Gaming Elitism or Just Getting Old?

sluggotor

I remember my first experiences with gaming well. I had been introduced to an Italian plumber and his aficionado for flowers and mushrooms by my Aunt and Uncle. After months of begging, pleading, and extraneous chores, I finally was given a NES as a birthday gift.
I spent what seemed like forever over the course of the next six years playing with that NES until some family drama caused me to have to pack it into a box as we moved across the country. Five years after moving, I was reacquainted with my old friend. I found that even though I owned a Playstation and a N64, the games (specifically Legend of Zelda) were so much more appealing.
I’m not sure if this is because of the fond memories that I have with the NES, or because the games were just that much better “back then”.

This thread is about the game(s) that you find have the most re-playability. What aspects of the games appeal to you, and why their contemporary counterparts seem to be lacking.

DisruptorX2

I still played my SNES on a regular basis up until the release of the PS2, when I switched over to that. I still use it to play the final fantasies. Shit like mario 64 and donkey kong 64 looked like crap compared to the 16 bit versions even at the time. The only series that were a graphical and gameplay improvement in that generation were Starfox 64 and F-Zero X.

"Better", though? I think you're forgetting the mountains of horrible platformers on the NES and SNES. I mean, the hundreds and hundreds of games that are literally unplayable.

manwiththemachinegun

I fired up Metal Gear Solid, again, and after running around for a bit I got a very interesting conversation I never even realized was in the game the last dozen or so times I played through from start to finish.

Little things like that keep me coming back for more.

Xenogears of Bore

DisruptorX2 wrote:

"Better", though? I think you're forgetting the mountains of horrible platformers on the NES and SNES. I mean, the hundreds and hundreds of games that are literally unplayable.

The quality of your average videogame has gone up every single generation. Even most shitty licensed games these days are perfectly playable if a bit boring.

Jephery

I'm still waiting for a good remake of Crystalis. I loved that game so much.

And it was very pretty for a NES game, like the poisonous woods area filled with bugs.

lionheart_m

I thought SNES era was beat 'em up and fighting games everywhere. And it was...well not glorious. Double Dragon cartoon fighting game?

Gaslight

Man, I wish somebody would bring beat 'em ups back. More indie developers need to make good 2D side-scrolling retro brawlers instead of endless minute variations on the tower defense concept.

sluggotor

Gaslight wrote:

Man, I wish somebody would bring beat 'em ups back. More indie developers need to make good 2D side-scrolling retro brawlers instead of endless minute variations on the tower defense concept.

Agreed. I wasted countless hours with KungFu, Kid Nikki, Bad Dudes, Double Dragon, and TMNT 2 (Arcade).

DisruptorX2 wrote:

"Better", though? I think you're forgetting the mountains of horrible platformers on the NES and SNES. I mean, the hundreds and hundreds of games that are literally unplayable.

Sure there were games that were just plain bad. I suppose that I should clarify. I am not in any way indicating that NES was the end-all console and that its' games were superior to X, Y, Z. I am simply stating that it is the console that has a certain appeal to me personally. There have been games that I have spent a good deal of time playing, but I have found that Legend of Zelda specifically was my weakness. I would personally *LOVE* to see someone do a remake of "Devil Dice".

Either way, keep the comments coming. The point here is gaming culture and what drives us to it. Forgive me if I over-analyze the topic.

LockedOnTarget

As games evolved they have become more engrossing, immersive experiences for me. The evolution of graphics, sound, and gameplay has led to games that can pull me into the world and events with much greater effect. It's really hard for me to go back and play the first Zelda after playing the newer ones.

L Ron Howard

There's something lost about going back, because most of the tricks you've discovered have been propagated through to the sequels, like in the case of Zelda. There's no way to go back and recreate the first moment you discovered that dropping a bomb in front of Dodongo was his weak point, and that was the way to beat him.

DisruptorX2

Gaslight wrote:

Man, I wish somebody would bring beat 'em ups back. More indie developers need to make good 2D side-scrolling retro brawlers instead of endless minute variations on the tower defense concept.

I don't know. Those games kind of suck. I say this because I actually went through and played a bunch of them recently. The good ones are kind of fun, but certainly only multiplayer.

Though, all the ones with friendly fire are certainly hilarious.

LockedOnTarget wrote:

As games evolved they have become more engrossing, immersive experiences for me. The evolution of graphics, sound, and gameplay has led to games that can pull me into the world and events with much greater effect. It's really hard for me to go back and play the first Zelda after playing the newer ones.

If you're an RPG fan, you are basically stuck playing old games, or obscure releases. Gameplay evolution my ass.

Morninglord

DisruptorX2 wrote:

Gaslight wrote:

Man, I wish somebody would bring beat 'em ups back. More indie developers need to make good 2D side-scrolling retro brawlers instead of endless minute variations on the tower defense concept.

I don't know. Those games kind of suck. I say this because I actually went through and played a bunch of them recently. The good ones are kind of fun, but certainly only multiplayer.

Though, all the ones with friendly fire are certainly hilarious.

LockedOnTarget wrote:

As games evolved they have become more engrossing, immersive experiences for me. The evolution of graphics, sound, and gameplay has led to games that can pull me into the world and events with much greater effect. It's really hard for me to go back and play the first Zelda after playing the newer ones.

If you're an RPG fan, you are basically stuck playing old games, or obscure releases. Gameplay evolution my ass.

Witcher series is obscure?

Brym

DisruptorX2 wrote:

Gaslight wrote:

Man, I wish somebody would bring beat 'em ups back. More indie developers need to make good 2D side-scrolling retro brawlers instead of endless minute variations on the tower defense concept.

I don't know. Those games kind of suck. I say this because I actually went through and played a bunch of them recently. The good ones are kind of fun, but certainly only multiplayer.

Though, all the ones with friendly fire are certainly hilarious.

LockedOnTarget wrote:

As games evolved they have become more engrossing, immersive experiences for me. The evolution of graphics, sound, and gameplay has led to games that can pull me into the world and events with much greater effect. It's really hard for me to go back and play the first Zelda after playing the newer ones.

If you're an JRPG fan, you are basically stuck playing old games, or obscure releases. Gameplay evolution my ass.

Fixed that for you.

LockedOnTarget

Even then we still get some pretty good JRPGs. They're just not all that popular anymore so we notice them a lot less.

DisruptorX2

I'm pretty sure Dragon Age (1) is the only decent party based classic style RPG to be released in the last decade or so, actually. I can't think of many other good ones since Baldur's Gate II. Summoner was pretty cool, I guess, but that was what, a year later. The last Wizardry game made in the West came out the same year, too. Second IWD, came out about a year after, too.

Kotor, I guess. That's pretty damn old now, too.

You may notice that I listed a bunch of games by the same developer. That's how lame the RPG genre is.

Witcher sure as hell isn't a classic RPG. Action game. Also, most Japanese RPGs these days play like Star Ocean. Unless, as I said, you look for obscure stuff.

Ninja Snarl P

RPGs are hard to make. Unlike FPS games where newer technology makes it easier to make a better-looking game, newer tech does not equal a better RPG. If you don't have talented writers and a good story, an RPG is pretty much going to suck regardless of the hardware you need to run it.

But as far as "elitism" goes, I'll still happily pick up and play a number of old games. Some of them just still shine; I could go play A Link to the Past right now.

It's stuff like Mario Bros. that doesn't hold up that well to me. It was neat a few decades ago, but now it's just extremely limited and largely repetitive. Some games just hit the right mix of nostalgia, gameplay, story, and visuals so that they're pretty timeless.

DisruptorX2

You don't even need a good story for an RPG. There are plenty of good ones with really, really dumb stories. You just need 2 out of three: memorable characters, fun combat, and a fascinating setting.

ConnHurr

All the good RPG's are released by the same small group of developers and everyone else trying to get into the RPG business is just shunned basically. I've played tons of good RPG's not made by the major dev's.

Lindsay Lohan

Beat em ups are still around - Castle Crashers, Scott Pilgrim, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1&2, and pretty much every Lego game all have their footing pretty soundly in the genre.

DisruptorX2

People got tired of them, I suppose. I haven't played any this gen, but I remember playing some of them in previous ones. Even something as commonly panned as the Bouncer was far more engaging than 16 bit beat em ups.

Also, I played through all of Fighting Force on the playstation. I remember that getting panned, too. No worse than any of the 16bit ones.

LockedOnTarget

DisruptorX2 wrote:

I'm pretty sure Dragon Age (1) is the only decent party based classic style RPG to be released in the last decade or so, actually. I can't think of many other good ones since Baldur's Gate II. Summoner was pretty cool, I guess, but that was what, a year later. The last Wizardry game made in the West came out the same year, too. Second IWD, came out about a year after, too.

Kotor, I guess. That's pretty damn old now, too.

You may notice that I listed a bunch of games by the same developer. That's how lame the RPG genre is.

Witcher sure as hell isn't a classic RPG. Action game. Also, most Japanese RPGs these days play like Star Ocean. Unless, as I said, you look for obscure stuff.

So you're not complaining about RPGs, your complaining about one very specific kind of RPG. That wasn't exactly clear in your original statement.

Because there's tons of RPGs that meet two of your three criteria.

Xenogears of Bore

EO, despite being filled with loli tastic character design, is an old school RPG in every single way.

DisruptorX2

Xenogears of Bore wrote:

EO, despite being filled with loli tastic character design, is an old school RPG in every single way.

Yeah, that's the thing. I don't actually mind JRPGs, because there is no real genre divide other than that they are imported from Japan. But I can't stand moe, loli, and all that crap.

LockedOnTarget wrote:

you're complaining about one very specific kind of RPG.

Right, but I don't want to start a "what is an RPG" discussion. Because those are very, very, very silly.

urahonky

DisruptorX2 wrote:

Gaslight wrote:

Man, I wish somebody would bring beat 'em ups back. More indie developers need to make good 2D side-scrolling retro brawlers instead of endless minute variations on the tower defense concept.

I don't know. Those games kind of suck. I say this because I actually went through and played a bunch of them recently. The good ones are kind of fun, but certainly only multiplayer.

Though, all the ones with friendly fire are certainly hilarious.

LockedOnTarget wrote:

As games evolved they have become more engrossing, immersive experiences for me. The evolution of graphics, sound, and gameplay has led to games that can pull me into the world and events with much greater effect. It's really hard for me to go back and play the first Zelda after playing the newer ones.

If you're an RPG fan, you are basically stuck playing old games, or obscure releases. Gameplay evolution my ass.

Castle Crashers would like to have a word with you... As well as Scott Pilgrim.

e: And I'm 20 minutes late to the party.

Xenogears of Bore

Dark Spire then. Doesn't even have real character art. If EO is like Wizardry 7 then Dark Spire is like Wizardry 2.

Ultimanecat

DisruptorX2 wrote:

People got tired of them, I suppose. I haven't played any this gen, but I remember playing some of them in previous ones. Even something as commonly panned as the Bouncer was far more engaging than 16 bit beat em ups.

Also, I played through all of Fighting Force on the playstation. I remember that getting panned, too. No worse than any of the 16bit ones.

That's just like, your opinion man.

But seriously, the genre had some real standouts, both recently and orginally. River City Ransom (which Scott Pilgrim is broadly based from and is also great). The fan-made, only-kinda-sorta-maybe legal Streets of Rage Remix (and the awesome games it is based off of). And of course, God Hand.

Of course, the end-all greatest ones were NeoGeo games, like Sengoku 3 with its fully developed combo system, or Shadow over Mystara with a surprisingly deep RPG system mixed in.

Edit: Ah, I got mixed up. Shadow Over Mystara is a Capcom CPS2 game, and was only released for the Saturn outside of arcades.

DisruptorX2

I've played Tower of Doom, yes. And its one of those "why the hell is this not on console" sort of things. Like the X-Men beat em up, which was notable for having 6 players. ....Or the Simpsons one. Pretty much all of the beat em ups I remember being fun were arcade only, except Turtles in Time. I've played the latter recently, and my friend and I had fun. The gameplay is ok, but the music is so classic.

So there you go, arcade only. Though I think the D&D ones got a console release? For a console no one had, like the Saturn or something.

I guess I kind of implied there were no good ones, rather than that the genre is nearly all the exact same game and definitely feels dated, not timeless. And some of the classics, like Golden Axe, have not aged well. I wouldn't recommend that one. I wouldn't, to someone with no nostalgia, seriously recommend very many of them.

Xenogears of Bore wrote:

Dark Spire then. Doesn't even have real character art. If EO is like Wizardry 7 then Dark Spire is like Wizardry 2.

There is the real deal, of course. For ps3 only. I think that these are filed under fairly obscure though

Anzekay

While it isn't really that old, Baldur's Gate 1&2 will easily suck up hours upon hours of my time if I ever reinstall them.

Also Deus Ex does that too.

Eupfhoria

I've been back getting into classic gaming lately, and probably will be more so now that my 360 controller is broken.

I personally find that playing, for instance, the Zelda games is a much more relaxing experience compared to what I've spent the vast majority of my gaming time in the last few years: online multiplayer FPS games

Plus, my backlog of unfinished games is shamefully long (the only Zelda games I've finished over the years were Link to the Past, and Ocarina of Time)

Drakmathus

i still play my genesis and saturn. good times.

jothki

The ambassador games for the 3DS have primarily served to make me grateful that gaming has moved on since then.

The SNES generation holds up far better in my opinion, though.

Hahnsoo1

DisruptorX2 wrote:

I'm pretty sure Dragon Age (1) is the only decent party based classic style RPG to be released in the last decade or so, actually. I can't think of many other good ones since Baldur's Gate II. Summoner was pretty cool, I guess, but that was what, a year later. The last Wizardry game made in the West came out the same year, too. Second IWD, came out about a year after, too.

If we're talking Infinity Engine, then Icewind Dale 2 was in the last decade (just barely) at 2002. For later games, Neverwinter Nights was also in 2002 (with various expansions afterwards), and Neverwinter Nights 2 was 2007 (also with various expansions, including the excellent Mask of the Betrayer). Drakensang was released in 2006 (I think), and it was pretty good when I played it (a computerized version of Der Schwartze Auge, Germany's version of Dungeons and Dragons). Drakensang: River of Time was released in 2010 with an expansion sometime this past year. I have River of Time and the Expansion sitting in my Steam library waiting to be played.

The two big things that hit the gaming scene which drew attention away from party-based RPGs was the success of Diablo-likes and MMORPGs. I'd also say console gaming was a big factor, since controlling a Party on an overhead map is a chore with a controller.

Dehumanized

i'm confused as to how the witcher is considered an "action game" and dragon age is considered a "classic rpg"

where exactly is the line marking that gap

Hahnsoo1

Dehumanized wrote:

i'm confused as to how the witcher is considered an "action game" and dragon age is considered a "classic rpg"

where exactly is the line marking that gap

Well, The Witcher is a single character RPG and not party-based, which is more of what he was looking for.

RainbowDespair

Dehumanized wrote:

i'm confused as to how the witcher is considered an "action game" and dragon age is considered a "classic rpg"

where exactly is the line marking that gap

The way I play Dragon Age: Origins, it's practically a turn-based game.

Dragon Age 2 on the other hand...

DisruptorX2

Dragon Age plays like a worse, 3d version of Baldur's Gate, which uses a continuous turn based system instead of the turn based proper. The system has its advantages (not needing to play out insignificant actions) and disadvantages (movement isn't quite as controlled).

Baldur's Gate itself was a retro revival.

Hahnsoo1

Dragon Age handles companion AI a lot better than Baldur's Gate, or any Infinity Game engine, for that matter. In Infinity Engine, if you didn't want to use the stupid presets, you had to edit some obtuse text files to make your own custom version. It was a huge chore. This is countered by the fact that they decided to limit the number of AI behavior slots based on the character's level and a stat sink. Ugh.

RainbowDespair

I couldn't stand Baldur's Gate (it's like all of the worst things about D&D condensed into one game) but I really like DA:O.

L Ron Howard

RainbowDespair wrote:

I couldn't stand Baldur's Gate (it's like all of the worst things about D&D condensed into one game) but I really like DA:O.

Heathen!

Hahnsoo1

RainbowDespair wrote:

I couldn't stand Baldur's Gate (it's like all of the worst things about D&D condensed into one game) but I really like DA:O.

Does this mean that the Breath of Death/CSTW team is not going to be the forefront of the Infinity Engine party-based Western RPG revival?

DisruptorX2

The credit I give Dragon Age Origins is that if you turned the difficulty all the way up, you had a game you could never accuse of being too easy. Yeah, you'd be using every ability and potion you could get your hands on.

I could list dozens of flaws, but this isn't the DAO thread. Just giving it props for actually being a classic style RPG.