Pac-Man Reloaded

Thanks to an anonymous reader for pointing to a Toronto Star article discussing the resurgence of classic gaming. The article suggests that "..the renewed interest [in classic gaming] is not only reviving the games themselves, but also establishing them as part of cultural history", but also argues that kitsch nostalgia is playing a big part in the retro revival: "..for a culture steeped in an alleged retro-chic movement - unlikely revivals of such high-camp iconography as cocktail music, loungewear, or '80s new wave music and '60s mod styles - the draw to classic gaming seems to have some of the same sheen." Above all, though, it seems to be about "..the old games, with their simple concepts and ease of play, [as] a welcome refuge from the increasingly complicated games being released today."

Comments

You got that right

[BFedRec]

I LOVE the simpler times. Give me my one big orange button and Crystal Castles, Frogger, Barnstorming, Grand Prix, or a set of paddles and Circus Atari.. now THOSE were the days... back when I was 7 and spent my afternoons in a back room of my mom's office playing games for hours on end. Make's me want a peanut butter sandwich and some graham crackers.

A little too enthusiastic

[utawoutau]

This article seems to be a bit too enthusiastic, for example, although I may myself believe that game developers seem overly eager to push up the complexity of games - this is really the first time that I have read something that expresses that opinion.

Looking over all of the reviews from E3 - I noticed that all of the reviewers constantly fawned over the impressiveness of the visuals or the realistic quality of the games, and most never actually stated whether a game was fun or not. The love of complex and graphically stunning games (for better or worse) is not going anywhere - regardless of what this guy says.

That being said, I really do hope for a sort of "game renaissance" - which will bring more focus back onto gameplay and give developers more options as to what kind of game they would like to develop (i.e. not all new games having to be multi-million dollar projects). I personally could not care less whether grass waves realistically or not - just give me a fun game!

Well

[Tyreth]

Part of the problem is that a lot of new games just aren't fun to play. The classics had all we need.

Games should be $30 Australian each, or $15 US. Or something dirt cheap. Then parents would have little problem purchasing them for their kids, piracy would be less common, people would try new games that aren't big name. Adults would try new games, and youth with little money would be more likely to buy than to copy off their friend's computer or download from kazaa.

my stupid thoughts

[qwak]

I think older games are being recognized more for their typically good gameplay as opposed to a 'retro' movement, as at least american culture tends to obsess over all things retro (just as the years progress which retro phase is chic changes, sometimes its the 70's, sometimes the 80's, sometimes the 50's etc)

many games today seem to be showing off what our technology is capable of, and often ignoring what makes a game good (I'm not saying every game to come out in modern times has poor gameplay, just that often the gameplay seems to take a sidestep to the technology used, as much as i'm looking forward to doom 3, at the moment it still looks like the original doom in terms of gameplay).

early games didnt have as much to show off technologically, people didnt play asteroids because it looked incredible or was completely immersive, they played it because it was simple fun.

then again, maybe i just didnt notice any of the really crappy games back in the early 80's because i was too young to notice them /shrug

though I think the signifigance of gaming is different now than it was then, more and more we're moving to online games, be they MMOG's, or simple match based games (quake, counter-strike, etc) where the human element is often more important than the game itself.

at least thats my drunken opinion.

Red Rag at a Bull....

[fatboyslack]

Is what posting one of these articles is like.

Now we'll get all these 'back in my day' 'when I was a kid' 'games aren't what they use to be' comments which are as valid as "when politicians were honest back in my day".

Really, you can get fun, simple games with fantastic graphics that are modern releases. The biggest problem is usually that they are 'pigeon holed' into the 'kids games' categories (See Animal Crossing, Mario Party 1-4, most GC/nintendo games of late.... etc.) and the games that we see (I assume all ppl here are 16+) are marketed at us (FPS/Shooters, RPG's, RTS's etc.) And the argument that in the 80's games were of higher quality is so laughable I really hope that no gamer believes it. I also think you could say that in the 80's and early 90's game publishers/designers (not neccesarily the same) saw the market as being at the extreme 15 yrs old, with the majority being 8-13 (...?) Now there are finally some mature games coming out for older ppl who aren't into 'simple kiddie games' or Leisure Suit Larry like GTA in 3D, shooters with a mature storyline (Thank-you HL1&2/Doom3) Personally I get easily bored by 'puzzle' games. A game where I have to think my way out of a situation (Jedi Knight II, many Command & Conquer games, AoE2/AoK, Starcraft), to make quick decisions on the go that have consequences (Halo, Rainbow Six, Splinter Cell). I'll stop here, I have to get back to work. Looking back through this streaming flow of consciousness, theres holes in my arguments, but thats what slashdots about ;)

Re:Red Rag at a Bull....

[jafuser]

Very simple...

When you had 8-bit processors to build games on which you wanted to make money, you didn't exactly have much room to goof off with the gameplay and make up for it in the audio & visual department.

Games back then were good becuase there had to be a compelling gameplay if they wanted to sell games. They had to hire programmers and game designers, and 100% of the budget was spent on them.

Nowadays, companies can cheat and hire a small handful of programmers, then spend 90% of the development budget on musicians, graphics artists, motion capture actors, content managers, 3d model builders, etc.

This leaves little time or money to spend on developing such "frivolous" things as gameplay.

People go back to the old games for fun gameplay, because that's all the old games had.

My spin

[billcopc]

Old games were simple but fun. Instead of being wowed by the 'realism', you could just say "this orange blob has to eat this yellow dot without touching the red fuzzies". Imagination and curiosity were key elements of gaming. So they made tons of remakes of PacMan, Tetris, Arkanoid.. you know what ? They all suck, why ? because the remakes have more emphasis on glitter than gameplay. Ever tried Arkanoid 2000 ? It's crap. It's the same game yes, but it doesn't feel right. And no one in their right mind would contest the Gameboy version of Tetris as being the best ever.

Inexperienced fools (I call them kids) will often see an old game and think "I could remake it and make money!", so they do, they make an old game look and sound like it was born tomorrow, but then they go and do something stupid like spend 4 weeks on a realistic physics engine to make a ball bounce off a paddle and/or wall, when really we just want it to fly off randomly so we can enjoy running after it again. So these kids make nice screenshot-fodder, but they sidestep the whole purpose of the game : the visceral aspect of pushing a button and commanding a direct response.

In a sense, I like the old games because they remind me that in the beginning it was _one_ programmer and he was THE MAN. Not a team of artists, project managers, FMV directors and maybe one or two top-dollar low-IQ programmers compiling a 3rd-party game engine with just enough script modifications to change the application title. There was actually a time when writing a good game was a technical feat in itself, rather than a boring multimillion dollar project hierarchy.

Finally

[M3wThr33]

It's good to see other people appreciating design over visual output.

The most fun I had at E3 was playing Pac-Man GCN and Ninja Turtles. It's a simple concept that doesn't get boring.

My experiance

[Derkec]

My fiance says she lost interest in gaming when things went 3d. It's just too hard for her to visualize and control. I pretty much just thought of her as someone who didn't play any games until we went on a trip and played Pac-Man at the hotel arcade for hours on end. It was a total blast. I picked up Namco's classic game pack for the Cube and although she doesn't game nearly as much as I do, she's able to share in one of my hobbies.

Now only if i can convice her to like Soul Calibur...