The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
Gamers. We are just like any other stereotype. Jocks, Preps, Goths... we just fit in as another group.... but how have we evolved over the years? Confused? Let me explain. How many of you have gone back and played some of the video games from our youth (or for some of you before you were born)? Pac Man, Galaga, Defender, Space Invaders, Asteriods, Moon Patrol, etc etc.... These games were drastically different, not because of graphics or sound... but because of gameplay. Simple and addictive, these games offered a quick thrill but only one objective. Get a high score. Extra lives were rewarded for points. In a lot of cases there were no continues, so a high score was a bragging right. Of course these games could not hold anyone stretch of attention for any more than a couple of hours (unless they were insane).... usually gaming was a night out at an arcade by yourself or with a few friends, playing some games and getting high scores. Usually you would have other interests. You would be into games, but not be a gamer, if you know what I mean. Then it all started to change. With Nintendo and Sega on the scene, we saw games with objectives. We all know how Mario saved the gaming industry, but did we ever stop to think how it started a chain reaction for gamers lives?
No longer was the objective to get a high score. Now the objective was to beat the game, and as quick as possible (ie before your friends)... how many of us can remember bragging to friends in a playground that we had beaten Sonic 2 to cries of "No way!"? No longer were we staring at variations of the same screen over and over, we had games that were always changing, and that meant we could immerse ourselves in them for hours on end and more. As technology progressed, so did the standard of games, and again that meant we could immerse ourselves even more in a game. Street Fighter 2 meant I was a hungry boy a lot because I had used my lunch money to challenge people at the local arcade. I could challenge people for hours. The Playstation and Saturn meant games became even longer, and that I could immerse myself in games for even longer. I played Final Fantasy VII for 24 hours straight when I got it... try doing that with Pac Man.....
However I have noticed two things. On playing the retro games again, DAMN they are hard! I remember them being hard, but not that hard! 3 lives, no continues? A ghost gets close to you and you start running away, and damn your heart pumps!! Now I am not gonna whine and say how games were better in the olden days.... but back then, the gameplay was pure and exciting. Because there was no story the gameplay was excellent (I believe it still stands up today) and that lack of extra lives and continues means you are constantly striving to get better... however a lot of the games rely on variations of the same screen (Dig Dug anyone?) and quite often have no ending (again with Dig Dug, I remember trying so hard to see if there was an ending, the whole screen ended up covered in roses... it took ages, me and my sister had to take it in turns!) so unless you were stupid like me, you often didn't play for hours on end, because you knew that it wouldn't end.... you just played for the thrill and maybe bragging rights...... But now its all changed.
Now its about telling a story, giving the player motivation to carry on.... an unfortunately that has sometimes gotten in the way of gameplay.... MGS2 springs to mind. A totally self indulging piece of story telling... I spent more time watching FMVs in that game than playing.... excuse me, if I want a conspiracy plot I will watch a Tom Clancy movie.... Games like Final Fantasy X are exempt, because essentially they are a story book game.... but some games its just not funny.... MGS2 was almost an RPG without the levelling....
But that is all very good for games... but what does it mean for gamers? What it means is that we ourselves as a breed must have changed. No longer is about the quick short and sharp sessions of gameplay, but now its about sitting down for long slog sessions at the latest game. Want to spend 5 minutes on Final Fantasy VII, forget it, you would be lucky to get to the next save point. In fact games such as Resident Evil punish saving, encouraging you to play for extended periods of time. Add to that reading up on the latest video games on sites like GS and you have even more time used up. This means that gamers must now devote time to gaming as a the quarterback would to the football team. Also money. In the olden days, you bought a new game because you were bored of the gameplay of the old one. These days you buy a new one because you have finished the old one and it has no incentive to go back to it... that or the game you are buying is a hyped up release and you are getting on day one..... Even sites like Gamespot whine and moan when a game doesn't offer multiple hours of gameplay. Remember the release of FFVII? What was one of its major selling points... over 100 hours of gameplay it stated..... wanna try doing that in 5 minute busts?
So what does this incoherent rant mean? Gaming has changed, and so have we. We are now gamers. We have to devote time to games like our older siblings (or the older of us) never had to..... It is a hobbie that demands money and time to keep up with it.... but is it rewarding all that money and time? I am currently trying to beat Pear on Ms Pac Man... and I tell you that game is giving me more reward than a lot of the games today... I will do it.... is the gameplay really that satisfying or are we playing for a story? Some games yes, some games no.... but to judge what kind of gamer are you is simple. If you can have fun with Pac Man you like gameplay.... if Pac Man sucks, you go for a story... now the question is, are you spending hundreds of dollars on flashy interactive books?
I know that I am a gamer, I love playing for hours at a time, but the game has to offer me rewarding gameplay. I have been gaming since I was knee high to a grasshopper, and as games have evolved, so have I, but one thing remains the same... the game has to be fun to keep my attention, and needs to have something to keep me coming back to it.... And funnily enough, although I have evolved, my favourite genre is the fighting genre, which is probably the closest throwback to the days of old... simple key gameplay with a desire to keep coming back for more....
No longer was the objective to get a high score. Now the objective was to beat the game, and as quick as possible (ie before your friends)... how many of us can remember bragging to friends in a playground that we had beaten Sonic 2 to cries of "No way!"? No longer were we staring at variations of the same screen over and over, we had games that were always changing, and that meant we could immerse ourselves in them for hours on end and more. As technology progressed, so did the standard of games, and again that meant we could immerse ourselves even more in a game. Street Fighter 2 meant I was a hungry boy a lot because I had used my lunch money to challenge people at the local arcade. I could challenge people for hours. The Playstation and Saturn meant games became even longer, and that I could immerse myself in games for even longer. I played Final Fantasy VII for 24 hours straight when I got it... try doing that with Pac Man.....
However I have noticed two things. On playing the retro games again, DAMN they are hard! I remember them being hard, but not that hard! 3 lives, no continues? A ghost gets close to you and you start running away, and damn your heart pumps!! Now I am not gonna whine and say how games were better in the olden days.... but back then, the gameplay was pure and exciting. Because there was no story the gameplay was excellent (I believe it still stands up today) and that lack of extra lives and continues means you are constantly striving to get better... however a lot of the games rely on variations of the same screen (Dig Dug anyone?) and quite often have no ending (again with Dig Dug, I remember trying so hard to see if there was an ending, the whole screen ended up covered in roses... it took ages, me and my sister had to take it in turns!) so unless you were stupid like me, you often didn't play for hours on end, because you knew that it wouldn't end.... you just played for the thrill and maybe bragging rights...... But now its all changed.
Now its about telling a story, giving the player motivation to carry on.... an unfortunately that has sometimes gotten in the way of gameplay.... MGS2 springs to mind. A totally self indulging piece of story telling... I spent more time watching FMVs in that game than playing.... excuse me, if I want a conspiracy plot I will watch a Tom Clancy movie.... Games like Final Fantasy X are exempt, because essentially they are a story book game.... but some games its just not funny.... MGS2 was almost an RPG without the levelling....
But that is all very good for games... but what does it mean for gamers? What it means is that we ourselves as a breed must have changed. No longer is about the quick short and sharp sessions of gameplay, but now its about sitting down for long slog sessions at the latest game. Want to spend 5 minutes on Final Fantasy VII, forget it, you would be lucky to get to the next save point. In fact games such as Resident Evil punish saving, encouraging you to play for extended periods of time. Add to that reading up on the latest video games on sites like GS and you have even more time used up. This means that gamers must now devote time to gaming as a the quarterback would to the football team. Also money. In the olden days, you bought a new game because you were bored of the gameplay of the old one. These days you buy a new one because you have finished the old one and it has no incentive to go back to it... that or the game you are buying is a hyped up release and you are getting on day one..... Even sites like Gamespot whine and moan when a game doesn't offer multiple hours of gameplay. Remember the release of FFVII? What was one of its major selling points... over 100 hours of gameplay it stated..... wanna try doing that in 5 minute busts?
So what does this incoherent rant mean? Gaming has changed, and so have we. We are now gamers. We have to devote time to games like our older siblings (or the older of us) never had to..... It is a hobbie that demands money and time to keep up with it.... but is it rewarding all that money and time? I am currently trying to beat Pear on Ms Pac Man... and I tell you that game is giving me more reward than a lot of the games today... I will do it.... is the gameplay really that satisfying or are we playing for a story? Some games yes, some games no.... but to judge what kind of gamer are you is simple. If you can have fun with Pac Man you like gameplay.... if Pac Man sucks, you go for a story... now the question is, are you spending hundreds of dollars on flashy interactive books?
I know that I am a gamer, I love playing for hours at a time, but the game has to offer me rewarding gameplay. I have been gaming since I was knee high to a grasshopper, and as games have evolved, so have I, but one thing remains the same... the game has to be fun to keep my attention, and needs to have something to keep me coming back to it.... And funnily enough, although I have evolved, my favourite genre is the fighting genre, which is probably the closest throwback to the days of old... simple key gameplay with a desire to keep coming back for more....
Gamers. We are just like any other stereotype. Jocks, Preps, Goths... we just fit in as another group.... but how have we evolved over the years? Confused? Let me explain. How many of you have gone back and played some of the video games from our youth (or for some of you before you were born)? Pac Man, Galaga, Defender, Space Invaders, Asteriods, Moon Patrol, etc etc.... These games were drastically different, not because of graphics or sound... but because of gameplay. Simple and addictive, these games offered a quick thrill but only one objective. Get a high score. Extra lives were rewarded for points. In a lot of cases there were no continues, so a high score was a bragging right. Of course these games could not hold anyone stretch of attention for any more than a couple of hours (unless they were insane).... usually gaming was a night out at an arcade by yourself or with a few friends, playing some games and getting high scores. Usually you would have other interests. You would be into games, but not be a gamer, if you know what I mean. Then it all started to change. With Nintendo and Sega on the scene, we saw games with objectives. We all know how Mario saved the gaming industry, but did we ever stop to think how it started a chain reaction for gamers lives?
No longer was the objective to get a high score. Now the objective was to beat the game, and as quick as possible (ie before your friends)... how many of us can remember bragging to friends in a playground that we had beaten Sonic 2 to cries of "No way!"? No longer were we staring at variations of the same screen over and over, we had games that were always changing, and that meant we could immerse ourselves in them for hours on end and more. As technology progressed, so did the standard of games, and again that meant we could immerse ourselves even more in a game. Street Fighter 2 meant I was a hungry boy a lot because I had used my lunch money to challenge people at the local arcade. I could challenge people for hours. The Playstation and Saturn meant games became even longer, and that I could immerse myself in games for even longer. I played Final Fantasy VII for 24 hours straight when I got it... try doing that with Pac Man.....
However I have noticed two things. On playing the retro games again, DAMN they are hard! I remember them being hard, but not that hard! 3 lives, no continues? A ghost gets close to you and you start running away, and damn your heart pumps!! Now I am not gonna whine and say how games were better in the olden days.... but back then, the gameplay was pure and exciting. Because there was no story the gameplay was excellent (I believe it still stands up today) and that lack of extra lives and continues means you are constantly striving to get better... however a lot of the games rely on variations of the same screen (Dig Dug anyone?) and quite often have no ending (again with Dig Dug, I remember trying so hard to see if there was an ending, the whole screen ended up covered in roses... it took ages, me and my sister had to take it in turns!) so unless you were stupid like me, you often didn't play for hours on end, because you knew that it wouldn't end.... you just played for the thrill and maybe bragging rights...... But now its all changed.
Now its about telling a story, giving the player motivation to carry on.... an unfortunately that has sometimes gotten in the way of gameplay.... MGS2 springs to mind. A totally self indulging piece of story telling... I spent more time watching FMVs in that game than playing.... excuse me, if I want a conspiracy plot I will watch a Tom Clancy movie.... Games like Final Fantasy X are exempt, because essentially they are a story book game.... but some games its just not funny.... MGS2 was almost an RPG without the levelling....
But that is all very good for games... but what does it mean for gamers? What it means is that we ourselves as a breed must have changed. No longer is about the quick short and sharp sessions of gameplay, but now its about sitting down for long slog sessions at the latest game. Want to spend 5 minutes on Final Fantasy VII, forget it, you would be lucky to get to the next save point. In fact games such as Resident Evil punish saving, encouraging you to play for extended periods of time. Add to that reading up on the latest video games on sites like GS and you have even more time used up. This means that gamers must now devote time to gaming as a the quarterback would to the football team. Also money. In the olden days, you bought a new game because you were bored of the gameplay of the old one. These days you buy a new one because you have finished the old one and it has no incentive to go back to it... that or the game you are buying is a hyped up release and you are getting on day one..... Even sites like Gamespot whine and moan when a game doesn't offer multiple hours of gameplay. Remember the release of FFVII? What was one of its major selling points... over 100 hours of gameplay it stated..... wanna try doing that in 5 minute busts?
So what does this incoherent rant mean? Gaming has changed, and so have we. We are now gamers. We have to devote time to games like our older siblings (or the older of us) never had to..... It is a hobbie that demands money and time to keep up with it.... but is it rewarding all that money and time? I am currently trying to beat Pear on Ms Pac Man... and I tell you that game is giving me more reward than a lot of the games today... I will do it.... is the gameplay really that satisfying or are we playing for a story? Some games yes, some games no.... but to judge what kind of gamer are you is simple. If you can have fun with Pac Man you like gameplay.... if Pac Man sucks, you go for a story... now the question is, are you spending hundreds of dollars on flashy interactive books?
I know that I am a gamer, I love playing for hours at a time, but the game has to offer me rewarding gameplay. I have been gaming since I was knee high to a grasshopper, and as games have evolved, so have I, but one thing remains the same... the game has to be fun to keep my attention, and needs to have something to keep me coming back to it.... And funnily enough, although I have evolved, my favourite genre is the fighting genre, which is probably the closest throwback to the days of old... simple key gameplay with a desire to keep coming back for more....
No longer was the objective to get a high score. Now the objective was to beat the game, and as quick as possible (ie before your friends)... how many of us can remember bragging to friends in a playground that we had beaten Sonic 2 to cries of "No way!"? No longer were we staring at variations of the same screen over and over, we had games that were always changing, and that meant we could immerse ourselves in them for hours on end and more. As technology progressed, so did the standard of games, and again that meant we could immerse ourselves even more in a game. Street Fighter 2 meant I was a hungry boy a lot because I had used my lunch money to challenge people at the local arcade. I could challenge people for hours. The Playstation and Saturn meant games became even longer, and that I could immerse myself in games for even longer. I played Final Fantasy VII for 24 hours straight when I got it... try doing that with Pac Man.....
However I have noticed two things. On playing the retro games again, DAMN they are hard! I remember them being hard, but not that hard! 3 lives, no continues? A ghost gets close to you and you start running away, and damn your heart pumps!! Now I am not gonna whine and say how games were better in the olden days.... but back then, the gameplay was pure and exciting. Because there was no story the gameplay was excellent (I believe it still stands up today) and that lack of extra lives and continues means you are constantly striving to get better... however a lot of the games rely on variations of the same screen (Dig Dug anyone?) and quite often have no ending (again with Dig Dug, I remember trying so hard to see if there was an ending, the whole screen ended up covered in roses... it took ages, me and my sister had to take it in turns!) so unless you were stupid like me, you often didn't play for hours on end, because you knew that it wouldn't end.... you just played for the thrill and maybe bragging rights...... But now its all changed.
Now its about telling a story, giving the player motivation to carry on.... an unfortunately that has sometimes gotten in the way of gameplay.... MGS2 springs to mind. A totally self indulging piece of story telling... I spent more time watching FMVs in that game than playing.... excuse me, if I want a conspiracy plot I will watch a Tom Clancy movie.... Games like Final Fantasy X are exempt, because essentially they are a story book game.... but some games its just not funny.... MGS2 was almost an RPG without the levelling....
But that is all very good for games... but what does it mean for gamers? What it means is that we ourselves as a breed must have changed. No longer is about the quick short and sharp sessions of gameplay, but now its about sitting down for long slog sessions at the latest game. Want to spend 5 minutes on Final Fantasy VII, forget it, you would be lucky to get to the next save point. In fact games such as Resident Evil punish saving, encouraging you to play for extended periods of time. Add to that reading up on the latest video games on sites like GS and you have even more time used up. This means that gamers must now devote time to gaming as a the quarterback would to the football team. Also money. In the olden days, you bought a new game because you were bored of the gameplay of the old one. These days you buy a new one because you have finished the old one and it has no incentive to go back to it... that or the game you are buying is a hyped up release and you are getting on day one..... Even sites like Gamespot whine and moan when a game doesn't offer multiple hours of gameplay. Remember the release of FFVII? What was one of its major selling points... over 100 hours of gameplay it stated..... wanna try doing that in 5 minute busts?
So what does this incoherent rant mean? Gaming has changed, and so have we. We are now gamers. We have to devote time to games like our older siblings (or the older of us) never had to..... It is a hobbie that demands money and time to keep up with it.... but is it rewarding all that money and time? I am currently trying to beat Pear on Ms Pac Man... and I tell you that game is giving me more reward than a lot of the games today... I will do it.... is the gameplay really that satisfying or are we playing for a story? Some games yes, some games no.... but to judge what kind of gamer are you is simple. If you can have fun with Pac Man you like gameplay.... if Pac Man sucks, you go for a story... now the question is, are you spending hundreds of dollars on flashy interactive books?
I know that I am a gamer, I love playing for hours at a time, but the game has to offer me rewarding gameplay. I have been gaming since I was knee high to a grasshopper, and as games have evolved, so have I, but one thing remains the same... the game has to be fun to keep my attention, and needs to have something to keep me coming back to it.... And funnily enough, although I have evolved, my favourite genre is the fighting genre, which is probably the closest throwback to the days of old... simple key gameplay with a desire to keep coming back for more....
do u have so much spare time..... hmmmmm
i'm only 13 sooooo yeah
I thank you for doing some interesting topics. Unfortunatley, I am too lazy to read them, But the first line sort of gave me the gist. Gamers change with the games that they play, and the machines that they play them on. I have myself become more of a casual gamer, because I don't have as much time to play games anymore, I prefer my games quick, sharp and replayable.
thanks and I will keep it coming
Well done winning the GAD.
I found it intresting and glad it was intresting to read.
Thats the second time i seen a newbie win a GAD
I found it intresting and glad it was intresting to read.
Thats the second time i seen a newbie win a GAD
At least one of the many (and do I mean many!) topics you started paid off!
Well done on the win.
Well done on the win.
This was good, normally i find that long posts are normally too boring, but i actually felt like reading this after the first few paragraphs.
What game or film are you gonna choose?
What game or film are you gonna choose?
up_in_smoke wrote:
> i find that long posts are normally too
> boring.
Oh dear my new topic, up in a few hours is nearly 10,000 letters long :-(
> i find that long posts are normally too
> boring.
Oh dear my new topic, up in a few hours is nearly 10,000 letters long :-(