The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Now that the millennium buzz has pretty much completely passed...
In addition, the obsession with retro TV, Movies, Fashion is also showing definite signs of waning...
Where now for Retro Software?
Software more than any other medium is subject to aging very badly very quickly...
Looking forward to the future and existing in a state of almost constant change is, by many, understood to be THE environment for computer existence.
Living in the now, expecting the future, and understanding, taking into account, but otherwise ignoring the past is almost the maxim of the computer industry.
Is it better, with computers at least, not to spend out times looking to the past, since the best times are still very much to come? Moreover, in this industry, if you stop to catch your breath, you will miss quite a few innovations...
However, there are a few 'real' classics, which still feel fresh and payable today... Most games, once nostalgia has been removed, hold little value...
Is it time for the vast majority of retro titles to be acknowledged for being great games in their time, but ultimately for it to be time to lock them in the cupboard permanently?
Should being overly nostalgic for computer games be left to teenagers, contenting with the loss of childhood and growth to adulthood?
Should nostalgia for computer games been seen as a sign to get out of the house more?
Alternatively, do Retro-Titles still have enough life left in them to survive today? Does their level of innovation, style, design, and game play has one or two things to teach the new generation of games yet?
Are retro games an old, pre-millennium trend, or a surviving constant?
In addition, the obsession with retro TV, Movies, Fashion is also showing definite signs of waning...
Where now for Retro Software?
Software more than any other medium is subject to aging very badly very quickly...
Looking forward to the future and existing in a state of almost constant change is, by many, understood to be THE environment for computer existence.
Living in the now, expecting the future, and understanding, taking into account, but otherwise ignoring the past is almost the maxim of the computer industry.
Is it better, with computers at least, not to spend out times looking to the past, since the best times are still very much to come? Moreover, in this industry, if you stop to catch your breath, you will miss quite a few innovations...
However, there are a few 'real' classics, which still feel fresh and payable today... Most games, once nostalgia has been removed, hold little value...
Is it time for the vast majority of retro titles to be acknowledged for being great games in their time, but ultimately for it to be time to lock them in the cupboard permanently?
Should being overly nostalgic for computer games be left to teenagers, contenting with the loss of childhood and growth to adulthood?
Should nostalgia for computer games been seen as a sign to get out of the house more?
Alternatively, do Retro-Titles still have enough life left in them to survive today? Does their level of innovation, style, design, and game play has one or two things to teach the new generation of games yet?
Are retro games an old, pre-millennium trend, or a surviving constant?
Page:
I would have clamed TR as a classic title, it added much more to the gaming world, than to just to have made Quake in a third person perspective (though that should be enought in itself)
I would, personally, mark Doom as a classic game, although there is little, if anything, original about the game...
I would suggest Tomb Raider owes more to the Mario64, 3D platformer than to the Doo, FPS titles, it was certainly the first game where I became frustrated with 'camera' angles! ... It also brought Arcade-Adventure style games back into the lime light... a gaming style which is usually left only for Console RPG's..
Even Lara Croft herself, though certainly no unaided by the media, irrevocably changed Gaming and its stakes...
I would, personally, mark Doom as a classic game, although there is little, if anything, original about the game...
I would suggest Tomb Raider owes more to the Mario64, 3D platformer than to the Doo, FPS titles, it was certainly the first game where I became frustrated with 'camera' angles! ... It also brought Arcade-Adventure style games back into the lime light... a gaming style which is usually left only for Console RPG's..
Even Lara Croft herself, though certainly no unaided by the media, irrevocably changed Gaming and its stakes...
Maybe you are right about TR, perhaps not quite on the same scale as the other games I had listed, but a worthy mention none the less.
I would have to agree with this. If we have to place these games into catagories, then this is the best reason i`ve heard so far for doing so.
But just one thing... Your so-called classic game list, All was fine until you stumbled into TombRaider territory!!.
TombRaider is not so much a classic because it does little new and borrows heavily from several major game sources (like a certain game called Quake!) using its only novel feature, that of a big breasted nubile young lady, is its main selling point, or erm - points (heh, heh!!)
Hardly a classic, more really just a notable game due to its publicity.
Otherwise you list was spot on...
But just one thing... Your so-called classic game list, All was fine until you stumbled into TombRaider territory!!.
TombRaider is not so much a classic because it does little new and borrows heavily from several major game sources (like a certain game called Quake!) using its only novel feature, that of a big breasted nubile young lady, is its main selling point, or erm - points (heh, heh!!)
Hardly a classic, more really just a notable game due to its publicity.
Otherwise you list was spot on...
My interpretation of a retro and a classic game would be as follows
A retro game would be a game that has been written and released in our present era, that sets out to emulate a style of gaming from the past. Sensible Soccer is not a retro game, but if EA suddenly decided that FIFA 2002 should be a top down 2D affair, then that would be a retro game. If Rogue Squadron 2 was a side scrolling 2D blaster, emulating Uridium or the countless other side scrolling space games, then it would be retro.
Therefore, any game that is considered to be a top class game in it's time, will no doubt become, or has become a classic. Elite is a classic, Revs is a classic, Defender is a classic. Half Life will be considered a classic, as will Tomb Raider or Resident Evil.
So the distinction is really very clear;
If it's old and good, then it's a classic.
If it's new and emulates old style gaming then it is retro.
Unsurprisingly, there aren't too many retro titles out there, I wouldn't hold my breath either.
The forum should be entitled Game Idea's and Classic Gaming.
That's what I think anyway.
A retro game would be a game that has been written and released in our present era, that sets out to emulate a style of gaming from the past. Sensible Soccer is not a retro game, but if EA suddenly decided that FIFA 2002 should be a top down 2D affair, then that would be a retro game. If Rogue Squadron 2 was a side scrolling 2D blaster, emulating Uridium or the countless other side scrolling space games, then it would be retro.
Therefore, any game that is considered to be a top class game in it's time, will no doubt become, or has become a classic. Elite is a classic, Revs is a classic, Defender is a classic. Half Life will be considered a classic, as will Tomb Raider or Resident Evil.
So the distinction is really very clear;
If it's old and good, then it's a classic.
If it's new and emulates old style gaming then it is retro.
Unsurprisingly, there aren't too many retro titles out there, I wouldn't hold my breath either.
The forum should be entitled Game Idea's and Classic Gaming.
That's what I think anyway.
Retro is defined by Websters online dictionary as 'being of the past'
The only question being... how far in the past?
The only question being... how far in the past?
Armitage Shanks wrote:
> BORGDRONE wrote:
> Maybe the other mediums have it figured wrong
> as well, like i said
> its only a generic term...
lol ...
> thats not a reply! :)
I'd suspect the term is ment to refer to
> 'nostagic' as much as anything...
Ijn which case, any game played
> on a dated system, no matter how good, must be considered a retro
> game...
There are certain excpetions, e.g. Chess, draughts,
> etc... but I'd suspect that a game would have to last a few hundred
> years to get validaly classed as a classic?
Nostalgic... hmmm, thats cute!
Your idea of what makes a classic is correct, as i feel some games are worthy of such titles if they trancend the ages with the same appeal as they did when first released.
But this does bring to question the claims made by magazines about new games in their reviews when they state things like "an absolute classic!!!"... How could they know? Is this game destined to be remembered or even played 10 years from now? As with retro, what defines the status "classic"? Certain Gran Turismo 3 reviews are making such claims now, but seem to have forgotten they said much the same thing about the first game!.
As for dated systems, well how about this...
Do you remember INT.3D TENNIS by Sensible Software released on the Palace label? If you do, you`ll know it took vector graphics as its format and gave us little stickmen to play tennis with. Its innovation was its control system. Up til then, nearly all tennis games on computers or consoles required you to control your player and your shot, but the variety of shots available was normally very restricted. Not so with Sensible`s game, for here the computer controlled your players movement and left you with the full range of joystick selections (8 different shots with button down, 8 more with button released then press again to hit) which allowed for greater tactical play, excellent rallies and opened up the game in term of strategy, as each player really had to be different.
My point? well you may also remember this game appeared first on the CBM 64, then Spectrum, Amstrad and later on also ST and Amiga (this latter version i`m still playing!).
Now the sad fact is that tennis games, although improving leaps and bounds in graphics, and with a sole exception of a couple of good games on the N64 and Dreamcast - seem to have taken a backstep with gameplay, as the excellent system employed by INT.3D TENNIS has never been used since (and i don`t think its because it didn`t work because it did!). So this older game which you would call retro was also innovative and original. Now just because its being played on an older system like the Amiga, does not mean it loses any of that originality if newer titles have failed to progress past it.
Another point to this is Cryo`s OPEN TENNIS 2001 which uses the latest 3d card technology and sound but who`s control method seems to have gone back to a time before joysticks! In this game you are required to control your player, hit the shot (again now limited) and THEN select the area of the opponants court you want the ball to land!!! All this using a mouse because they refuse to put in a joystick option!!!
Retro to me is a state of mind, and as long as you think along those lines you`ll never see beyond that. That is why i think the term retro is too general, it doesn`t help when good older games that had INNOVATION and ORIGINALITY are labelled under this, especially if we have not learnt from what they gave us.
> BORGDRONE wrote:
> Maybe the other mediums have it figured wrong
> as well, like i said
> its only a generic term...
lol ...
> thats not a reply! :)
I'd suspect the term is ment to refer to
> 'nostagic' as much as anything...
Ijn which case, any game played
> on a dated system, no matter how good, must be considered a retro
> game...
There are certain excpetions, e.g. Chess, draughts,
> etc... but I'd suspect that a game would have to last a few hundred
> years to get validaly classed as a classic?
Nostalgic... hmmm, thats cute!
Your idea of what makes a classic is correct, as i feel some games are worthy of such titles if they trancend the ages with the same appeal as they did when first released.
But this does bring to question the claims made by magazines about new games in their reviews when they state things like "an absolute classic!!!"... How could they know? Is this game destined to be remembered or even played 10 years from now? As with retro, what defines the status "classic"? Certain Gran Turismo 3 reviews are making such claims now, but seem to have forgotten they said much the same thing about the first game!.
As for dated systems, well how about this...
Do you remember INT.3D TENNIS by Sensible Software released on the Palace label? If you do, you`ll know it took vector graphics as its format and gave us little stickmen to play tennis with. Its innovation was its control system. Up til then, nearly all tennis games on computers or consoles required you to control your player and your shot, but the variety of shots available was normally very restricted. Not so with Sensible`s game, for here the computer controlled your players movement and left you with the full range of joystick selections (8 different shots with button down, 8 more with button released then press again to hit) which allowed for greater tactical play, excellent rallies and opened up the game in term of strategy, as each player really had to be different.
My point? well you may also remember this game appeared first on the CBM 64, then Spectrum, Amstrad and later on also ST and Amiga (this latter version i`m still playing!).
Now the sad fact is that tennis games, although improving leaps and bounds in graphics, and with a sole exception of a couple of good games on the N64 and Dreamcast - seem to have taken a backstep with gameplay, as the excellent system employed by INT.3D TENNIS has never been used since (and i don`t think its because it didn`t work because it did!). So this older game which you would call retro was also innovative and original. Now just because its being played on an older system like the Amiga, does not mean it loses any of that originality if newer titles have failed to progress past it.
Another point to this is Cryo`s OPEN TENNIS 2001 which uses the latest 3d card technology and sound but who`s control method seems to have gone back to a time before joysticks! In this game you are required to control your player, hit the shot (again now limited) and THEN select the area of the opponants court you want the ball to land!!! All this using a mouse because they refuse to put in a joystick option!!!
Retro to me is a state of mind, and as long as you think along those lines you`ll never see beyond that. That is why i think the term retro is too general, it doesn`t help when good older games that had INNOVATION and ORIGINALITY are labelled under this, especially if we have not learnt from what they gave us.
BORGDRONE wrote:
> Maybe the other mediums have it figured wrong as well, like i said
> its only a generic term...
lol ... thats not a reply! :)
I'd suspect the term is ment to refer to 'nostagic' as much as anything...
Ijn which case, any game played on a dated system, no matter how good, must be considered a retro game...
There are certain excpetions, e.g. Chess, draughts, etc... but I'd suspect that a game would have to last a few hundred years to get validaly classed as a classic?
> Maybe the other mediums have it figured wrong as well, like i said
> its only a generic term...
lol ... thats not a reply! :)
I'd suspect the term is ment to refer to 'nostagic' as much as anything...
Ijn which case, any game played on a dated system, no matter how good, must be considered a retro game...
There are certain excpetions, e.g. Chess, draughts, etc... but I'd suspect that a game would have to last a few hundred years to get validaly classed as a classic?
Maybe the other mediums have it figured wrong as well, like i said its only a generic term...
BORGDRONE wrote:
I`m not trying to dampen down your
> enthusiasm for past-gaming Mr Shanks, so don`t think i don`t agree
> with all you pointed out at the start of this topic, But i do feel
> strongly that we cannot use the terminology of the likes of RETRO if
> its apparrent that alot of people still play older games in the
> PRESENT.
> Do you not agree...?
Although,
I watch TV programs made in the eighties...
I listen to music from the eighties...
As do a lot of other people... watching programs we enjoy... in the PRESENT
But they are still considered RETRO TV programs and music...
How can this then suddenly be so different for games than it is for the other mediums?
I`m not trying to dampen down your
> enthusiasm for past-gaming Mr Shanks, so don`t think i don`t agree
> with all you pointed out at the start of this topic, But i do feel
> strongly that we cannot use the terminology of the likes of RETRO if
> its apparrent that alot of people still play older games in the
> PRESENT.
> Do you not agree...?
Although,
I watch TV programs made in the eighties...
I listen to music from the eighties...
As do a lot of other people... watching programs we enjoy... in the PRESENT
But they are still considered RETRO TV programs and music...
How can this then suddenly be so different for games than it is for the other mediums?
Have to admit, i`m having more fun on the Amiga now than with my PC...!!!
Got soooo bored with BLACK & WHITE and removed it from my Hard drive.
But the Amiga games INT. 3D TENNIS and HIRED GUNS are giving me sleepless nights.
But as i`ve said in another topic, i don`t feel these to be retro, merely old. Retro is a blanket term and is used too much in gaming, why call a game "retro" just because its old or a newer version has come out since? Surely if YOU still enjoy playing it, its age should not matter!
Besides, the validity of retro comes into its own when someone has to start a topic enquiring about it, if so it only goes to show a majority of gamers out there still prefer older games compared to some newer, recent releases and the responses to such a topic will only comfirm this.
I mean, who here cannot say they still have a fave old game?
I`m not trying to dampen down your enthusiasm for past-gaming Mr Shanks, so don`t think i don`t agree with all you pointed out at the start of this topic, But i do feel strongly that we cannot use the terminology of the likes of RETRO if its apparrent that alot of people still play older games in the PRESENT.
Do you not agree...?
Got soooo bored with BLACK & WHITE and removed it from my Hard drive.
But the Amiga games INT. 3D TENNIS and HIRED GUNS are giving me sleepless nights.
But as i`ve said in another topic, i don`t feel these to be retro, merely old. Retro is a blanket term and is used too much in gaming, why call a game "retro" just because its old or a newer version has come out since? Surely if YOU still enjoy playing it, its age should not matter!
Besides, the validity of retro comes into its own when someone has to start a topic enquiring about it, if so it only goes to show a majority of gamers out there still prefer older games compared to some newer, recent releases and the responses to such a topic will only comfirm this.
I mean, who here cannot say they still have a fave old game?
I`m not trying to dampen down your enthusiasm for past-gaming Mr Shanks, so don`t think i don`t agree with all you pointed out at the start of this topic, But i do feel strongly that we cannot use the terminology of the likes of RETRO if its apparrent that alot of people still play older games in the PRESENT.
Do you not agree...?
Page: