The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[PATV] Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 6, Ep. 19: A Little Bit of Yesterday
Something I think that's often ignored is the clarity of visuals in retro games. You can look at something and often immediately tell what it's supposed to be - or at the very least it's distinctive enough that when it shows up a second time, you'll know what it does.
Not every pixel of the screen has to be filled with burning exuberant colours for a game to be worthwhile.
I can see a lot of what you mean about wanting to remember the imagination of games and joy back then. Though, more games are trying to get that today without resorting to the retro fad. A good example to me is Dust: An Elysian Tail. It couldn't have existed on those older systems, it uses graphics and gameplay that is more modern, and yet keeps that classic imagination and mostly lighthearted feel.
I think it's more the fact that as games get closer to being "life-like", it loses more and more the appeal that games of old had. Back then, graphics weren't anywhere near good, but they were enjoyable. They had creativity and that was supported by the developer and unhindered by outside influences - something you'll rarely see in today's gaming industry.
Take Secret of Mana for instance.
The story was one of the best during its time on the SNES, even when compared to Final Fantasy 4 and 6. But what stood out for me wasn't the story or even the graphics as you got to ride around on Flammie. It was the music. That 16-bit era music soundtrack was one of the best ever made. Even now, when we have access to orchestras and remixes of various kinds, the sounds back then required imagination because the technology wasn't present. It helped make the game go from good to outstanding. However, the current trends of the gaming industry seem to focus more on superficial things, like gimmicks (Kinect, 3D) and high-end graphics, rather than the substance of what made experiences like SoM great.
That's not to say we don't see this is the current state of gaming. For myself, I can list the Persona series as something that still has a hint of the old formula and feel. In that sense, ATLUS is like a new SquareSoft for me.
I think these same ideas about being unabashedly optimistic and wonderful are also driving forces behind the surprisingly large adult fanbases for cartoons like Adventure Time or Friendship is Magic. The current "grown up" mediascape is so over-saturated with grimness on every front that child- or family-oriented programming has become a refuge from that overwhelming sense of cynicism that pervades our adult shows and games. \
"I think it's more the fact that as games get closer to being "life-like", it loses more and more the appeal that games of old had. Back then, graphics weren't anywhere near good, but they were enjoyable. They had creativity and that was supported by the developer and unhindered by outside influences - something you'll rarely see in today's gaming industry."
I think it also goes back to issues covered here in previous episodes, like Graphics vs. Aesthetics. Photorealistic models ironically tend to have far less character than pixelated sprites, because abstract representations of humans inherently demand a level of aesthetic creativity that photorealism doesn't. The technological limits of the time essentially forced games to be more distinctly unique than the modern scene, with its ability to render pretty much anything the artist can think of without having to refine it to meet system limitations.
And that's why we should ll be grateful that Nintendo is still around. Seriously they are doing an enormous favor to the industry just by being themselves and fill a gap in a world where 90% of the money goes to pandering to the "mature" demographic.
Can't this simply be that games, as other art representations have the capability of not being "obsolete"?
I mean, we can still enjoy movies from 30 years ago, music for 200 years ago and pictures even older than this. Making a "retro" game today is similar to compose a blues. It's not the trend at the moment, but that doesn't mean that it can be good. It's just a "different flavour".
I can still play Tetris and enjoy it, just like I can listen Elvis singing "Suspicious Minds" and enjoy it.
Comic books fixed this by calling the "grown-up" version "graphic novels". Let's call games for adults "world simulations" and then we can get away with putting anything we like into videogames since they're "just for kids". With the magic of low expectations at its disposal, art can do anything.
For me, it's almost purely mechanical. I don't enjoy the same NES games now that I enjoyed in my childhood. Most of the NES games I play now, I didn't even own as a kid. I think it's more that the type of play in those old games would feel flat and out of place with modern graphics. Retro graphics, if anything else, just help us feel more comfortable to go back to that mindset.
It's part of why so many compare Dark Souls to Castlevania. It has a lot of the stuff you'd want there. Predictable but well placed enemies. Emphasis on learning and caution. Slow, big actions that will get you killed if used at the wrong time. There are types of game styles and feel that is way more plentiful on the older consoles... and like Jaime said, why should we expect the old to be obsoleted? Better graphics give us more options on how to display the world and widens our options for what games we make, but they don't obsolete games that didn't need those graphics to work.
Though still, like Daniel said, we all have different reasons.
I don't agree with the premise of the video. Old video games are great because they're not FPS, and that's pretty much the whole thing. The games industry has never figured out how to do 99% of games in a FPS manner, and yet they cling to games that can be done in a FPS engine. Anything not FPS then is inevitably labeled as 'retro'.
Of course there's a certain artistic style in the simplicity and ease of recognition of 8 or 16-bit graphics, but look at a game like Braid or many of the new 2d Nintendo games for proof that sprite graphics aren't necessary. And look at a game like Super Meat Boy to show how the ability to have sprites of wildly varying sizes means the technical limitations of previous consoles don't really add much.
This is one reason 'casual' java games like 2D sidescrollers or puzzles like bejeweled are so popular. (If anyone is going to tell me Tetris is casual, I'll laugh) Just because there is a greater variety of games that can be done from those perspectives. Maybe if we see more games try to use 3D engines from a fixed, isometric perspective, or if we see games give up on RPG elements and have the entire game be a series of puzzles where they can use tricks they learn on later stages of the game throughout the whole thing, giving a new sense of exploration and wonder even to apparently threadbare earlier levels, then the retro faze will die out.
But until that happens there is always going to be nostalgia for games that just aren't made anymore. Computers are possible of incredible internal calculations, modeling any number of physical objects without us requiring to know how they move or carry around a jumble of tiny pieces that can easily get lost, enable people to play together in real time across vast distances or model things that are either too cumbersome or actually physically impossible in real space. And yet all we can do with it is make games that you click on something and a shiny animation plays?
We don't go back to old games because they're old. We go back to old games because they're great. They're not great because they're old, they're great because they're great.
Karateka, to use one example, is a good game whether you're playing the Apple ][ version or the recent remake. Because at heart it's a good game.
I recently went through my NES/SNES collection to decide which games would get ebayed/trashed and which would be kept. All told, I sifted through about 300 games, so I spent a lot of time thinking about why I wanted to keep each one. Some of the decisions, when I started to think about them, surprised me a bit.
Ninja Gaiden (1-3) got the axe because, while they were great games, they each represent a single-serving challenge. I've completed them, and moved on. Knowing when to lure an enemy on the screen, where to jump, which powerups to avoid... that was the challenge and without the challenge the game has lost its appeal.
Aerobiz Supersonic was kept because it fills a niche not often addressed. As a simulation it is pretty lightweight, but solid enough that it feels complete. I find it hard to play it for more than a couple hours without starting to think about how I want to develop a newer, better iteration of the same basic model.
UN Squadron was also on the keep pile. I never found this game as challenging as Ninja Gaiden or Megaman, but I kept going back because of the replayability. Of course, when I actually sit down to play, I find myself following the same path time and time again--this is not a case of illusion of choice, but rather there is a path through the game that just works for me.
Most of the Megaman games got cut. The stages are linear, boss battles are a case of repetition one they have been mastered, and I just can't bring myself to endure those paths again.
The Dragon Warrior series was kept. I keep swearing that I'll finish off DW2 one of these days (a green screen error wiped out my at-the-very-end save before I could complete it, and I found getting back there a second time to be much more tedious than the first), but I know I won't. A lot of the lure is nostalgia, but not for the games themselves. For every hour I spent killing slimes, babbles, and goldmans, I probably spent 8 trying to create my own RPG. Everything from staring at the screen to copy down the pixel art (I wear glasses now; my mom was right) to creating maps, tools, and tweaking monster stats to have the difficulty I was after. This really kindled my love for programming.
The Little Mermaid was a keep. I have a daughter that just turned 3; she loves this game and is remarkably good at it, all things considered. I can see in her eyes that it kindles the same creative force that games had started in myself.
Zelda, Zelda 2, Final Fantasy, PTO, 7th Saga, King Arthur's World, Metroid, Excitebike... all kept.
The common thread for me was that these games grew creativity, either through diverse solutions to problems, direct inspiration to make something similar, or through simple imagination. I remember walking outside (ok, I accidentally attacked a guard and respawned, but same difference) Felwithe, into Greater Faydark in EverQuest for the first time. I was effectively an adult, but my imagination took over in a manner normally reserved for children. I saw this rich world laid out before me, and I loved it. No game since then has captured that same spirit, nor will it, because my brain has now matured how it perceives those experiences and processes them as stat-crunching, zone-mapping experiences. Certainly a modern MMO should offer a more immersive experience, but none, through no fault of their own, have ever managed to instill a sense of wonder like that again. To this day I feel the pull of EQ, but I know the experience I would have today is not the experience I would be seeking out... but that is an outlier; when I sit down in front of the TV and pop in NES/SNES games, I feel that creative wonder returning. That's why I keep going back--so that my mind can re-align itself with the work ethic and creativity of my youth.
I wasn't expecting to find that as the unifying facet of the games I elected to keep. I wanted to boil it down to an uncanny valley, gameplay-over-graphics, or similar argument. But I can't. As I've matured, I've assimilated enough experiences that new experiences are harder and harder to come by. It isn't the moment-of-wonder, however, that I am after, but rather my reaction to that moment. I want to dream, and wonder, and imagine. My brain built these creative/inspiring patterns using these games as catalysts, and playing one helps to set my brain into following through that pattern, even if the experience isn't new or unique. A lot of these games don't even represent best-in-class, a lot are simply the game that I played the most at a time when I was particularly inspired.
Older games and the developers that made them had several constraints which are either not present or greatly diminished in the modern industry. The first is technology, the second is manpower, the third is history.
Studios today don't have the constraints that older game developers had in terms of technology, especially the need for thurough playtesting in the absense of online updates. An entire generation of gamers has grown up wanting to become game designers, and the ruthless competition for a few dozen jobs with tens or hundreds of thousands of applicants necessarily influences the kinds of designers that land the job and therefore the games that are made. In the early days, designers were poached from other industries, which brings us to the last constraint: history. When stakeholders had no history to draw from, the designers were free to realize their fantasies in the code, art, music and mechanics of the games they crafted.
Perhaps nostalgia is a social phenomena that cycles over time. If media communicates new idea and shares different perspectives it might be natural to assume that media can gets biased in a particular mode (consensus vs. concepts) and thus causes a fluctuation over time, creating waves of nostalgia. e.g. We talk about our perspectives, get bored of them, reflect on the past to crave out new thoughts, then we share perspectives on these new thoughts, and then the cycle repeats.
Like, the Romans were nostalgic of Greek aesthetics during their height. The renaissance were nostalgic of Romans aesthetics during its time. The European monarchy were nostalgic of the renaissance aesthetic during their power. Most note worthy artifacts were inspired by renowned predecessors: the 'we are dwarves standing on the back of giants' concept.
So perhaps in present times people are getting sick of the 'real world' as depicted by modern media due to the explosion of social media technologies and its taint upon game design. Perhaps people are craving a renewed sense of escapist wonder and discovery; something that retro games captured perfectly as the hardware limitations and rapid advancement in technology made games a ripe arena for novel experiences--asking the players to be more imaginatively invested in them.
Considering this, this might make the retro indie flux a double edge sword. They are digging up the past to find new inspiration, but if they don't innovate on old designs, and instead seek to replicate old experiences, then they fail.
Or... and this might read like crazy talk, we like old games cause they're good and don't bullshit us. You know, you turn it on and it plays, I don't have to spam the escape button and be forced to watch nonsense like nonstop cutscenes and scripted events.
I think your narrative of playfulness drawing us back is right on. So is the appeal to nostalgia.
I believe you overlooked a third element of what brings us back to these games or two the indie games that replicate them: Gameplay!
These older games have simplified controllers, and due to graphical constraints, simplified graphics. While this is clearly limiting, it also allows these games to dive very deeply into specific gameplay elements (one of the reasons many of these games have absurd difficulty levels.) There is a certain zen to a side scrolling platformer or shmup where one can absorb and fully consume a game and its elements.
I relate it in many ways to the reason I would read a book when I could simply watch the movie version. Sometimes I do just watch the movie. But if the story or the characters or some other element are gripping enough, I know I need to read the book.
You really say it in the last minute but as someone who didn't really grow up on those old games and so who isn't really drawn to them, even i find that that era of game can get away with being unabashedly fun. Often they dont need to explain theirs weird as shit mechanics or bizarre story in a way modern games feels the need to. Gauntlet Legends is a ridiculous and stupid trope filled game that is all about beating up monsters with friends and so its awesome.
I think this can also be said of the way my firends an I tend to drift back to Halo 3 or the games that in the area where having four friends on your screen was the only or best way to play. There could be a really interesting episode wrapped up in the lose of splitscreen multiplayer
The comment about Ni No Kuni being more mature than Army of Two reminds me of a quote from CS Lewis: "When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up."
I think what draws me back to old games is that they all feel so creatively DIFFERENT. They have all have their own distinct DNA. Chrono Trigger is a world unto itself. So is Star Fox. So is Super Mario 3.
So many modern games (and I'm not just talking about third-person shooters) just feel so...homogenous. When an entire generation is running on some form of the Unreal engine, you start to be able to feel it.
@TheTurnipKing
Modern games do not in fact "cost so much more" Street Fighter II Turbo retailed for $80, in early 90's dollars. This price point was typical for the snes era. When you adjust for inflation, modern games are much cheaper then older games. The price point hasn't moved hardly at all as the dollar has fallen.
As for offering less... Well that is your nostalgia talking. In terms of play hours alone moderngames tend to be 6-10x longer then older games. Sorry if that's not the more you were referring too.
Don't get me wrong. I love old games. But I know a lot of my love for them us tied up with nostalgia.
@tazsul "moderngames tend to be 6-10x longer then older games" That's a blanket statement so general it's meaningless. WHICH older games? WHICH modern games? Or are you just making an average of all old games and all modern games? And if so, where is the spreadsheet for this, and where does the "older" era end and the "modern" era begin? (And if your model is so exact, then why are you getting a figure so vague as "6-10"?)
The vast, overwhelming majority of games up to and including the first half of the PS1 era were designed to be played over and over again, because they were still built around the arcade concept of extreme challenge and constant death. That's not an opinion: that's historical fact. For anybody who grew up with these games, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to argue with us that modern games play longer. They just DON'T. Ask me how many hours I put into most of my NES/SNES/PS1 games, and I literally cannot tell you, the number is so large. Hundreds. For some, thousands.
There are comparatively few modern games which engender that kind of time-suck, outside of an Elder Scrolls game or an online shooter. Most of the modern games I own, I've put perhaps twenty hours into, then beaten them, and will likely not play them again for years.
Most AAA single-player games developed today are designed as linear, one-and-done experiences. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact. Go to Gamestop and look at any shelf, and 9/10 of what you see are going to be games designed to be played, completed, and then put away. The idea of creating a mechanically-driven game with a rich, organic system not dependent on finite content seems to have fallen by the wayside, and is really only revisited in franchises like Sim City and Civilization (both of which are very old franchises).
This is exactly why Pacific Rim is so great, because they clearly decided to make robots fighting godzilla monsters a justification of itself, and just run with it to make the most spectacular (and I do mean, the movie with the most spectacle) film this summer.
In 20 years movie buffs are not going to remember Grown Ups and Battleship--they will be remembering Lord of the Rings, Avengers, and Cloud Atlas. We think old movies are inherently better because we only remember the ones worth remembering. Same with music. Same with games. It's easy to say all old games are better when you compare the gems of the past with the turds of today. But people are kidding themselves if they try to contest that there wasn't shovelware in the NES days. Our generation isn't defined by the by-the-numbers Shlock anymore than the NES era was defined by Jekyll & Hyde or Back to the Future.
It's not a matter of nostalgia goggles making things seem better than they are, but it is a matter of nostaliga goggles filtering out the crap--and if we apply that same fairness to our current generation, we can find just as many gems.
Imagination and wonder is the exact reason I still love Nintendo. The ability to let my imagination run riot is the reason I still love City of Heroes even well after it's unneeded death. Old Bullfrog games are so much more appealing then modern management games because even potentially dull and disturbing subjects like hospital management had a zany, entertaining quality to them (still laugh when I see the Horned Reaper sat in A&E in the intro). It's a shame they're not appreciated more and they should be held up as fine examples
One of my favorite gaming experiences recently was Sword and Sworcery. The backgrounds were great detailed yet stylized (reminded me a lot of pointillism) but the characters were super simplified. I think the most simplified a character looks the more you can use your own imagination on said characters to flesh them out. It also can help place you more in the role of the avatar. I was very drawn into the game with this combo.
Also, a more simplified avatar the more you can imagine yourself in it. I don't have a problem playing a male character the problem for me so many of the are dude bros, or giant meat muscles and that isn't something I'd really imagine for a game or story personal. I feel less connected.
I do think to many games today spend to much time on "looking real" instead of "being fun."
I love this subject as it is something that comes up time and time again for me as well.
There is an appeal to nostalgia that is apparent through all forms of entertainment right now. We're the generation that embraces the past and tries to find ways to make it relevant in the present. I can place a cartoon character from the 90s on my Facebook and I'm bound to get someone to say they haven't thought about that cartoon in years so they're going to go buy the DVD. The same goes with videogames.
When I was a kid and was playing SNES games I was also drawing out pictures of battles from Final Fantasy or trying to think of where the story would go after I beat the game. I would imagine what happened to the characters and what sort of villain was going to pop out next. Those games peaked my imagination, they gave me a world I wasn't familiar with and it pushed me to consider the fact I didn't know the world I lived in myself. Today, too many games have just given me like you mentioned, the film experience. I'm not going somewhere new. I'm going somewhere I've seen before. Maybe I haven't been there but it doesn't feel like a new world. There are always a few games out there that do spark my imagination but it's getting rarer and rarer. It's a great thing a company like Monolith Soft exists to give me Xenoblade Chronicles and Baten Kaitos, worlds that truly feel like they come from the imagination instead of from something real.
It's little things too that help this. In Zelda, a bat isn't just a bat. It's a keese. Today I hear people complain about that or how a Stalfos is not just a skeleton, but giving something we know in the real world something with a new name allows you to be better immersed in the Zelda world. It makes it more unique and allows you to understand things better. Re-playing the Legend of Zelda reminds me of when I'd get myself lost in a field or a forest and would spend hours trying to find my way out. You know, childhood.
However it isn't just the journey for fantasy. The industry seems to have made a conscious decision to decide certain game genres just don't sell anymore or do not push the boundaries of technology so we don't see them anymore. The JRPG had to find a revival on handheld. The platformer is nowhere near as supported as it used to be (but it's finding a revival in the indie game boom). Fighting games, beat em ups, space shooters, collect-a-thons, all of these are getting harder to find unless being made by small teams. We loved those games as a kid and they are still fun today. There's nothing inherently flawed about them. But the major companies that made their names on them? They refuse to consider the profits of having a small team design a game the way they used to. Wouldn't that be the best way of utilizing veteran developers?
In the end, while I know it's a bit of nostalgia and pining for when you were a kid, I also feel like much of this is about an industry where the people at the top have neglected to consider what made us buy their games in the first place. I hope when Nintendo decided to make Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, they weren't just trying to cash in nostalgia but realized that there was nothing inferior to the game design of that SNES game. I also hope gamers like myself put their money where their mouth is and support the indie games that are bringing back the games we've been asking for. I used to listen to the radio to get the music I wanted to hear. Now I have to find it. The major labels are not supporting me like they used to. It's a bummer and I wish they realized I can still be profitable for them, but at the same time I accept the fact I appeal to a new audience. I search for my music now and I'm actually listening to more artists than I've ever before. I don't mind doing that with the videogame industry, and if they appeal to me the way the major publishers used to, they'll get my money the same way the major publishers used to.
I rambled but yeah. Just thinking of how imaginative I used to be after playing a Super Nintendo game kind of welled me up.
I think that many modern games give me a sense of sensory overload. There's so much going on that I lose focus on any one thing - and there has to be, in a realistic 3d environment, or it'll feel surreal and static. I remember playing through a Call of Duty campaign and paying careful attention to how I was reacting - there's so much going on, and I often can't tell the browns apart from the other browns, and I have to learn names, faces, voices, callsigns, and figure out what differentiates these four similar-looking guns, while I'm looking into a world where everything looks similar but not identical. And it's frantic enough that I feel like I can't slow down and take it all in, even at a point in the game where I know I can. And the backdrops look like 'real places,' so I can't just ignore a certain part of a map, until I know the constraints of that map - it's just too much for me to take in, and it's easy for me to get lost.
Older games often favor simplicity, which allows me to really focus on the elements that I'm there for. There are modern games, like GTA, that put me in a complex environment but give me the freedom to adapt and acclimate at my own pace. They also tend to have tighter controls and more discrete actions (although when they fail at the latter point they tend to fail harder).
Three words: Half-Minute Hero (PSP, PC)
Two more words: Rune Factory (DS, 3DS)
Five more: Final Fantasy: All the Bravest (smartphone)
And Three more: The Wallstreet Kid (NES)
In support of this episode, I provide, in order:
An example of a recent game that has both the graphics and the joy
An example of a recent game (series) that captures the joy of the past without emulating the graphics or retro style
An example of a recent game that has the graphics but doesn't really carry the joy so well
And - as a warning on the effects of over-nostalgia - an example from the Retro age itself that also has the graphics but none of the joy. Yes, we had joyless, soul-crushing games even back then (and yes, I did own it as a kid )
More directly, I think one of the reasons retro-style games could be seen as more "joyful" then current AAA games is because of the limited color pallet and maybe even a direct result of the primitive graphics. After all, if you wanted a game sprite to have any detail in an 8- or 16-bit game, you were usually limited to a) drawing a black border line on each section (arm, leg, sword, etc) or b) coloring each section a different solid color (the arm is red with pink bits if they're human, body's blue, head is pink with yellow hair, etc). Since the last thing you wanted was for the player to be unable to tell what exactly they were looking at, and black lines on everything makes it look like a cheap drawing and wastes valuable detail space in a boring way, it makes sense to go with option b) and preferably using colors that contrast as much as possible. Hence why games back then are so colorful and one of the reasons games with retro-style graphics today tend to ALSO be more colorful: so the different sprites can stand out and let the player easily see which blocky bit's the sword and which the monster.
The way of the Paladin:
To Seek,
To Learn,
To Do.
-QFG2
If the speed of light is faster then the speed of sound, is that why people always appear bright until they speak? o_O
This episode reminded me of how awesome Stevie Wonder is. He writes and composes for the joy of love, not the suffering or the longing, something actually rare in music these days. So I don't believe that designing games with joy in mind is a "lesser" theme than other, it does require the same level of depth and development.
I find with a lot of games, I prefer their old game mechanics. But their graphic aesthetic may put me off. Some graphic aesthetics haven't aged well at all, and make for an infuriating game experience. Or the game relies *too* heavily on the player having pre-knowledge of of the game through physical manuals.
A game I loved playing, and I wish I could still play is Magic & Mayhem. It was a distinct Strategy-Spell&Cast type game with an RPG feel. Sadly the animations are very blocky and take you out of the experience. The game also doesn't work at all on new systems. There is the sequel which expanded the mechanics (a creature could 'rank up' by killing things in battle. In the sequel they gained bonuses) and made Wizard selection deeper and interesting. But it lost something by being over-gritty and adding too much sexiness. You had few spells to cast in combat which sounds like a downgrade.
Problem I have is that the game I don't think was popular enough for a remake/reboot to exist. You don't have forum threads across the place loving it because it wasn't really a franchise. It's an A* game that deserves a remake/reboot but will never get one because it was never part of a franchise.
@Tatsul "Modern games do not in fact "cost so much more" Street Fighter II Turbo retailed for $80"
To MAKE. You've badly misinterpreted my post. I was replying to Ubersupersloth.
I love when you go out and state what has been tugging in the back of my mind in a way I could never explain myself (nor TO myself). I love when you give me words to talk about what I think. Thank you. Really, thank you. Your work is amazing.
I think this is part of the reason why cartoons like Adventure Time and My Little Pony have gotten so popular. It's another great access to unfiltered joy.
[PATV] Wednesday, July 17, 2013 - Extra Credits Season 6, Ep. 19: A Little Bit of Yesterday
Posts
Not every pixel of the screen has to be filled with burning exuberant colours for a game to be worthwhile.
Take Secret of Mana for instance.
The story was one of the best during its time on the SNES, even when compared to Final Fantasy 4 and 6. But what stood out for me wasn't the story or even the graphics as you got to ride around on Flammie. It was the music. That 16-bit era music soundtrack was one of the best ever made. Even now, when we have access to orchestras and remixes of various kinds, the sounds back then required imagination because the technology wasn't present. It helped make the game go from good to outstanding. However, the current trends of the gaming industry seem to focus more on superficial things, like gimmicks (Kinect, 3D) and high-end graphics, rather than the substance of what made experiences like SoM great.
That's not to say we don't see this is the current state of gaming. For myself, I can list the Persona series as something that still has a hint of the old formula and feel. In that sense, ATLUS is like a new SquareSoft for me.
"I think it's more the fact that as games get closer to being "life-like", it loses more and more the appeal that games of old had. Back then, graphics weren't anywhere near good, but they were enjoyable. They had creativity and that was supported by the developer and unhindered by outside influences - something you'll rarely see in today's gaming industry."
I think it also goes back to issues covered here in previous episodes, like Graphics vs. Aesthetics. Photorealistic models ironically tend to have far less character than pixelated sprites, because abstract representations of humans inherently demand a level of aesthetic creativity that photorealism doesn't. The technological limits of the time essentially forced games to be more distinctly unique than the modern scene, with its ability to render pretty much anything the artist can think of without having to refine it to meet system limitations.
I mean, we can still enjoy movies from 30 years ago, music for 200 years ago and pictures even older than this. Making a "retro" game today is similar to compose a blues. It's not the trend at the moment, but that doesn't mean that it can be good. It's just a "different flavour".
I can still play Tetris and enjoy it, just like I can listen Elvis singing "Suspicious Minds" and enjoy it.
It's part of why so many compare Dark Souls to Castlevania. It has a lot of the stuff you'd want there. Predictable but well placed enemies. Emphasis on learning and caution. Slow, big actions that will get you killed if used at the wrong time. There are types of game styles and feel that is way more plentiful on the older consoles... and like Jaime said, why should we expect the old to be obsoleted? Better graphics give us more options on how to display the world and widens our options for what games we make, but they don't obsolete games that didn't need those graphics to work.
Though still, like Daniel said, we all have different reasons.
Of course there's a certain artistic style in the simplicity and ease of recognition of 8 or 16-bit graphics, but look at a game like Braid or many of the new 2d Nintendo games for proof that sprite graphics aren't necessary. And look at a game like Super Meat Boy to show how the ability to have sprites of wildly varying sizes means the technical limitations of previous consoles don't really add much.
This is one reason 'casual' java games like 2D sidescrollers or puzzles like bejeweled are so popular. (If anyone is going to tell me Tetris is casual, I'll laugh) Just because there is a greater variety of games that can be done from those perspectives. Maybe if we see more games try to use 3D engines from a fixed, isometric perspective, or if we see games give up on RPG elements and have the entire game be a series of puzzles where they can use tricks they learn on later stages of the game throughout the whole thing, giving a new sense of exploration and wonder even to apparently threadbare earlier levels, then the retro faze will die out.
But until that happens there is always going to be nostalgia for games that just aren't made anymore. Computers are possible of incredible internal calculations, modeling any number of physical objects without us requiring to know how they move or carry around a jumble of tiny pieces that can easily get lost, enable people to play together in real time across vast distances or model things that are either too cumbersome or actually physically impossible in real space. And yet all we can do with it is make games that you click on something and a shiny animation plays?
COME ON.
Karateka, to use one example, is a good game whether you're playing the Apple ][ version or the recent remake. Because at heart it's a good game.
Ninja Gaiden (1-3) got the axe because, while they were great games, they each represent a single-serving challenge. I've completed them, and moved on. Knowing when to lure an enemy on the screen, where to jump, which powerups to avoid... that was the challenge and without the challenge the game has lost its appeal.
Aerobiz Supersonic was kept because it fills a niche not often addressed. As a simulation it is pretty lightweight, but solid enough that it feels complete. I find it hard to play it for more than a couple hours without starting to think about how I want to develop a newer, better iteration of the same basic model.
UN Squadron was also on the keep pile. I never found this game as challenging as Ninja Gaiden or Megaman, but I kept going back because of the replayability. Of course, when I actually sit down to play, I find myself following the same path time and time again--this is not a case of illusion of choice, but rather there is a path through the game that just works for me.
Most of the Megaman games got cut. The stages are linear, boss battles are a case of repetition one they have been mastered, and I just can't bring myself to endure those paths again.
The Dragon Warrior series was kept. I keep swearing that I'll finish off DW2 one of these days (a green screen error wiped out my at-the-very-end save before I could complete it, and I found getting back there a second time to be much more tedious than the first), but I know I won't. A lot of the lure is nostalgia, but not for the games themselves. For every hour I spent killing slimes, babbles, and goldmans, I probably spent 8 trying to create my own RPG. Everything from staring at the screen to copy down the pixel art (I wear glasses now; my mom was right) to creating maps, tools, and tweaking monster stats to have the difficulty I was after. This really kindled my love for programming.
The Little Mermaid was a keep. I have a daughter that just turned 3; she loves this game and is remarkably good at it, all things considered. I can see in her eyes that it kindles the same creative force that games had started in myself.
Zelda, Zelda 2, Final Fantasy, PTO, 7th Saga, King Arthur's World, Metroid, Excitebike... all kept.
The common thread for me was that these games grew creativity, either through diverse solutions to problems, direct inspiration to make something similar, or through simple imagination. I remember walking outside (ok, I accidentally attacked a guard and respawned, but same difference) Felwithe, into Greater Faydark in EverQuest for the first time. I was effectively an adult, but my imagination took over in a manner normally reserved for children. I saw this rich world laid out before me, and I loved it. No game since then has captured that same spirit, nor will it, because my brain has now matured how it perceives those experiences and processes them as stat-crunching, zone-mapping experiences. Certainly a modern MMO should offer a more immersive experience, but none, through no fault of their own, have ever managed to instill a sense of wonder like that again. To this day I feel the pull of EQ, but I know the experience I would have today is not the experience I would be seeking out... but that is an outlier; when I sit down in front of the TV and pop in NES/SNES games, I feel that creative wonder returning. That's why I keep going back--so that my mind can re-align itself with the work ethic and creativity of my youth.
I wasn't expecting to find that as the unifying facet of the games I elected to keep. I wanted to boil it down to an uncanny valley, gameplay-over-graphics, or similar argument. But I can't. As I've matured, I've assimilated enough experiences that new experiences are harder and harder to come by. It isn't the moment-of-wonder, however, that I am after, but rather my reaction to that moment. I want to dream, and wonder, and imagine. My brain built these creative/inspiring patterns using these games as catalysts, and playing one helps to set my brain into following through that pattern, even if the experience isn't new or unique. A lot of these games don't even represent best-in-class, a lot are simply the game that I played the most at a time when I was particularly inspired.
Studios today don't have the constraints that older game developers had in terms of technology, especially the need for thurough playtesting in the absense of online updates. An entire generation of gamers has grown up wanting to become game designers, and the ruthless competition for a few dozen jobs with tens or hundreds of thousands of applicants necessarily influences the kinds of designers that land the job and therefore the games that are made. In the early days, designers were poached from other industries, which brings us to the last constraint: history. When stakeholders had no history to draw from, the designers were free to realize their fantasies in the code, art, music and mechanics of the games they crafted.
Like, the Romans were nostalgic of Greek aesthetics during their height. The renaissance were nostalgic of Romans aesthetics during its time. The European monarchy were nostalgic of the renaissance aesthetic during their power. Most note worthy artifacts were inspired by renowned predecessors: the 'we are dwarves standing on the back of giants' concept.
So perhaps in present times people are getting sick of the 'real world' as depicted by modern media due to the explosion of social media technologies and its taint upon game design. Perhaps people are craving a renewed sense of escapist wonder and discovery; something that retro games captured perfectly as the hardware limitations and rapid advancement in technology made games a ripe arena for novel experiences--asking the players to be more imaginatively invested in them.
Considering this, this might make the retro indie flux a double edge sword. They are digging up the past to find new inspiration, but if they don't innovate on old designs, and instead seek to replicate old experiences, then they fail.
But what do I know?
I believe you overlooked a third element of what brings us back to these games or two the indie games that replicate them: Gameplay!
These older games have simplified controllers, and due to graphical constraints, simplified graphics. While this is clearly limiting, it also allows these games to dive very deeply into specific gameplay elements (one of the reasons many of these games have absurd difficulty levels.) There is a certain zen to a side scrolling platformer or shmup where one can absorb and fully consume a game and its elements.
I relate it in many ways to the reason I would read a book when I could simply watch the movie version. Sometimes I do just watch the movie. But if the story or the characters or some other element are gripping enough, I know I need to read the book.
I think this can also be said of the way my firends an I tend to drift back to Halo 3 or the games that in the area where having four friends on your screen was the only or best way to play. There could be a really interesting episode wrapped up in the lose of splitscreen multiplayer
Comparing FF13 to FF6 just makes me want to post the JonTron video.
So many modern games (and I'm not just talking about third-person shooters) just feel so...homogenous. When an entire generation is running on some form of the Unreal engine, you start to be able to feel it.
Modern games do not in fact "cost so much more" Street Fighter II Turbo retailed for $80, in early 90's dollars. This price point was typical for the snes era. When you adjust for inflation, modern games are much cheaper then older games. The price point hasn't moved hardly at all as the dollar has fallen.
As for offering less... Well that is your nostalgia talking. In terms of play hours alone moderngames tend to be 6-10x longer then older games. Sorry if that's not the more you were referring too.
Don't get me wrong. I love old games. But I know a lot of my love for them us tied up with nostalgia.
The vast, overwhelming majority of games up to and including the first half of the PS1 era were designed to be played over and over again, because they were still built around the arcade concept of extreme challenge and constant death. That's not an opinion: that's historical fact. For anybody who grew up with these games, it is literally IMPOSSIBLE to argue with us that modern games play longer. They just DON'T. Ask me how many hours I put into most of my NES/SNES/PS1 games, and I literally cannot tell you, the number is so large. Hundreds. For some, thousands.
There are comparatively few modern games which engender that kind of time-suck, outside of an Elder Scrolls game or an online shooter. Most of the modern games I own, I've put perhaps twenty hours into, then beaten them, and will likely not play them again for years.
Most AAA single-player games developed today are designed as linear, one-and-done experiences. Again, that's not an opinion, that's a fact. Go to Gamestop and look at any shelf, and 9/10 of what you see are going to be games designed to be played, completed, and then put away. The idea of creating a mechanically-driven game with a rich, organic system not dependent on finite content seems to have fallen by the wayside, and is really only revisited in franchises like Sim City and Civilization (both of which are very old franchises).
Many games made 10, 20 years ago are still better than a lot of the crap that comes out today. It's not just nostalgia.
See, you won't often finding yourself going back to play the sea of terrible games that flooded the SNES. You'll only play the good ones.
It's not a matter of nostalgia goggles making things seem better than they are, but it is a matter of nostaliga goggles filtering out the crap--and if we apply that same fairness to our current generation, we can find just as many gems.
Also, a more simplified avatar the more you can imagine yourself in it. I don't have a problem playing a male character the problem for me so many of the are dude bros, or giant meat muscles and that isn't something I'd really imagine for a game or story personal. I feel less connected.
I do think to many games today spend to much time on "looking real" instead of "being fun."
The big studios see what sold, demands more, & so we get dozens of fps clones.
There is an appeal to nostalgia that is apparent through all forms of entertainment right now. We're the generation that embraces the past and tries to find ways to make it relevant in the present. I can place a cartoon character from the 90s on my Facebook and I'm bound to get someone to say they haven't thought about that cartoon in years so they're going to go buy the DVD. The same goes with videogames.
When I was a kid and was playing SNES games I was also drawing out pictures of battles from Final Fantasy or trying to think of where the story would go after I beat the game. I would imagine what happened to the characters and what sort of villain was going to pop out next. Those games peaked my imagination, they gave me a world I wasn't familiar with and it pushed me to consider the fact I didn't know the world I lived in myself. Today, too many games have just given me like you mentioned, the film experience. I'm not going somewhere new. I'm going somewhere I've seen before. Maybe I haven't been there but it doesn't feel like a new world. There are always a few games out there that do spark my imagination but it's getting rarer and rarer. It's a great thing a company like Monolith Soft exists to give me Xenoblade Chronicles and Baten Kaitos, worlds that truly feel like they come from the imagination instead of from something real.
It's little things too that help this. In Zelda, a bat isn't just a bat. It's a keese. Today I hear people complain about that or how a Stalfos is not just a skeleton, but giving something we know in the real world something with a new name allows you to be better immersed in the Zelda world. It makes it more unique and allows you to understand things better. Re-playing the Legend of Zelda reminds me of when I'd get myself lost in a field or a forest and would spend hours trying to find my way out. You know, childhood.
However it isn't just the journey for fantasy. The industry seems to have made a conscious decision to decide certain game genres just don't sell anymore or do not push the boundaries of technology so we don't see them anymore. The JRPG had to find a revival on handheld. The platformer is nowhere near as supported as it used to be (but it's finding a revival in the indie game boom). Fighting games, beat em ups, space shooters, collect-a-thons, all of these are getting harder to find unless being made by small teams. We loved those games as a kid and they are still fun today. There's nothing inherently flawed about them. But the major companies that made their names on them? They refuse to consider the profits of having a small team design a game the way they used to. Wouldn't that be the best way of utilizing veteran developers?
In the end, while I know it's a bit of nostalgia and pining for when you were a kid, I also feel like much of this is about an industry where the people at the top have neglected to consider what made us buy their games in the first place. I hope when Nintendo decided to make Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, they weren't just trying to cash in nostalgia but realized that there was nothing inferior to the game design of that SNES game. I also hope gamers like myself put their money where their mouth is and support the indie games that are bringing back the games we've been asking for. I used to listen to the radio to get the music I wanted to hear. Now I have to find it. The major labels are not supporting me like they used to. It's a bummer and I wish they realized I can still be profitable for them, but at the same time I accept the fact I appeal to a new audience. I search for my music now and I'm actually listening to more artists than I've ever before. I don't mind doing that with the videogame industry, and if they appeal to me the way the major publishers used to, they'll get my money the same way the major publishers used to.
I rambled but yeah. Just thinking of how imaginative I used to be after playing a Super Nintendo game kind of welled me up.
Older games often favor simplicity, which allows me to really focus on the elements that I'm there for. There are modern games, like GTA, that put me in a complex environment but give me the freedom to adapt and acclimate at my own pace. They also tend to have tighter controls and more discrete actions (although when they fail at the latter point they tend to fail harder).
Two more words: Rune Factory (DS, 3DS)
Five more: Final Fantasy: All the Bravest (smartphone)
And Three more: The Wallstreet Kid (NES)
In support of this episode, I provide, in order:
An example of a recent game that has both the graphics and the joy
An example of a recent game (series) that captures the joy of the past without emulating the graphics or retro style
An example of a recent game that has the graphics but doesn't really carry the joy so well
And - as a warning on the effects of over-nostalgia - an example from the Retro age itself that also has the graphics but none of the joy. Yes, we had joyless, soul-crushing games even back then (and yes, I did own it as a kid
More directly, I think one of the reasons retro-style games could be seen as more "joyful" then current AAA games is because of the limited color pallet and maybe even a direct result of the primitive graphics. After all, if you wanted a game sprite to have any detail in an 8- or 16-bit game, you were usually limited to a) drawing a black border line on each section (arm, leg, sword, etc) or b) coloring each section a different solid color (the arm is red with pink bits if they're human, body's blue, head is pink with yellow hair, etc). Since the last thing you wanted was for the player to be unable to tell what exactly they were looking at, and black lines on everything makes it look like a cheap drawing and wastes valuable detail space in a boring way, it makes sense to go with option b) and preferably using colors that contrast as much as possible. Hence why games back then are so colorful and one of the reasons games with retro-style graphics today tend to ALSO be more colorful: so the different sprites can stand out and let the player easily see which blocky bit's the sword and which the monster.
To Seek,
To Learn,
To Do.
-QFG2
If the speed of light is faster then the speed of sound, is that why people always appear bright until they speak? o_O
A game I loved playing, and I wish I could still play is Magic & Mayhem. It was a distinct Strategy-Spell&Cast type game with an RPG feel. Sadly the animations are very blocky and take you out of the experience. The game also doesn't work at all on new systems. There is the sequel which expanded the mechanics (a creature could 'rank up' by killing things in battle. In the sequel they gained bonuses) and made Wizard selection deeper and interesting. But it lost something by being over-gritty and adding too much sexiness. You had few spells to cast in combat which sounds like a downgrade.
Problem I have is that the game I don't think was popular enough for a remake/reboot to exist. You don't have forum threads across the place loving it because it wasn't really a franchise. It's an A* game that deserves a remake/reboot but will never get one because it was never part of a franchise.
To MAKE. You've badly misinterpreted my post. I was replying to Ubersupersloth.
oops! Almost forgot Legend of Korra.