Are C=64 games better....

[theaveng]

......than the games released today!

Ok, post your reasons why you think games today are better/worse than the games released in the days of the c64.

And please don't respond with cliched crap like "Today all they concentrate on is graphics, there's no gameplay". I really don't want to hear that rubbish, I want real reasons and evidence to support your claims! Just remember, for every crap game released today, I can name a good one. And also for every good c64 game, I can name a bad one!

Personally, I don't think there are any more bad games released these days than what there were in the c64 days. In fact, truely bad games are much less common these days, as development costs are much higher, teams are alot bigger and the risks of releasing a game in today's highly competitive market are greatly increased! Unfortunately, average games are all too common, and in general companies are afraid to take risks on original concepts due to the high costs involved. But I still think today's games are better, there still are lots of great original games coming out, which are much more immersive than c64 games could ever be.

But then again I miss the simplicity of c64 games, the pure fun factor. Loading up a really bad game like Cisco Heat and for some reason still enjoying it.

The biggest flaw with modern games is that they are all clones of each other. The games fall into these categories:

- Pretend you're Rambo and/or operating a machine with a 1st-person perspective and kill the bad guys before they kill you (Goldeneye, TimeSplitters, Turok, Star Wars, et cetera).

- Become a cute cartoony guy and jump from platform to platform trying to find precious _______ (Mario, Pac-Man World, Banjo-Kazooie, etc).

- Form a band of people into a team and fight in lots and lots and lots of battles (Final Fantasy, Zelda, Kingdom Hearts).

- Race a car, plane, boat whatever as fast as possible (Gran Turismo, etc).



It seems to me that their was more variety in the games of 1975-85. Back then, programmers were constantly trying new ideas and as a result we had awesome, original games like Enduro, Asteroids, Missile Command, Space Invaders, Defender, Pirates, Adventure, Bruce Lee, Red Storm Rising, Zork, and so on.

Older = Variety. Newer = Lots of sameness. It seems that the more realistic games become, the more the programmers bind their hands and creativity.

[Raccoon Lad]

It seems that the more realistic games become, the more the programmers bind their hands and creativity.

I wouldn't phrase it quite like that. It's more like: The more realistic games become, the less likely original ideas are to be produced.

Older 2d games were more abstract, thus more interesting, and more opportunities for innovation. The more "real" 3d games get, the less abstract they become. Does anyone want to play a game that's a simulation of a 9-5 office job? No! people want to play games like Pac-man that have an abstract simplicity. You can't get that with "realistic" games.

[theaveng]

Exactly Raccoon. More abstract = more fun in my opinion. Not everything has to be ultra-realistic. From 1975-85, we had text adventures, graphic adventures, platform, exploration, 1st-person, 3rd-person, mazes, non-scrolling, scrolling, shoot-ups, shoot-arounds, shoot-sideways, graphic adventures, text adventures, and so on. Graphics/text adventures... where are they today? What about side-scrolling 2D shooters? Or unique games like Red Storm Rising where you see nothing but sonar screens (just like real subs)? All of these options are available but not used in today's games. Today's games just do the same thing over and over and over again:

1st-person shooters
3D platforming
Role-Playing Games
Racers

[NvrMore]

One of the two main factors for the lack of diversity in modern games compared to older gaming eras is the fact that games are so much more complex, difficult and expensive to produce today. In the past games could be created by very few people (as little as one) in a relatively short space of time for very little expense whatsoever, so there were a huge number of people able to put their ideas into effect, thus a greater diversity of ideas and concepts got onto the market, plus the games creator didn't run too much of a risk of financial backlash if the game didn't succeed being that their work, time and financial investment wasn't usually that large so they could afford (in most respects) to take the loss if their idea failed.

Today however, games require massive investment of resources, thus developers (especially the smaller ones of which the past gaming era's large diversity was built on) can't afford to take the risks that they used to be able to. Whereas in the past a developer could produce numerous games within a few months or a year and because of the low input costs could affort to see several fail before they felt the pressure, the production of a single game today usually takes a minumum of a year (average of two) and costs a fortune to produce (requiring several teams of programmers / artists / testers etc. to work on it). These days developers cant afford to take such extravagant risks, especially being that the failure of even a single game can criple or even kill them (e.g. Square's current situation - and they're a large developer).


The other main problem today being the "fasion gamers" whose numbers flurished during the PS days. These "gamers" (I use the term loosely) play games, not because of their gameplay and their quality, but because they are "cool" and socially acceptable. When they buy a game they do it under the premise of how good the graphics are and if it falls under list of game types that are considered "cool" and "mature" (that one cracks me up), their purchases are more influenced by promotional hype than actual consideration of gameplay.
Sadly these "gamers" now make up the bulk of the buying market so the market gets flooded with the same old crap because that's what sells so long as it has the hype behind it and prettier graphics.
The realism you complain about is placed in favor of gameplay because the more realistic a game is claimed to be the more mature and cool it seems to the fasion gamers who will then go out and buy it by the truck load irrespective of how it actually plays compared to other games.

Unfortunately there are few developers left out there who are willing to brave the market and risk developing new conepts and ideas, or indeed who have the resources to do so.

[Arrrhalomynn]

I think you're all being a bit overly negative here. I agree most new games fall into the genres theaveng mentioned above, but there are also a lot of different games. They might not get as much attention, but that doesn't mean they aren't there. Dance games, sim games, puzzlegames, freaky games etc. Open your eyes and look beyond hypes and the top sellers.

I don't fully agree on the 'old games were more diverse' way of thinking. I have about 100 genesis and playstation games and the genesis really is the less diverse. It has lots of sportsgames, platformers and side scrolling action games and then a few 'unique' titles. While I have much more variety in my playstation collection. GTA, Vib Ribbon, Metal Gear Solid, tomb raider, Spyro, Diablo, Jumping Flash.

I think the past gets romantized too much by people who say classic games were better. If you would get 300 random 15-20 year old games and 300 random reasonably current games I think you would get more variety in the last category.

[theaveng]

When we say "old" we are referring to the 1975-85 era, not 1990's Genesis. That's not old. Middle-aged perhaps but not old. ;-)



Why not have board games like M.U.L.E. or Archon? The Age of Exploration-era games like Pirates? Simulations like Gunship? Platformers like Mission Impossible (where you actually do something useful rather than just collecting boring coins). How about games where the sole goal is to score as many points as possible (like Monopoly)? No missions, no objectives, just pure adrenaline to be the absolute highest scorer and crush your enemies.

I'm just sick of playing the same game over and over. Yesterday I played Turok2. Today I'm playing Goldeneye. But, they feel like exactly the same game. Last week I played Mario64. Today I'm playing Banjo-Kazzoie. Same game, same moves, same goals (collect gold pieces). How boooooring. :-(

Elite. I forgot Elite. There is no game today that recreates that "try to survive as a trader in a hostile universe" which Elite had. Not one. Sure, I love my new PS2, but I need more variety like the classic Atari/C=64 days. Now and then a rare gem like Spiderman or Ico comes along... but they are too infrequent. Gaming companies need to take more risks with off-the-wall ideas. Too many are relying on special effects instead of the fun.

(Note: I have the same complaint about the Star Trek franchise. Not willing to take risks, the producers keep re-hashing the same old stuff and trying to wow viewers with special effects while ignoring the plot. Thank god for Babylon5 and Buffy and Angel. Otherwise my TV would never be used.)

Troy

[Raedon]

Why not have board games like M.U.L.E. or Archon?

Mario Party

As for Star Trek, only thing worse then the space soap opera it became in Deep Space 9 and Voyager was the game licensing.. wew! stinky..