity to strike. It's very repetitive and annoying. Still not much skill involved, it's just knowing when to strike and when to block or dodge, that comes with experience. Usually you will attack when the camera settles down and the enemies are in front of you. Of course the bosses do demand more skill as far as timing and reflexes and such, but as far as the normal gameplay is concerned... it's really all just a test of patience. You want to attack now to kill the enemies faster so that you can move on to something more interesting, but if you don't wait for the opening, you'll be staring at a load screen. The bosses really are the only thing interesting about the game. Like most of today's games, the levels are full of filler and time-killing busy work in between boss battles.

What ever happened to actual level design? Remember Mega Man? In those games the entire levels were huge death traps. Every inch of the game was challenging, not just the boss battles. Now take a look at the ZX games on the DS. That's right, there's no level design at all, just a bunch of roaming around mostly empty rooms trying to figure out how to get to the next boss fight. It's the 3D game design philosophy brought over to 2D, and guess what? Without those fancy modern 3D graphics as a distraction, people see those games for what they are: Shit.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Without those fancy modern 3D graphics as a distraction, people see those games for what they are: Shit.

Awesome, you hate modern games and will find any way to rationalize it. They're all shit. Great!

[Sonicwolf]

Without those fancy modern 3D graphics as a distraction, people see those games for what they are: Shit.

There are some pretty good games from the modern generations of video games. Just because you think they are shit doesnt make them shit. shit!

[Atarileaf]

The joke here is that Devil May Cry, the original at least, is harder and has more elaborate gameplay than most of the simplistic "classic" games people in this thread so misguidedly prize. Putting cinematic scenes in a game doesn't make it a movie any more than the opening text crawl of Blade Runner makes it a book.



I'd say you burned out a long time ago. You apparently play little beyond your old favorites. You're dedicated to the older games you remember fondly. You have no real interest in modern games. What's that if not burning out on the game industry?

There's no shame in it. As you say, it's just a hobby.

I do play modern games, just not on consoles as 90% of whats out there are genres that don't appeal to me. I play Sims 3 and Worms Mayhem on my PC, both are modern games (Worms Mayhem came out in 2005)

If this topic is broader than just console gaming then yes, I do play modern games, just not with the same regularity as older games, and I certainly have virtually no interest in modern console gaming.

I still wouldn't call it "burning out". If anything, I would suggest to you that the game industry is burning out, constantly dishing out the same old same old every month. How many FPS, RPG's, action hack and slash, or sports updates can people play over and over and over again. I have no interest in following, lemming like, the masses to purchase the flavor of the month just because everyone else has.

[Kid Fenris]

I still wouldn't call it "burning out". If anything, I would suggest to you that the game industry is burning out, constantly dishing out the same old same old every month. How many FPS, RPG's, action hack and slash, or sports updates can people play over and over and over again.

I love statements like this, because people have been saying the same thing for the past 30 years. In the heydays of those allegedly classic games, people were griping about the proliferation of similar maze games, shooters, beat-'em-ups, and clones of Mario, Sonic, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, or whatever was currently popular. You're kidding yourself if you think modern games rehash ideas any more often than older ones.

[chilimac]

I love statements like this, because people have been saying the same thing for the past 30 years. In the heydays of those allegedly classic games, people were griping about the proliferation of similar maze games, shooters, beat-'em-ups, and clones of Mario, Sonic, Pac-Man, Space Invaders, or whatever was currently popular. You're kidding yourself if you think modern games rehash ideas any more often than older ones.

Yes, there have always been rehashes, and some would say that lead to the first crash, but even after Nintendo revitalized the industry, there were still a great deal of rehashes... but those rehashes were of much better quality than those of the past, that's why we put up with it for so long.

See, there's a difference between rehashes of today and yesterday as well. Yesterday's rehashes were rehashing great gameplay, whereas today's rehashes are rehashing mediocre gameplay with great graphics. Great gameplay we can tolerate, but great graphics will eventually lose their luster.