The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
As I stumble through my daily routine of hacking, slashing and blasting everything around me to little bits, my mind starts to wander. Today I realised; as I grow older, things change.
Take the gaming world for instance.
Now, I'm not exactly over the hill, but I have seen a massive evolution in the world of computer games in my 19 years on God's green/ grey, brown, dull, uninspiring Earth. A lot of us have been around for the transition from 2D to 3D etc. But today I realised that the biggest change has gone virtually unnoticed, its been so gradual that it had completely passed me by.
I am talking of course of gameplay. Specifically, our approach to gaming and what we now expect from games.
When I were a lad, games were hard. Simple as that. Games... hard. They were fun, they kept you playing time and again, but compared to todays games, they were hard.
So what's happened then? Over the years, games have become bigger, better, more colourful more polygonal and a shirt load easier.
Where's my proof? Allow me to call forward "Longevity".
It can't have escaped your notice that one of the biggest complaints about todays games is to do with their length.
Everyday on SR I see complaints about another games length.
Metal Gear Solid 2, hyped to the max, everyone wants this game (except YH, I don't know either?), the reviews come out and suddenly "hmm... you can finish it in a few hours, i don't think i'll bother"
Devil May Cry; looks and plays superbly, but what do I hear from our "happy" punters? (aside from complaints about borders) "this magazine says it'll only take a weekend to finish - it must be pants"
Lets skip back a few years, to the days of the SNES and Megadrive. "Streets of Rage" a classic title, I'm sure you'll agree. Theoretically possible to finish inside an hour, yet the reviewers and gamers decision comes in unanimous "this game rules!"
Lets skip back a little further to days of Atari ST and Amiga. Anyone (Goaty, Wookiee?) remember a little gem called "Rick Dangerous"? Another classic of its time.
Actually that'll do as my example of old gaming!
Then lets take a more modern game.... ZOE, a classic PS2 title that had many a complaint about its length.
So on the one hand we have ZOE, graphically supreme, innovative control scheme, interesting story and... ok, irritating voice acting, but hey. So where's the problem (Leo's voice aside)? Well, as most of us pick up and play these games on "Normal" setting, I guess the problem may lie there. Why? Simple, the game, pretty and innovative as it was, was like a walk in the park, no real challenge very little fear of death because you could save after every mission, things get too hectic you can fly away and recoup your strength, or if worse comes to worse and you do die, you start from the beginning of your last mission or your last save point if your lives are just too precious.
Our punters say: "Too short"
FAir enough, but then on the other, older, hand we have a game like "Rick DAngerous".
Why should a mere 4 levels of frantic Nazi prodding never pick up any complaints about its length?
Well the reason is this: In Rick Dangerous, you had very little ammo, a severely limited number of lives, no mid-game save points, no continues and no way of telling how to get through one screen of the flick screen mayem that didn't rely on a little trial and error. Thus, we don't make it through the game on our first go, or our second, our even our third. You had to keep plugging away at that stupid little game for weeks before you'd finally cracked it.
With its "one difficulty setting fits all" approach there were no roads around it, you just had to learn, remember and hope that one day you would win. The day finally comes and you get a message congratulating you on your defeat of the game.... and thats it. But, it was one of my fondest gaming memories.
This approach seems to have fallen right out of the market. Instead we get these, stroll from one end to the other, type games that never tempt us to come back for more. Rarely do they make us play through what we know time and again just for the oppurtunity to get that little bit further.
"But thats boring, why do I want to do a level again?" Fair point, but all I remember is the fun I had blowing up Nazi's that I knew I could handle and the fear instilled in me when I go to a screen with which I was not familiar and the realisation that that stinkin' Nazi/Mummy/ strange Pharoe beast might get one over on me this time.
Chiefly my memories go back to games like Rick Dangerous, like Onslaught, like Streets of Rage, like Turrican, games that you had no option but to play from beginning to end in one sitting. The fun I had with games in those days is rarely brought back to me by todays games. Its not just because I'm older, games have changed. I think, in part, for the worse. It never used to be like this. You'd finish games like Double Dragon in an hour and it was great, so great infact that you'd do it again the following day/ week.
Nowadays, a game that can be finished inside of a weekend "isn't worth buying". I'm not necesarily disagreeing with the idea that these games aren't worth buying, I'm just saying that perhaps the problem isn't solely in the length of the games.
"Make Gamin' proper 'ard!"
Tarrant, the 2002
Take the gaming world for instance.
Now, I'm not exactly over the hill, but I have seen a massive evolution in the world of computer games in my 19 years on God's green/ grey, brown, dull, uninspiring Earth. A lot of us have been around for the transition from 2D to 3D etc. But today I realised that the biggest change has gone virtually unnoticed, its been so gradual that it had completely passed me by.
I am talking of course of gameplay. Specifically, our approach to gaming and what we now expect from games.
When I were a lad, games were hard. Simple as that. Games... hard. They were fun, they kept you playing time and again, but compared to todays games, they were hard.
So what's happened then? Over the years, games have become bigger, better, more colourful more polygonal and a shirt load easier.
Where's my proof? Allow me to call forward "Longevity".
It can't have escaped your notice that one of the biggest complaints about todays games is to do with their length.
Everyday on SR I see complaints about another games length.
Metal Gear Solid 2, hyped to the max, everyone wants this game (except YH, I don't know either?), the reviews come out and suddenly "hmm... you can finish it in a few hours, i don't think i'll bother"
Devil May Cry; looks and plays superbly, but what do I hear from our "happy" punters? (aside from complaints about borders) "this magazine says it'll only take a weekend to finish - it must be pants"
Lets skip back a few years, to the days of the SNES and Megadrive. "Streets of Rage" a classic title, I'm sure you'll agree. Theoretically possible to finish inside an hour, yet the reviewers and gamers decision comes in unanimous "this game rules!"
Lets skip back a little further to days of Atari ST and Amiga. Anyone (Goaty, Wookiee?) remember a little gem called "Rick Dangerous"? Another classic of its time.
Actually that'll do as my example of old gaming!
Then lets take a more modern game.... ZOE, a classic PS2 title that had many a complaint about its length.
So on the one hand we have ZOE, graphically supreme, innovative control scheme, interesting story and... ok, irritating voice acting, but hey. So where's the problem (Leo's voice aside)? Well, as most of us pick up and play these games on "Normal" setting, I guess the problem may lie there. Why? Simple, the game, pretty and innovative as it was, was like a walk in the park, no real challenge very little fear of death because you could save after every mission, things get too hectic you can fly away and recoup your strength, or if worse comes to worse and you do die, you start from the beginning of your last mission or your last save point if your lives are just too precious.
Our punters say: "Too short"
FAir enough, but then on the other, older, hand we have a game like "Rick DAngerous".
Why should a mere 4 levels of frantic Nazi prodding never pick up any complaints about its length?
Well the reason is this: In Rick Dangerous, you had very little ammo, a severely limited number of lives, no mid-game save points, no continues and no way of telling how to get through one screen of the flick screen mayem that didn't rely on a little trial and error. Thus, we don't make it through the game on our first go, or our second, our even our third. You had to keep plugging away at that stupid little game for weeks before you'd finally cracked it.
With its "one difficulty setting fits all" approach there were no roads around it, you just had to learn, remember and hope that one day you would win. The day finally comes and you get a message congratulating you on your defeat of the game.... and thats it. But, it was one of my fondest gaming memories.
This approach seems to have fallen right out of the market. Instead we get these, stroll from one end to the other, type games that never tempt us to come back for more. Rarely do they make us play through what we know time and again just for the oppurtunity to get that little bit further.
"But thats boring, why do I want to do a level again?" Fair point, but all I remember is the fun I had blowing up Nazi's that I knew I could handle and the fear instilled in me when I go to a screen with which I was not familiar and the realisation that that stinkin' Nazi/Mummy/ strange Pharoe beast might get one over on me this time.
Chiefly my memories go back to games like Rick Dangerous, like Onslaught, like Streets of Rage, like Turrican, games that you had no option but to play from beginning to end in one sitting. The fun I had with games in those days is rarely brought back to me by todays games. Its not just because I'm older, games have changed. I think, in part, for the worse. It never used to be like this. You'd finish games like Double Dragon in an hour and it was great, so great infact that you'd do it again the following day/ week.
Nowadays, a game that can be finished inside of a weekend "isn't worth buying". I'm not necesarily disagreeing with the idea that these games aren't worth buying, I'm just saying that perhaps the problem isn't solely in the length of the games.
"Make Gamin' proper 'ard!"
Tarrant, the 2002
Page:
I am the Tarrant wrote:
>Still, why would you want to play a game blindfolded.
To see how the game plays without those pretty graphics...
;-)
>Still, why would you want to play a game blindfolded.
To see how the game plays without those pretty graphics...
;-)
Ok... what if I told you this:
I can complete ZOE with a blindfold on...
No really.
Simply repeatedly dash and fire until you clear the level.. ok, you'll have to peek at the screen ocassionally to find the next enemy, but the fighting (and hence the basis of the game) is poor. (Ok, so you can't do the level where you have to get rid of bombs like this... but u can complete all the fights)
The fact is that ZOE is pure hype. It's totally unoriginal- however, all the other Mecha games (which are far better) don't come out in this country... like Virtua On for example.
Poor, poor game
Sonic
I can complete ZOE with a blindfold on...
No really.
Simply repeatedly dash and fire until you clear the level.. ok, you'll have to peek at the screen ocassionally to find the next enemy, but the fighting (and hence the basis of the game) is poor. (Ok, so you can't do the level where you have to get rid of bombs like this... but u can complete all the fights)
The fact is that ZOE is pure hype. It's totally unoriginal- however, all the other Mecha games (which are far better) don't come out in this country... like Virtua On for example.
Poor, poor game
Sonic
Yeah Tarrant, Make games well 'ard like in those good ol days!
Now one problem is games are just too big to do in one sitting, they need save points. I remember trying to win Mario 3 on the NES, but it was so hard because it was such a big game and had no save points at all. The only way I could win it was by leaving the NES switched on through the night, only to play it the next day. I could never win it in one day.
But save points seem to be onverdone, and having lives is often pointless, simply because you just restart from the last save point anyway. Perfect Dark/Goldeneye had the good mission system to get around having any lives to speak of.
But difficulty is a difficult issue to address in this day and age. Ironic isn't it?
Now one problem is games are just too big to do in one sitting, they need save points. I remember trying to win Mario 3 on the NES, but it was so hard because it was such a big game and had no save points at all. The only way I could win it was by leaving the NES switched on through the night, only to play it the next day. I could never win it in one day.
But save points seem to be onverdone, and having lives is often pointless, simply because you just restart from the last save point anyway. Perfect Dark/Goldeneye had the good mission system to get around having any lives to speak of.
But difficulty is a difficult issue to address in this day and age. Ironic isn't it?
Totally! Games should definately be improving, taking next steps and all that. I just think its a shame that modern games are becoming like modern music; disposable.
Games today are good and fun, but there not classics, a few of them will stand the test of time (MGS for instance) but most will just be forgotten.
Games need to be impressive graphically to keep up with todays market, but they need to play with more of the old classic stylings.
I can't possibly count the amount of times I played Double Dragon or Rick Dangerous from beginning to end and I enjoyed it every time! Todays games re played, finished and swapped or sold!?!
Personally I think thats a bad thing. Fair enough, every game can't be a classic, but still, they need to improve to a point were more become a permanent part of my collection.
Just like I buy films and music to re-watch and re-listen. Games should be re-played!
Games today are good and fun, but there not classics, a few of them will stand the test of time (MGS for instance) but most will just be forgotten.
Games need to be impressive graphically to keep up with todays market, but they need to play with more of the old classic stylings.
I can't possibly count the amount of times I played Double Dragon or Rick Dangerous from beginning to end and I enjoyed it every time! Todays games re played, finished and swapped or sold!?!
Personally I think thats a bad thing. Fair enough, every game can't be a classic, but still, they need to improve to a point were more become a permanent part of my collection.
Just like I buy films and music to re-watch and re-listen. Games should be re-played!
Good post. I agree with you too. I have played games for most of my life, from various games machines to consoles and games have got better but also easier. It used to be you would have to use tricks and skills and techniques you learned throughout the game to progress but these days it seems you can play and complete just about any game without too much effort. But I like it both ways the old classics that were hard should remain old classics and all the new games should take gaming to the next step.
Nah, that was a good post! Well done!
All I can say is LOL!
Not at the post but at your tagline. Brilliant stuff! Hehe! :D
Not at the post but at your tagline. Brilliant stuff! Hehe! :D
As I stumble through my daily routine of hacking, slashing and blasting everything around me to little bits, my mind starts to wander. Today I realised; as I grow older, things change.
Take the gaming world for instance.
Now, I'm not exactly over the hill, but I have seen a massive evolution in the world of computer games in my 19 years on God's green/ grey, brown, dull, uninspiring Earth. A lot of us have been around for the transition from 2D to 3D etc. But today I realised that the biggest change has gone virtually unnoticed, its been so gradual that it had completely passed me by.
I am talking of course of gameplay. Specifically, our approach to gaming and what we now expect from games.
When I were a lad, games were hard. Simple as that. Games... hard. They were fun, they kept you playing time and again, but compared to todays games, they were hard.
So what's happened then? Over the years, games have become bigger, better, more colourful more polygonal and a shirt load easier.
Where's my proof? Allow me to call forward "Longevity".
It can't have escaped your notice that one of the biggest complaints about todays games is to do with their length.
Everyday on SR I see complaints about another games length.
Metal Gear Solid 2, hyped to the max, everyone wants this game (except YH, I don't know either?), the reviews come out and suddenly "hmm... you can finish it in a few hours, i don't think i'll bother"
Devil May Cry; looks and plays superbly, but what do I hear from our "happy" punters? (aside from complaints about borders) "this magazine says it'll only take a weekend to finish - it must be pants"
Lets skip back a few years, to the days of the SNES and Megadrive. "Streets of Rage" a classic title, I'm sure you'll agree. Theoretically possible to finish inside an hour, yet the reviewers and gamers decision comes in unanimous "this game rules!"
Lets skip back a little further to days of Atari ST and Amiga. Anyone (Goaty, Wookiee?) remember a little gem called "Rick Dangerous"? Another classic of its time.
Actually that'll do as my example of old gaming!
Then lets take a more modern game.... ZOE, a classic PS2 title that had many a complaint about its length.
So on the one hand we have ZOE, graphically supreme, innovative control scheme, interesting story and... ok, irritating voice acting, but hey. So where's the problem (Leo's voice aside)? Well, as most of us pick up and play these games on "Normal" setting, I guess the problem may lie there. Why? Simple, the game, pretty and innovative as it was, was like a walk in the park, no real challenge very little fear of death because you could save after every mission, things get too hectic you can fly away and recoup your strength, or if worse comes to worse and you do die, you start from the beginning of your last mission or your last save point if your lives are just too precious.
Our punters say: "Too short"
FAir enough, but then on the other, older, hand we have a game like "Rick DAngerous".
Why should a mere 4 levels of frantic Nazi prodding never pick up any complaints about its length?
Well the reason is this: In Rick Dangerous, you had very little ammo, a severely limited number of lives, no mid-game save points, no continues and no way of telling how to get through one screen of the flick screen mayem that didn't rely on a little trial and error. Thus, we don't make it through the game on our first go, or our second, our even our third. You had to keep plugging away at that stupid little game for weeks before you'd finally cracked it.
With its "one difficulty setting fits all" approach there were no roads around it, you just had to learn, remember and hope that one day you would win. The day finally comes and you get a message congratulating you on your defeat of the game.... and thats it. But, it was one of my fondest gaming memories.
This approach seems to have fallen right out of the market. Instead we get these, stroll from one end to the other, type games that never tempt us to come back for more. Rarely do they make us play through what we know time and again just for the oppurtunity to get that little bit further.
"But thats boring, why do I want to do a level again?" Fair point, but all I remember is the fun I had blowing up Nazi's that I knew I could handle and the fear instilled in me when I go to a screen with which I was not familiar and the realisation that that stinkin' Nazi/Mummy/ strange Pharoe beast might get one over on me this time.
Chiefly my memories go back to games like Rick Dangerous, like Onslaught, like Streets of Rage, like Turrican, games that you had no option but to play from beginning to end in one sitting. The fun I had with games in those days is rarely brought back to me by todays games. Its not just because I'm older, games have changed. I think, in part, for the worse. It never used to be like this. You'd finish games like Double Dragon in an hour and it was great, so great infact that you'd do it again the following day/ week.
Nowadays, a game that can be finished inside of a weekend "isn't worth buying". I'm not necesarily disagreeing with the idea that these games aren't worth buying, I'm just saying that perhaps the problem isn't solely in the length of the games.
"Make Gamin' proper 'ard!"
Tarrant, the 2002
Take the gaming world for instance.
Now, I'm not exactly over the hill, but I have seen a massive evolution in the world of computer games in my 19 years on God's green/ grey, brown, dull, uninspiring Earth. A lot of us have been around for the transition from 2D to 3D etc. But today I realised that the biggest change has gone virtually unnoticed, its been so gradual that it had completely passed me by.
I am talking of course of gameplay. Specifically, our approach to gaming and what we now expect from games.
When I were a lad, games were hard. Simple as that. Games... hard. They were fun, they kept you playing time and again, but compared to todays games, they were hard.
So what's happened then? Over the years, games have become bigger, better, more colourful more polygonal and a shirt load easier.
Where's my proof? Allow me to call forward "Longevity".
It can't have escaped your notice that one of the biggest complaints about todays games is to do with their length.
Everyday on SR I see complaints about another games length.
Metal Gear Solid 2, hyped to the max, everyone wants this game (except YH, I don't know either?), the reviews come out and suddenly "hmm... you can finish it in a few hours, i don't think i'll bother"
Devil May Cry; looks and plays superbly, but what do I hear from our "happy" punters? (aside from complaints about borders) "this magazine says it'll only take a weekend to finish - it must be pants"
Lets skip back a few years, to the days of the SNES and Megadrive. "Streets of Rage" a classic title, I'm sure you'll agree. Theoretically possible to finish inside an hour, yet the reviewers and gamers decision comes in unanimous "this game rules!"
Lets skip back a little further to days of Atari ST and Amiga. Anyone (Goaty, Wookiee?) remember a little gem called "Rick Dangerous"? Another classic of its time.
Actually that'll do as my example of old gaming!
Then lets take a more modern game.... ZOE, a classic PS2 title that had many a complaint about its length.
So on the one hand we have ZOE, graphically supreme, innovative control scheme, interesting story and... ok, irritating voice acting, but hey. So where's the problem (Leo's voice aside)? Well, as most of us pick up and play these games on "Normal" setting, I guess the problem may lie there. Why? Simple, the game, pretty and innovative as it was, was like a walk in the park, no real challenge very little fear of death because you could save after every mission, things get too hectic you can fly away and recoup your strength, or if worse comes to worse and you do die, you start from the beginning of your last mission or your last save point if your lives are just too precious.
Our punters say: "Too short"
FAir enough, but then on the other, older, hand we have a game like "Rick DAngerous".
Why should a mere 4 levels of frantic Nazi prodding never pick up any complaints about its length?
Well the reason is this: In Rick Dangerous, you had very little ammo, a severely limited number of lives, no mid-game save points, no continues and no way of telling how to get through one screen of the flick screen mayem that didn't rely on a little trial and error. Thus, we don't make it through the game on our first go, or our second, our even our third. You had to keep plugging away at that stupid little game for weeks before you'd finally cracked it.
With its "one difficulty setting fits all" approach there were no roads around it, you just had to learn, remember and hope that one day you would win. The day finally comes and you get a message congratulating you on your defeat of the game.... and thats it. But, it was one of my fondest gaming memories.
This approach seems to have fallen right out of the market. Instead we get these, stroll from one end to the other, type games that never tempt us to come back for more. Rarely do they make us play through what we know time and again just for the oppurtunity to get that little bit further.
"But thats boring, why do I want to do a level again?" Fair point, but all I remember is the fun I had blowing up Nazi's that I knew I could handle and the fear instilled in me when I go to a screen with which I was not familiar and the realisation that that stinkin' Nazi/Mummy/ strange Pharoe beast might get one over on me this time.
Chiefly my memories go back to games like Rick Dangerous, like Onslaught, like Streets of Rage, like Turrican, games that you had no option but to play from beginning to end in one sitting. The fun I had with games in those days is rarely brought back to me by todays games. Its not just because I'm older, games have changed. I think, in part, for the worse. It never used to be like this. You'd finish games like Double Dragon in an hour and it was great, so great infact that you'd do it again the following day/ week.
Nowadays, a game that can be finished inside of a weekend "isn't worth buying". I'm not necesarily disagreeing with the idea that these games aren't worth buying, I'm just saying that perhaps the problem isn't solely in the length of the games.
"Make Gamin' proper 'ard!"
Tarrant, the 2002
Page: