The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Logical, n'est pa?
A lot of people often say (well, to me anyway..) that they enjoyed gaming in the past much more than now, so why is this?
Well, retro gaming does have a certain nostalgic thing about it (you know, being in the past and all that) but if you discount the small amount of rose tinted spectacle viewing that tends to happen in these situations, you come up with a few home truths.
Gaming should be fun.
Above all else, however serious you get with a game, however lifelike the game is made to be, there is only one thing it must have, the fun factor. This is the key to why games were so good in the past. Without the fancy graphics or the realistic effects and surroundings, programmers had to create games that were going to hold people's attentions for more than a few hours in order to sell their games.
Perhaps they have lost their way somewhat in making today's games 'appealing' by increasing the AI or making the shadows move realistically, all things that give a game the instant 'wow' factor for the first impression. Ok, so this is important when selling a game, for people to be able to look at it and say 'I want that', but what happens when they've played it once? What happens when the next level they get to is the same as the last and the whole thing feels as if it has no soul? Well, it just gets chucked on the pile and the games player waits for the next 'wow' experience to come along, while the software company lines its pockets.
Experimentation.
In the early days of gaming we saw many a strange and weird game go by. Some of them were far too strange to sell, but most were lapped up as being original and exciting. There was a buzz around because you never knew what to expect next. It's not just one company that's guilty of sticking to the mainstream these days, however much some people insinuate this. Every games company sticks to what will make them money, particularly in sequels of popular games that don't really differ from their ancestors. We need that fun filled feel of anticipation back, instead of waiting for Another Adventure III or Fighting Zone 4, we should be getting Trance Fox blaster or Glass Wizard in Cream (you get the idea, something non-mainstream) Time was when you could be assured of playing a wizard turned into a bouncing ball by some magic spell or a drunk that needed to be guided home, you just didn't know what was around the corner.
Doing it for Love
It’s all about money these days. Well, to some extents it always was, but you get the feeling that big corporations running the decisions is far more detrimental to the industry than someone feverishly working away at a game in their bedroom or study. Even firms at the time, like Ocean or Imagine weren’t that big and created enough original games alongside their arcade counterparts to offset the corporate boredom of mainstream.
Yes, the audience has changed these days, that’s for certain. But back when 8-bit computers first came out, everyone and their dad was getting into gaming and the whole geeky idea didn’t really feature until later on. Just because the public is mainstream, it doesn’t mean that the games have to be. BBC works well alongside Channel 4, it would be boring if you didn’t have the choice.
What can we do? Well, we always have a choice, we can always use our voice. Write to the games companies or, even better, set one up yourselves. Don’t be pressured by the big boys of industry. If people could create games in their bedrooms back in the 80’s (Codemasters started in a similar way) then it can still be done now, and there are tools to do it too, some of them are free. Sell your games at local games shops and get noticed, then move in and nudge those boring big players to the side as you bring the rainbow of fun and originality back to the sky of gaming. We need to do something, otherwise we’ll end up being the losers, we need games to be fun again and we need that element of surprise, rather than the stagnant smell of predictability.
A lot of people often say (well, to me anyway..) that they enjoyed gaming in the past much more than now, so why is this?
Well, retro gaming does have a certain nostalgic thing about it (you know, being in the past and all that) but if you discount the small amount of rose tinted spectacle viewing that tends to happen in these situations, you come up with a few home truths.
Gaming should be fun.
Above all else, however serious you get with a game, however lifelike the game is made to be, there is only one thing it must have, the fun factor. This is the key to why games were so good in the past. Without the fancy graphics or the realistic effects and surroundings, programmers had to create games that were going to hold people's attentions for more than a few hours in order to sell their games.
Perhaps they have lost their way somewhat in making today's games 'appealing' by increasing the AI or making the shadows move realistically, all things that give a game the instant 'wow' factor for the first impression. Ok, so this is important when selling a game, for people to be able to look at it and say 'I want that', but what happens when they've played it once? What happens when the next level they get to is the same as the last and the whole thing feels as if it has no soul? Well, it just gets chucked on the pile and the games player waits for the next 'wow' experience to come along, while the software company lines its pockets.
Experimentation.
In the early days of gaming we saw many a strange and weird game go by. Some of them were far too strange to sell, but most were lapped up as being original and exciting. There was a buzz around because you never knew what to expect next. It's not just one company that's guilty of sticking to the mainstream these days, however much some people insinuate this. Every games company sticks to what will make them money, particularly in sequels of popular games that don't really differ from their ancestors. We need that fun filled feel of anticipation back, instead of waiting for Another Adventure III or Fighting Zone 4, we should be getting Trance Fox blaster or Glass Wizard in Cream (you get the idea, something non-mainstream) Time was when you could be assured of playing a wizard turned into a bouncing ball by some magic spell or a drunk that needed to be guided home, you just didn't know what was around the corner.
Doing it for Love
It’s all about money these days. Well, to some extents it always was, but you get the feeling that big corporations running the decisions is far more detrimental to the industry than someone feverishly working away at a game in their bedroom or study. Even firms at the time, like Ocean or Imagine weren’t that big and created enough original games alongside their arcade counterparts to offset the corporate boredom of mainstream.
Yes, the audience has changed these days, that’s for certain. But back when 8-bit computers first came out, everyone and their dad was getting into gaming and the whole geeky idea didn’t really feature until later on. Just because the public is mainstream, it doesn’t mean that the games have to be. BBC works well alongside Channel 4, it would be boring if you didn’t have the choice.
What can we do? Well, we always have a choice, we can always use our voice. Write to the games companies or, even better, set one up yourselves. Don’t be pressured by the big boys of industry. If people could create games in their bedrooms back in the 80’s (Codemasters started in a similar way) then it can still be done now, and there are tools to do it too, some of them are free. Sell your games at local games shops and get noticed, then move in and nudge those boring big players to the side as you bring the rainbow of fun and originality back to the sky of gaming. We need to do something, otherwise we’ll end up being the losers, we need games to be fun again and we need that element of surprise, rather than the stagnant smell of predictability.
Page:
Dr Gonzo with the opening statement for the defence your Honour.
Retro should stay where it is - buried in the past. I had a Spectrum nearly 15 years ago, what sort of progression would it be to be aiming to emulate that? Retro games always seem great until you actually play them again. I haven't found a single title that I've gone back to for more than about half an hour. Why? The real reason I have fond memories of those games is partly due to the long summer holidays, the carefree nature of being six years old and being introduced to a new world by my brother and his Spectrum and the even then getting old Clecovision (and I’m pretty sure that’s not how you spell it).
Successful games were no more innovative then that they are now, successful being the important word. Sure, more things were "new", but this is because there wasn't really so much "old". You can call them innovators if you like, but really they had a blank canvass to work with anyway. It is much harder to be "new" now. It’s a common misconception (I should probably add an “in my opinion” around here somewhere) as you are looking at maybe a decades work when you rhyme off some retro "classics" versus the last six months. I remember the promises of a cartridge boasting 101 games for my Cleocovision when in reality there was just 20 odd variations on Pong and Breakout (the other 81 games can be consigned to the file marked "mathematical error"). Also, bedroom coding still thrives. Who do you think comes up with the Half-Life mods and numerous Sims skins and objects available on the Internet?
Look at what we have - most obviously graphics. Are you trying to suggest that GT3 isn't a step on from Night Driver (or the millions of clones it spawned... or maybe it was a clone of something else...)? We can have expansive and diverse game worlds with no load times, rather than waiting half an hour for a game to load and then repeat an infinite number of the same one screen levels, but coloured slightly different. Oh, and plenty more load time between each level. Why were kids then called swoty computer geeks? Cause they could complete a Masters degree in the time it took to load level 113 (the one like level 111, but with an extra grey block in the top left hand corner) of Builder Jim: Movin' Bricks.
Hell, I had a great time playing those games, but much like toilet training it is something I neither have a desire or necessity to do again. When I come across an old tape with a Spectrum game on it I look at it like a picture of an old hair cut – I’m sure it was a good idea at the time… but what was I thinking!
Retro should stay where it is - buried in the past. I had a Spectrum nearly 15 years ago, what sort of progression would it be to be aiming to emulate that? Retro games always seem great until you actually play them again. I haven't found a single title that I've gone back to for more than about half an hour. Why? The real reason I have fond memories of those games is partly due to the long summer holidays, the carefree nature of being six years old and being introduced to a new world by my brother and his Spectrum and the even then getting old Clecovision (and I’m pretty sure that’s not how you spell it).
Successful games were no more innovative then that they are now, successful being the important word. Sure, more things were "new", but this is because there wasn't really so much "old". You can call them innovators if you like, but really they had a blank canvass to work with anyway. It is much harder to be "new" now. It’s a common misconception (I should probably add an “in my opinion” around here somewhere) as you are looking at maybe a decades work when you rhyme off some retro "classics" versus the last six months. I remember the promises of a cartridge boasting 101 games for my Cleocovision when in reality there was just 20 odd variations on Pong and Breakout (the other 81 games can be consigned to the file marked "mathematical error"). Also, bedroom coding still thrives. Who do you think comes up with the Half-Life mods and numerous Sims skins and objects available on the Internet?
Look at what we have - most obviously graphics. Are you trying to suggest that GT3 isn't a step on from Night Driver (or the millions of clones it spawned... or maybe it was a clone of something else...)? We can have expansive and diverse game worlds with no load times, rather than waiting half an hour for a game to load and then repeat an infinite number of the same one screen levels, but coloured slightly different. Oh, and plenty more load time between each level. Why were kids then called swoty computer geeks? Cause they could complete a Masters degree in the time it took to load level 113 (the one like level 111, but with an extra grey block in the top left hand corner) of Builder Jim: Movin' Bricks.
Hell, I had a great time playing those games, but much like toilet training it is something I neither have a desire or necessity to do again. When I come across an old tape with a Spectrum game on it I look at it like a picture of an old hair cut – I’m sure it was a good idea at the time… but what was I thinking!
Logical, n'est pa?
A lot of people often say (well, to me anyway..) that they enjoyed gaming in the past much more than now, so why is this?
Well, retro gaming does have a certain nostalgic thing about it (you know, being in the past and all that) but if you discount the small amount of rose tinted spectacle viewing that tends to happen in these situations, you come up with a few home truths.
Gaming should be fun.
Above all else, however serious you get with a game, however lifelike the game is made to be, there is only one thing it must have, the fun factor. This is the key to why games were so good in the past. Without the fancy graphics or the realistic effects and surroundings, programmers had to create games that were going to hold people's attentions for more than a few hours in order to sell their games.
Perhaps they have lost their way somewhat in making today's games 'appealing' by increasing the AI or making the shadows move realistically, all things that give a game the instant 'wow' factor for the first impression. Ok, so this is important when selling a game, for people to be able to look at it and say 'I want that', but what happens when they've played it once? What happens when the next level they get to is the same as the last and the whole thing feels as if it has no soul? Well, it just gets chucked on the pile and the games player waits for the next 'wow' experience to come along, while the software company lines its pockets.
Experimentation.
In the early days of gaming we saw many a strange and weird game go by. Some of them were far too strange to sell, but most were lapped up as being original and exciting. There was a buzz around because you never knew what to expect next. It's not just one company that's guilty of sticking to the mainstream these days, however much some people insinuate this. Every games company sticks to what will make them money, particularly in sequels of popular games that don't really differ from their ancestors. We need that fun filled feel of anticipation back, instead of waiting for Another Adventure III or Fighting Zone 4, we should be getting Trance Fox blaster or Glass Wizard in Cream (you get the idea, something non-mainstream) Time was when you could be assured of playing a wizard turned into a bouncing ball by some magic spell or a drunk that needed to be guided home, you just didn't know what was around the corner.
Doing it for Love
It’s all about money these days. Well, to some extents it always was, but you get the feeling that big corporations running the decisions is far more detrimental to the industry than someone feverishly working away at a game in their bedroom or study. Even firms at the time, like Ocean or Imagine weren’t that big and created enough original games alongside their arcade counterparts to offset the corporate boredom of mainstream.
Yes, the audience has changed these days, that’s for certain. But back when 8-bit computers first came out, everyone and their dad was getting into gaming and the whole geeky idea didn’t really feature until later on. Just because the public is mainstream, it doesn’t mean that the games have to be. BBC works well alongside Channel 4, it would be boring if you didn’t have the choice.
What can we do? Well, we always have a choice, we can always use our voice. Write to the games companies or, even better, set one up yourselves. Don’t be pressured by the big boys of industry. If people could create games in their bedrooms back in the 80’s (Codemasters started in a similar way) then it can still be done now, and there are tools to do it too, some of them are free. Sell your games at local games shops and get noticed, then move in and nudge those boring big players to the side as you bring the rainbow of fun and originality back to the sky of gaming. We need to do something, otherwise we’ll end up being the losers, we need games to be fun again and we need that element of surprise, rather than the stagnant smell of predictability.
A lot of people often say (well, to me anyway..) that they enjoyed gaming in the past much more than now, so why is this?
Well, retro gaming does have a certain nostalgic thing about it (you know, being in the past and all that) but if you discount the small amount of rose tinted spectacle viewing that tends to happen in these situations, you come up with a few home truths.
Gaming should be fun.
Above all else, however serious you get with a game, however lifelike the game is made to be, there is only one thing it must have, the fun factor. This is the key to why games were so good in the past. Without the fancy graphics or the realistic effects and surroundings, programmers had to create games that were going to hold people's attentions for more than a few hours in order to sell their games.
Perhaps they have lost their way somewhat in making today's games 'appealing' by increasing the AI or making the shadows move realistically, all things that give a game the instant 'wow' factor for the first impression. Ok, so this is important when selling a game, for people to be able to look at it and say 'I want that', but what happens when they've played it once? What happens when the next level they get to is the same as the last and the whole thing feels as if it has no soul? Well, it just gets chucked on the pile and the games player waits for the next 'wow' experience to come along, while the software company lines its pockets.
Experimentation.
In the early days of gaming we saw many a strange and weird game go by. Some of them were far too strange to sell, but most were lapped up as being original and exciting. There was a buzz around because you never knew what to expect next. It's not just one company that's guilty of sticking to the mainstream these days, however much some people insinuate this. Every games company sticks to what will make them money, particularly in sequels of popular games that don't really differ from their ancestors. We need that fun filled feel of anticipation back, instead of waiting for Another Adventure III or Fighting Zone 4, we should be getting Trance Fox blaster or Glass Wizard in Cream (you get the idea, something non-mainstream) Time was when you could be assured of playing a wizard turned into a bouncing ball by some magic spell or a drunk that needed to be guided home, you just didn't know what was around the corner.
Doing it for Love
It’s all about money these days. Well, to some extents it always was, but you get the feeling that big corporations running the decisions is far more detrimental to the industry than someone feverishly working away at a game in their bedroom or study. Even firms at the time, like Ocean or Imagine weren’t that big and created enough original games alongside their arcade counterparts to offset the corporate boredom of mainstream.
Yes, the audience has changed these days, that’s for certain. But back when 8-bit computers first came out, everyone and their dad was getting into gaming and the whole geeky idea didn’t really feature until later on. Just because the public is mainstream, it doesn’t mean that the games have to be. BBC works well alongside Channel 4, it would be boring if you didn’t have the choice.
What can we do? Well, we always have a choice, we can always use our voice. Write to the games companies or, even better, set one up yourselves. Don’t be pressured by the big boys of industry. If people could create games in their bedrooms back in the 80’s (Codemasters started in a similar way) then it can still be done now, and there are tools to do it too, some of them are free. Sell your games at local games shops and get noticed, then move in and nudge those boring big players to the side as you bring the rainbow of fun and originality back to the sky of gaming. We need to do something, otherwise we’ll end up being the losers, we need games to be fun again and we need that element of surprise, rather than the stagnant smell of predictability.
Page: