The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Collins' Definition of Old-Skool(school) : A group of people favouring traditional ideas or conservative practises.
Pong. Missile Command. Breakout. Utter classics, says atari (dastardly infogrames) and bundles them together for forty quid. Escusesme says I.
I can say without fear of wrongness, that Old-skool games are shallow. The fact that titles (including music) gets sold on the basis that it contains "old-skool" material, is almost a crime.
I, your humble torticollis, shall explain for your literary pleasure why a game which boasts that it contains old-skool material should be shot.
Let me an example give you: Goldeneye multi player, heralded as best ever at the time, and friends of mine have often challenged me to a game. Let me tell you, I would only play this over a modern "equally marked" shooter if a gun was held up to my head, and only then if I could play as my firm breasted love, Xenia.
To put it on the table(?), Anything can be a classic until it's bettered and people who Refuse to acknowledge this and people who still play pong are fools. Hey, it's chic, but in terms of actual games, it's been better. People who want good "simple arcade stylee" should play timesplitters2 in easy mode. For people who want depth, play good modern games on their real settings.
Modern games can offer more depth as well as fun, and new technical abilities in video game consoles bring about more possibilities (Project Ego anyone?).
I suppose that it's fair enough to play Yoshi's Island on the snes, because Yoshi's Story was worse, because it tried to imitate YI and failed.
Back to the chic thing: Old skool is cool, almost like va-va voom to a lesser extent, and people like new atari wh*re this idea.
But old games can be fun. Not old skool, just older games as long as their not just advertised to be "AN OLDER GAME!!!1!!". For example, the old minigames in ts2 are fun for multiplayer, but it is not advertised as "Buy ts2, it has old games!!!1!".
Oldskool is a marketing technique, not a genre of games. Try not to get pulled into the mainstream fashion. Play something which you enjoy.
Farewell.
Torticollis
Pong. Missile Command. Breakout. Utter classics, says atari (dastardly infogrames) and bundles them together for forty quid. Escusesme says I.
I can say without fear of wrongness, that Old-skool games are shallow. The fact that titles (including music) gets sold on the basis that it contains "old-skool" material, is almost a crime.
I, your humble torticollis, shall explain for your literary pleasure why a game which boasts that it contains old-skool material should be shot.
Let me an example give you: Goldeneye multi player, heralded as best ever at the time, and friends of mine have often challenged me to a game. Let me tell you, I would only play this over a modern "equally marked" shooter if a gun was held up to my head, and only then if I could play as my firm breasted love, Xenia.
To put it on the table(?), Anything can be a classic until it's bettered and people who Refuse to acknowledge this and people who still play pong are fools. Hey, it's chic, but in terms of actual games, it's been better. People who want good "simple arcade stylee" should play timesplitters2 in easy mode. For people who want depth, play good modern games on their real settings.
Modern games can offer more depth as well as fun, and new technical abilities in video game consoles bring about more possibilities (Project Ego anyone?).
I suppose that it's fair enough to play Yoshi's Island on the snes, because Yoshi's Story was worse, because it tried to imitate YI and failed.
Back to the chic thing: Old skool is cool, almost like va-va voom to a lesser extent, and people like new atari wh*re this idea.
But old games can be fun. Not old skool, just older games as long as their not just advertised to be "AN OLDER GAME!!!1!!". For example, the old minigames in ts2 are fun for multiplayer, but it is not advertised as "Buy ts2, it has old games!!!1!".
Oldskool is a marketing technique, not a genre of games. Try not to get pulled into the mainstream fashion. Play something which you enjoy.
Farewell.
Torticollis
Page:
I agree with you. I just think you've misinterpreted the thread.
I disagree, I think old school is a selling strategy which a lot of older gamers are vunerable to. Just like that old music on Top of the pops 2 which your parents say they liked, but the song is bad... .Kind of.
The thing is, they don't sell very well at all.
I wrote about those kinds of releases a few weeks ago in the retro forum, replying to someone else's topics. I could try and fish it out if you want. There hasn't been that much activity in the retro forum recently.
I wrote about those kinds of releases a few weeks ago in the retro forum, replying to someone else's topics. I could try and fish it out if you want. There hasn't been that much activity in the retro forum recently.
I'm talking about a marketing technique. I have nothing aginst old games,I'm just against a game being sold on the basis that the game is retro. For example, konami arcade collection, and atari classics.
I think it's a case of some old games are still good, but for every single one of them, there's a modern day equivalent.
Pong has been replaced by Virtua Tennis. Pong was much simpler, but Virtua Tennis offers the same gameplay (albeit from a different perspective and with better graphics) but with more alternatives for people who seek depth.
For me that's the major difference between games of old and the modern ones, the possibilities for depth. The fact that they aren't as 'pick up and play' as just slotting in a cartridge and pressing 'Start' shouldn't detract from this, because all we're really talking about in most cases is 30 seconds of nipping through menus and setup options.
If I was that fussy about things I'd be playing with a Yo-Yo.
Pong has been replaced by Virtua Tennis. Pong was much simpler, but Virtua Tennis offers the same gameplay (albeit from a different perspective and with better graphics) but with more alternatives for people who seek depth.
For me that's the major difference between games of old and the modern ones, the possibilities for depth. The fact that they aren't as 'pick up and play' as just slotting in a cartridge and pressing 'Start' shouldn't detract from this, because all we're really talking about in most cases is 30 seconds of nipping through menus and setup options.
If I was that fussy about things I'd be playing with a Yo-Yo.
What Venombyte said (very well) and...
Good games are good games, however old or new they are, just like classic songs are still classic songs, but that doesn't mean they can't be bettered.
Timesplitters 2 is a very good FPS, that is a fact and in 20 years, should someone pick up an old console and play the game, they will still get the same sense of enjoyment from it. Why, though, is it a good game? Well, mainly because it's fun, certainly not because it's complicated.
A simple game can still be the most enjoyable thing in the world. A good analogy is to that of food. Bangers and mash is a pretty simple combination meal, but that doesn't mean that some fancy expensive meal with five different sauces and creme caramel filling is automatically going to be more to your taste.
Some classics were complicated, take Elite, for instance. Most people remember arcade ports as the classics, but there are many other games which do not rely on reactions alone. This is not to say that simple games are not fun and don't have a place in modern gaming, look at Parappa the Rappa, Fantavision, Bust-a-move or the millions of other puzzle and reation games that still sell by the bucketload.
Sometimes I wake up and think I want to play a game just for fun, something that doesn't make me set up a load of options first. Should it be an old game? Well, it really depends on what you want. If someone made Pong a 3D all singing all dancing game with CD sound, but kept the same simple rules and game design then it wouldn't make any difference. Likewise, modern games like Crazy Taxi or Ridge Racer are as simple as those classics you mention, but have better graphics and benefit from 3D and better sound.
Playing classics for classics sake is perhaps debatable, but playing classics because they are fun is perfectly acceptable, and they ARE fun. I could still spend hours on Atari Tanks even now, it's still so much fun. That doesn't mean I'm not going to have as much fun on other games, though and it's this that is the most important factor in my arguement, Classics DON'T replace modern games or vice versa, they are both fun, however simple or complicated they may be.
Good games are good games, however old or new they are, just like classic songs are still classic songs, but that doesn't mean they can't be bettered.
Timesplitters 2 is a very good FPS, that is a fact and in 20 years, should someone pick up an old console and play the game, they will still get the same sense of enjoyment from it. Why, though, is it a good game? Well, mainly because it's fun, certainly not because it's complicated.
A simple game can still be the most enjoyable thing in the world. A good analogy is to that of food. Bangers and mash is a pretty simple combination meal, but that doesn't mean that some fancy expensive meal with five different sauces and creme caramel filling is automatically going to be more to your taste.
Some classics were complicated, take Elite, for instance. Most people remember arcade ports as the classics, but there are many other games which do not rely on reactions alone. This is not to say that simple games are not fun and don't have a place in modern gaming, look at Parappa the Rappa, Fantavision, Bust-a-move or the millions of other puzzle and reation games that still sell by the bucketload.
Sometimes I wake up and think I want to play a game just for fun, something that doesn't make me set up a load of options first. Should it be an old game? Well, it really depends on what you want. If someone made Pong a 3D all singing all dancing game with CD sound, but kept the same simple rules and game design then it wouldn't make any difference. Likewise, modern games like Crazy Taxi or Ridge Racer are as simple as those classics you mention, but have better graphics and benefit from 3D and better sound.
Playing classics for classics sake is perhaps debatable, but playing classics because they are fun is perfectly acceptable, and they ARE fun. I could still spend hours on Atari Tanks even now, it's still so much fun. That doesn't mean I'm not going to have as much fun on other games, though and it's this that is the most important factor in my arguement, Classics DON'T replace modern games or vice versa, they are both fun, however simple or complicated they may be.
Vemonbyte is right - I recently got a Megacd and a copy of Sol-Feace. It's side scrolling shoot-em-up and there are only a couple of buttons to "remember". The skill is in the playability. I had a go on it and lost my 3 lives in about 30 seconds. Then I shook my head in anger, shock and dismay - had my skill levels really fallen that badly? Anyway, within a few minutes I was coasting along, avoiding enemies and generally enjoying it more than Rogue Leader. Then onto the end-of-level boss. Standard fare for a shoot-em-up, but i was loving it.
Retrogames are fairly subjective insofar that only people from that "golden era" will enjoy them. So, if you raved on about Streets of Rage and then played it to someone who has grown up in the PS generation, they'll look at you blankly and try to certify you insane.
I got a copy of Streets of Rage 2 as well and was playing that last night - I forgot how good the music was. Excellent stuff!
Retrogames are fairly subjective insofar that only people from that "golden era" will enjoy them. So, if you raved on about Streets of Rage and then played it to someone who has grown up in the PS generation, they'll look at you blankly and try to certify you insane.
I got a copy of Streets of Rage 2 as well and was playing that last night - I forgot how good the music was. Excellent stuff!
I read it, if that makes you feel any better.
As an avid retrogamer though, I'm afraid I can't agree with most of what you're saying.
Old games are shallow, yes. It does not naturally follow from this that they are inferior. The simplicity of the gameplay forces you to learn and play in a way that you don't have to any more.
Let's take 'pong' for example. A ball bounces from side to side, gradually speeding up until a point is scored. The rebound angle is dependant on the angle the ball hits your bat. That's all there is to it. You can be fairly good at a game like this once you understand the angles, but that's it. There are no more features. You stop learning how to play the game, and start learning how to play the game well. Big difference. Reactions and co-ordination don't play as big a part as you might think, there is something else. Something you can't explain in terms of mouse accuracy or level knowledge.
Here's another point to consider. A very good Robotron 2084 plyer can last for over ten minutes. A great Robotron 2084 player can play for over four hours. This sort of thing simply does not happen in games these days. By making games more complicated, against all logic, you level the playing field. Older games are a much better indication of your skills.
So how much more fun is all the detail, and why do you want it?
Let's look at first person shooters briefly. More weapons and more levels don't make a better game any more than having a film three times as long with twice the heroes will make it better. They are distractions to hide you from the fact that you're no longer experiencing anyting new. If you really want depth of gameplay, why are you playing a first person shooter?
Some newer games obviously are better than older ones. Advanture games, RPG's - generally anything involving the exploration of a new world. These are better because the entertainment comes from the exploration and the discovery, rather than the act of playing the game itself. The enjoyment factor from playing these games is greater than the sum of the enjoyment gained from each of your experiences in playing to that point. You're aiming for a goal, rather than playing for the sake of playing. It's the same with most newer games, but for these it's the whole point. For others, it's simply a distraction.
Racing games are shallow. But still, they're changing too. Gran Turismo gives you all kinds of goals to aim for. Playing involves endless lonely victory parades with the rivals half a lap behind. Are you enjoying the challenge of that; the thrill of the race? Or are you doing it so you can afford the Subaru Ipreza?
New games have more depth and more goals, both of which serve to distract you from the underlying theme. You will never get the same feel for the newer games as you can the older ones. Play the older games. Have complete control. Play for the pure, simple, fun. Play for the moment, and enjoy it.
As an avid retrogamer though, I'm afraid I can't agree with most of what you're saying.
Old games are shallow, yes. It does not naturally follow from this that they are inferior. The simplicity of the gameplay forces you to learn and play in a way that you don't have to any more.
Let's take 'pong' for example. A ball bounces from side to side, gradually speeding up until a point is scored. The rebound angle is dependant on the angle the ball hits your bat. That's all there is to it. You can be fairly good at a game like this once you understand the angles, but that's it. There are no more features. You stop learning how to play the game, and start learning how to play the game well. Big difference. Reactions and co-ordination don't play as big a part as you might think, there is something else. Something you can't explain in terms of mouse accuracy or level knowledge.
Here's another point to consider. A very good Robotron 2084 plyer can last for over ten minutes. A great Robotron 2084 player can play for over four hours. This sort of thing simply does not happen in games these days. By making games more complicated, against all logic, you level the playing field. Older games are a much better indication of your skills.
So how much more fun is all the detail, and why do you want it?
Let's look at first person shooters briefly. More weapons and more levels don't make a better game any more than having a film three times as long with twice the heroes will make it better. They are distractions to hide you from the fact that you're no longer experiencing anyting new. If you really want depth of gameplay, why are you playing a first person shooter?
Some newer games obviously are better than older ones. Advanture games, RPG's - generally anything involving the exploration of a new world. These are better because the entertainment comes from the exploration and the discovery, rather than the act of playing the game itself. The enjoyment factor from playing these games is greater than the sum of the enjoyment gained from each of your experiences in playing to that point. You're aiming for a goal, rather than playing for the sake of playing. It's the same with most newer games, but for these it's the whole point. For others, it's simply a distraction.
Racing games are shallow. But still, they're changing too. Gran Turismo gives you all kinds of goals to aim for. Playing involves endless lonely victory parades with the rivals half a lap behind. Are you enjoying the challenge of that; the thrill of the race? Or are you doing it so you can afford the Subaru Ipreza?
New games have more depth and more goals, both of which serve to distract you from the underlying theme. You will never get the same feel for the newer games as you can the older ones. Play the older games. Have complete control. Play for the pure, simple, fun. Play for the moment, and enjoy it.
This is the serious post, so if anyone could read this, that would be great...
That would be old-school or tormented memories, not Old-Skool.
Page: