The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Whenever I play games these days I always say to myself: 'Games used to be much longer'. Also I'm sure many of you lot do as well. The days of the SNES, NES and MegaDrive are looked back at and thought to be the golden era; when games were huge and lasted as long as the console you own.
But is this right?
We all believe that 'back in the days' all games relied on gameplay and graphics didn't matter, all games would last for 40 hours or more and there wasn't such a thing as replay value because every game was perfectly replayable.
What do I say to this? No. This is wrong, it's not even a little bit right, the only difference between today and the era of the first consoles are graphics.
So, what brought on this change? One game did it; Donkey Kong Country 3.
When I had a SNES, DKC3 was my favourite game by far. Completing the levels, getting the DK coins and all the bonus coins lasted for a LONG time. That was using the cheat to get all bonus coins, as well. Then 5 years later I finally get to play the gem once again and my childhood memories are shattered.
I played through the game; getting all bonus coins and DK coins the honest way along with completing the lost world and how long did this momoth of a quest take me to complete?
5 hours! Yes, watching the ending seemed so much worse, as though I didn't deserve it.
But it made me question everything I believed. It wasn't a golden era. People were just bad at games. I was bad at games. You were bad at games.
But now, I'm good at games. I can complete most games fairly quickly.
Given that some games are short; Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin and StarFox, completing them is simple, but games like Mario Sunshine and Vice City are easy to complete.
Gamers at an early were slowly taught to get better at games; I certainly was, and as a learning curve in gaming itself was developed, things began to seem a whole lot easier. Instead of being good at a one certain game you'd be good at whole genre's because control systems are the same on a lot of games to help people play easily; if you play Turok Evolution for ages until you're a master at it, playing TimeSplitters 2, you'll excel straight away. It's just how games are today, and you know what, I like.
Stuff all those good old days memories you have; this is now, and now seem pretty good from my point of view.
Technical advances in consoles are also helping people become better at games; great controller design, game tutorials and more little things make games easier to get used to.
So, the golden age seems to be fools gold; at first it may seem real, but upon further inspection you realise you've been tricked.
Yes, the end is nigh...
Thanks for reading
RiCkOsS
But is this right?
We all believe that 'back in the days' all games relied on gameplay and graphics didn't matter, all games would last for 40 hours or more and there wasn't such a thing as replay value because every game was perfectly replayable.
What do I say to this? No. This is wrong, it's not even a little bit right, the only difference between today and the era of the first consoles are graphics.
So, what brought on this change? One game did it; Donkey Kong Country 3.
When I had a SNES, DKC3 was my favourite game by far. Completing the levels, getting the DK coins and all the bonus coins lasted for a LONG time. That was using the cheat to get all bonus coins, as well. Then 5 years later I finally get to play the gem once again and my childhood memories are shattered.
I played through the game; getting all bonus coins and DK coins the honest way along with completing the lost world and how long did this momoth of a quest take me to complete?
5 hours! Yes, watching the ending seemed so much worse, as though I didn't deserve it.
But it made me question everything I believed. It wasn't a golden era. People were just bad at games. I was bad at games. You were bad at games.
But now, I'm good at games. I can complete most games fairly quickly.
Given that some games are short; Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin and StarFox, completing them is simple, but games like Mario Sunshine and Vice City are easy to complete.
Gamers at an early were slowly taught to get better at games; I certainly was, and as a learning curve in gaming itself was developed, things began to seem a whole lot easier. Instead of being good at a one certain game you'd be good at whole genre's because control systems are the same on a lot of games to help people play easily; if you play Turok Evolution for ages until you're a master at it, playing TimeSplitters 2, you'll excel straight away. It's just how games are today, and you know what, I like.
Stuff all those good old days memories you have; this is now, and now seem pretty good from my point of view.
Technical advances in consoles are also helping people become better at games; great controller design, game tutorials and more little things make games easier to get used to.
So, the golden age seems to be fools gold; at first it may seem real, but upon further inspection you realise you've been tricked.
Yes, the end is nigh...
Thanks for reading
RiCkOsS
The last game that's lasted me over 150 hours was Pokemon, and I didn't manage to get all my Pokemon up to full power.
But, saying that, about half way through my games I get a new one and get sucked into that. I've got 21 GameCube games and most have been interupted by me getting other games; I got to the last boss on Bomberman Generation then another game spoilt that by sucking me in, I got to the 10th level on Eternal Darkness but, again, the same and more games like Extreme G3 and Worms Blast.
But nowq i'm going to start completing the games I'm playing on then play the one that I've got. I'm on the last boss of the Humans and the second level of the Dragons in Reign of Fire, even though I've recently got Red Card. Even though i've played Red Card and unlocked two teams, i'm going to keep playing Reign of Fire until it's complete.
But there are a lot of games that i've completed in a very smalll time. Most i'e got to the last bos in a matter of days and others have been overshadowed, but none of my games seem to be lasting for ages, and it seems I'm getting better, not the games getting easier.
Thanks for the replies; FM, FFF, Chips.
But, saying that, about half way through my games I get a new one and get sucked into that. I've got 21 GameCube games and most have been interupted by me getting other games; I got to the last boss on Bomberman Generation then another game spoilt that by sucking me in, I got to the 10th level on Eternal Darkness but, again, the same and more games like Extreme G3 and Worms Blast.
But nowq i'm going to start completing the games I'm playing on then play the one that I've got. I'm on the last boss of the Humans and the second level of the Dragons in Reign of Fire, even though I've recently got Red Card. Even though i've played Red Card and unlocked two teams, i'm going to keep playing Reign of Fire until it's complete.
But there are a lot of games that i've completed in a very smalll time. Most i'e got to the last bos in a matter of days and others have been overshadowed, but none of my games seem to be lasting for ages, and it seems I'm getting better, not the games getting easier.
Thanks for the replies; FM, FFF, Chips.
I like it when older games are included in newer games, like DK64. The best example is Animal Crossing. I have Clu Clu land and Ballonfight now fully playable- and I was never able to get them for my NES. If we include old games in newer games, it increases their length. Cheap? Yes, but it works.
Nice post.
:)
Nice post.
:)
FM speaks ture.
I say about 80% of all my games have been done 100%. Probably more.
I say about 80% of all my games have been done 100%. Probably more.
Rickoss wrote:
> The hidden packages don't count, that's just as stupid as saying you
> have to get all the blue coins inn mario sunshine to complete it.
>
> Both are annoyingly tedious and a bad excuse to make games longer.
Ah, I see, we've got different views on 'complete' then :)
Personally I don't call a game complete until I've busted open every secret, extra level, found all the coins, thrashed the minigames, acquired all weapons, unlocked all characters, whatever; the only games that really ever lasted a long time without doing the extras were RPGs.
Take FFX for example, you were looking at 30-40 hours minimum before you could finish the storyline. That's a pretty long game by anyone's standards. Factor in the extras like Dark Aeons, Celestial Weapons, Theatre and Blitzball, and you've pretty much got an everlasting game. (OK, call it 120 hours if you manage to get all the good drops from monsters that you need, drops are randomised though).
Ye olde dayes were limited more by cartridge ROM size and CD capacity more than anything else, so there were only so many extras you could fit into a game, so naturally they were shorter. However, a well designed game like Phantasy Star on the Megadrive, or Resident Evil on the PSX, had oodles of replayability, even though in RE's case you could effectively finish off the storyline within a couple of hours.
Even worse than this, some of the earliest games didn't even offer a save feature, you HAD to be good to beat them, which caused many gamers to lose interest in gaming for life, and other to become finish fetishists.
I think we are a lot better off today than we were 10 years ago. Games have practically doubled in price since then (taking into account inflation), but I consider that the longevity of today's games with the correct design (I agree, collecting packages isn't rivetting, but levelling up characters on the other hand is) more than makes up for the extra price.
> The hidden packages don't count, that's just as stupid as saying you
> have to get all the blue coins inn mario sunshine to complete it.
>
> Both are annoyingly tedious and a bad excuse to make games longer.
Ah, I see, we've got different views on 'complete' then :)
Personally I don't call a game complete until I've busted open every secret, extra level, found all the coins, thrashed the minigames, acquired all weapons, unlocked all characters, whatever; the only games that really ever lasted a long time without doing the extras were RPGs.
Take FFX for example, you were looking at 30-40 hours minimum before you could finish the storyline. That's a pretty long game by anyone's standards. Factor in the extras like Dark Aeons, Celestial Weapons, Theatre and Blitzball, and you've pretty much got an everlasting game. (OK, call it 120 hours if you manage to get all the good drops from monsters that you need, drops are randomised though).
Ye olde dayes were limited more by cartridge ROM size and CD capacity more than anything else, so there were only so many extras you could fit into a game, so naturally they were shorter. However, a well designed game like Phantasy Star on the Megadrive, or Resident Evil on the PSX, had oodles of replayability, even though in RE's case you could effectively finish off the storyline within a couple of hours.
Even worse than this, some of the earliest games didn't even offer a save feature, you HAD to be good to beat them, which caused many gamers to lose interest in gaming for life, and other to become finish fetishists.
I think we are a lot better off today than we were 10 years ago. Games have practically doubled in price since then (taking into account inflation), but I consider that the longevity of today's games with the correct design (I agree, collecting packages isn't rivetting, but levelling up characters on the other hand is) more than makes up for the extra price.
And, on another note, games today have tonnes of secret bits, sub-quests, mini-games and things to collect before you've really completed the game.
In older games, you completed it, and that was that, no (or very rarely) and secrets to unlock - the level of difficulty was to keep longevity, now it's the diversity and shear volume of what you have to do in the game - not all at once, either.
And, in older games you had to do it all in one go - now games are more in sections, meaning you only have to something once, then save, and on eto another task.
In older games, you completed it, and that was that, no (or very rarely) and secrets to unlock - the level of difficulty was to keep longevity, now it's the diversity and shear volume of what you have to do in the game - not all at once, either.
And, in older games you had to do it all in one go - now games are more in sections, meaning you only have to something once, then save, and on eto another task.
I think it's just lack of memory cards made games look hard - you have to start over again every time, and then probably got stuck in the same place, and having to start over. Again.
But, that said, I was playing some ROMs (just before I deleted them: )) of the old NES games I had, and they were still dang tough.
Unforgiving, let's say.
Maybe the market has come to encourage younger and casual gamers, but way back when, games were for the older, hardcore gamers. Companies have probably adapted to get more money, which is what it comes down to.
And, FM, I never robbed that shop before I blew it up, and still have 100%. It probably gave me the % for being a jolly decent fellow.
But, that said, I was playing some ROMs (just before I deleted them: )) of the old NES games I had, and they were still dang tough.
Unforgiving, let's say.
Maybe the market has come to encourage younger and casual gamers, but way back when, games were for the older, hardcore gamers. Companies have probably adapted to get more money, which is what it comes down to.
And, FM, I never robbed that shop before I blew it up, and still have 100%. It probably gave me the % for being a jolly decent fellow.
The hidden packages don't count, that's just as stupid as saying you have to get all the blue coins inn mario sunshine to complete it.
Both are annoyingly tedious and a bad excuse to make games longer.
Both are annoyingly tedious and a bad excuse to make games longer.
Rickoss wrote:
> Given that some games are short; Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin and StarFox,
> completing them is simple, but games like Mario Sunshine and Vice City
> are easy to complete.
Was that a typo or did you mean that games like Vice City are nearly impossible to complete without resorting to a strategy guide telling you where the hidden packages are and how to get a 100% completion rating by remembering to do little things like rob certain shops before you blow them up as part of another mission?
> Given that some games are short; Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin and StarFox,
> completing them is simple, but games like Mario Sunshine and Vice City
> are easy to complete.
Was that a typo or did you mean that games like Vice City are nearly impossible to complete without resorting to a strategy guide telling you where the hidden packages are and how to get a 100% completion rating by remembering to do little things like rob certain shops before you blow them up as part of another mission?
Whenever I play games these days I always say to myself: 'Games used to be much longer'. Also I'm sure many of you lot do as well. The days of the SNES, NES and MegaDrive are looked back at and thought to be the golden era; when games were huge and lasted as long as the console you own.
But is this right?
We all believe that 'back in the days' all games relied on gameplay and graphics didn't matter, all games would last for 40 hours or more and there wasn't such a thing as replay value because every game was perfectly replayable.
What do I say to this? No. This is wrong, it's not even a little bit right, the only difference between today and the era of the first consoles are graphics.
So, what brought on this change? One game did it; Donkey Kong Country 3.
When I had a SNES, DKC3 was my favourite game by far. Completing the levels, getting the DK coins and all the bonus coins lasted for a LONG time. That was using the cheat to get all bonus coins, as well. Then 5 years later I finally get to play the gem once again and my childhood memories are shattered.
I played through the game; getting all bonus coins and DK coins the honest way along with completing the lost world and how long did this momoth of a quest take me to complete?
5 hours! Yes, watching the ending seemed so much worse, as though I didn't deserve it.
But it made me question everything I believed. It wasn't a golden era. People were just bad at games. I was bad at games. You were bad at games.
But now, I'm good at games. I can complete most games fairly quickly.
Given that some games are short; Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin and StarFox, completing them is simple, but games like Mario Sunshine and Vice City are easy to complete.
Gamers at an early were slowly taught to get better at games; I certainly was, and as a learning curve in gaming itself was developed, things began to seem a whole lot easier. Instead of being good at a one certain game you'd be good at whole genre's because control systems are the same on a lot of games to help people play easily; if you play Turok Evolution for ages until you're a master at it, playing TimeSplitters 2, you'll excel straight away. It's just how games are today, and you know what, I like.
Stuff all those good old days memories you have; this is now, and now seem pretty good from my point of view.
Technical advances in consoles are also helping people become better at games; great controller design, game tutorials and more little things make games easier to get used to.
So, the golden age seems to be fools gold; at first it may seem real, but upon further inspection you realise you've been tricked.
Yes, the end is nigh...
Thanks for reading
RiCkOsS
But is this right?
We all believe that 'back in the days' all games relied on gameplay and graphics didn't matter, all games would last for 40 hours or more and there wasn't such a thing as replay value because every game was perfectly replayable.
What do I say to this? No. This is wrong, it's not even a little bit right, the only difference between today and the era of the first consoles are graphics.
So, what brought on this change? One game did it; Donkey Kong Country 3.
When I had a SNES, DKC3 was my favourite game by far. Completing the levels, getting the DK coins and all the bonus coins lasted for a LONG time. That was using the cheat to get all bonus coins, as well. Then 5 years later I finally get to play the gem once again and my childhood memories are shattered.
I played through the game; getting all bonus coins and DK coins the honest way along with completing the lost world and how long did this momoth of a quest take me to complete?
5 hours! Yes, watching the ending seemed so much worse, as though I didn't deserve it.
But it made me question everything I believed. It wasn't a golden era. People were just bad at games. I was bad at games. You were bad at games.
But now, I'm good at games. I can complete most games fairly quickly.
Given that some games are short; Luigi's Mansion, Pikmin and StarFox, completing them is simple, but games like Mario Sunshine and Vice City are easy to complete.
Gamers at an early were slowly taught to get better at games; I certainly was, and as a learning curve in gaming itself was developed, things began to seem a whole lot easier. Instead of being good at a one certain game you'd be good at whole genre's because control systems are the same on a lot of games to help people play easily; if you play Turok Evolution for ages until you're a master at it, playing TimeSplitters 2, you'll excel straight away. It's just how games are today, and you know what, I like.
Stuff all those good old days memories you have; this is now, and now seem pretty good from my point of view.
Technical advances in consoles are also helping people become better at games; great controller design, game tutorials and more little things make games easier to get used to.
So, the golden age seems to be fools gold; at first it may seem real, but upon further inspection you realise you've been tricked.
Yes, the end is nigh...
Thanks for reading
RiCkOsS