Slashdot Mirror
Hardcore Gamers - Living In The Past?
Thanks to NTSC-uk for their editorial arguing that overly nostalgic gamers are failing to appreciate the videogames of today. The writer suggests that "...this breed of 'l337' gamers refuse to look at today's games", and complains about their unjust criticism of titles such as Final Fantasy X, saying of these retro-focused gamers: "It seems, to them at least, as time passes, all the faults and niggles of yesteryear's games mysteriously vanish, as age irons out the flaws. Rose-tinted glasses donned, we can forget the 'far too flawed' modern games, because the 'golden era' of gaming did it better."
We shun nine out of ten titles and place the remaining one percent on a pedestal.
.1 .1 = 10%
10 - 9 = 1
1 / 10 =
10% != 1%
!!!
(fp)
no thanks
The author of this article misunderstands the point of the nostalgic gamer. The gamer who enjoys the classic game does not hate the modern game; he or she is merely more accustomed to the classic way of gameplay. This is not to say that the new game is of horrible quality. However, the nostalgic gamer is, sadly, not often the target audience of a game. With the notable exception of Nintendo, gaming companies simply want 'fresh meat' (new players). While this sometimes causes some classic gamers to grade newer games somewhat harshly, one must also consider that the newer game raters have less experience, and thus are easily blinded by a game's glitter.
Take all viewpoints with a grain of salt.
I just had to reply to my own comment to say that this article is like Vogue telling its readers to stop being fashionistas, Spin telling its readers to listen to more Top 40, Cigar Afficinado telling its readers to smoke more Chinese cigarrettes, etc., etc..
Nobody wants to be like the "common" people. Which is why absolutely everybody in the world is better than anybody else. We're all unique, just like everyone else.
All rights reserved. All wrongs reversed.
There surely is a bit nostalgia about this all, but that is not the only reason. The cost of playing those games, both in money and in time, is often much lower than modern games.
Money: to play these older games, one doesn't need the latest greatest hardware. A lot of us have other priorities now (married, unemployed, children). That, and the fact we don't want (cannot) pay premium on the software itself.
Time: as I get older, spare time is my most sparse commodity. While I do enjoy games, I often don't have the time to spend weeks, or even days to get acquainted with a new game. Modern games tend to be more complex than older games. Older games are often finished in 15-30 minutes. I mean, you only have 3 lives.
These are the reasons for me to play mainly older games. It's not that I do not enjoy many newer games, but lack of time and unwillingness to participate in the 3d arms race left me behind. Do not pity me, for I still enjoy those older games...
the pun is mightier than the sword
Subject says it all. I love games as much as the next man but the "good old days" of gaming had a lot more gems than today's bunch. Gaming wasn't as popular a thing back then. To sell a title, you had to put serious effort into it's gameplay, especially because graphics at the time were marginal. These days, teams of hundreds of people work on eye candy and very few develop the actual gameplay. Go beat FFX and look at the credits sometime and see how much manpower is used in each developmental aspect. I assure you graphics are most heavily focused on. Sure, some new games are works of art. But like punk rock, gaming is becoming mainstream. And when something cool becomes mainstream, it can deteriorate.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
One of the biggest complaints that I have about todays games is the fact that they all (again a generalization) have to be in some sort of 3-D environment. What happened to side scrollers??? Some of the best games ever made were plain old side scrollers. I probably wouldn't mind the 3-D style that much if someone could perfect, or at least slightly improve the camera angles of most games. Very few games are actually playable as far as the cameraman is concerned. I recall Lakitu to be a very good cameraman, and he should become a teacher. Resident Evil could have definately used him.
I used to be a fan of first person shooters, but really, how many times can you remake Doom & Wolfenstein. There are five thousand FPSs out there, and they just aren't fun anymore. I was on a Counter-Strike kick for a bit, I did like that game, but it just seemed to get old after a while (although I'm sure I wouldn't mind playing it again).
I could lament about the poor quality of modern video games all night, but I just don't feel like it, I'm sure there will be plenty of people complaining for me. Pretty much, nine times out of ten, I'd just rather pick up my Nintendo controller (or even my Super Nintendo one) and play a good old Castlevania game.
Oh yea, Game Boy Advance games aren't that bad at all, they seem to pretty much stick to the old style, and I like that.
-Magiluke
Earl Grey, Hot.
Ignoring the luscious graphics, the brilliant musical score, the huge lifespan, the charming mini-games and secrets, and story that for once isn't a simple afterthought - it's too 'cinematic'. Not enough speed, not enough skill, not enough hammering at the 'fire' button and dodging swathes of bullets.
No. Ignoring the luscious graphics, brilliant musical score, ``huge lifespan,'' ``charming'' mini games and secrets, and story, there is nothing there at all. It's 10 hour movie broken up by what most of the world calls ``work'' -- endless, mind-numbing repetition of random battles for purpose of leveling up, so you can be tough enough to beat the next boss and acquire the next plot token.
And while the graphics and musical score are undeniably gorgeous, but Square's skill at making a compelling story pales compared to even the average hollywood summer blockbuster. But hey, if you have to work to watch it, that must mean it's good, right?
We shun nine out of ten titles and place the remaining one percent on a pedestal. 10% is a pretty good margin. I'll only own one out of about 500 cars.
You see, that's the problem with gamers today. We're so picky. That's not a problem. That's a GOOD THING. If we weren't, we'd still be playing Mario Bros and be all happy about nokia's horrible little paperweight.
they look into the past. It seems, to them at least, as time passes, all the faults and niggles of yesteryear's games mysteriously vanish.. (etc, ad nauseum) Um, no. The best games were fun back then, and there were good parts and bad parts. The issue here is repetition and change of focus. Because so little had been tried before, it was easy to come up with a 'unique' idea for a game. Game play was more important than graphics (because the graphics were going to suck no matter what you did). With improvements in graphics hardware people DEMAND something 'pretty' or 'stimulating' to look at. That takes some of the dev teams focus away from game play. With limited production schedules, these factors combine to increase the likely-hood that game 'foo' will be just as crappy as the movie 'foo'. I mean really, how many renditions of Lara Croft are people going to take?
In ten years time, what will today's gamers be playing? Why, the software they failed to appreciate today. I doubt it. If a game sucks, it sucks ok?
Try playing Medal of Honor Frontline or The Getaway some time, with a clean frame of mind, untainted by the thoughts of superiority and not specifically looking for faults. Boo Hoo, what's with this guy? Someone must have given him a wegie at a ROM lan party or something.
I'd like to know where this retro 'modern hate' gamer crowd is. NONE of my gamer friends shun modern games. Different people have different tastes. I wish this guy would bitch about teen angst or terrorism. "Try eating at McDonalds or White Castle some time, with a clean....." oy.Have you even been to a video game arcade lately? It should be obvious to everyone that the state of gaming has gotten worse on many levels--after all, entire *genres* of games have disappeared entirely.
I was and am a big fan of various different side-scrolling action/adventure/space games. Now, don't tell me that that genre is too old to make new games or something, because the fighting games in the arcade are even simpler. Back in the day, we had Golden Axe, Altered Beast, Shinobi, X-Men... you name it, we had it, and they were all great. Now, we have... what, Gauntlet Legends? There's simply no comparison.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
The thing is, this tends to happen among all entertainment mediums.
You get the people who think the best movies were made in the 30's and 40's and everything now is crap.
You get the people who won't read a book that was written this century.
All the same, you do find some people that believe that modern games are atrocious compared to the "classics".
It's just a matter of taste.
Myself? A lot of those games have aged very poorly. They didn't have enough interesting gameplay to really make themselves compelling in a larger marketplace. Look through the MAME lists sometime, and see just how many duds there were. How many stupid Galaga clones there were without any fun gameplay. How many silly beat-em-up games there were.
Now, there are some games that have aged well I think. Bubble Bobble, Wonder Boy in Monster Land, pretty much all of Capcom's CPS-2 games, and the Konami licensed games. (TMNT, Simpsons, GI Joe X-Men). SMB 3 and Yoshi's Island for platformers. All the FF games, pretty much and DW 4. SFII is still a great fighting game.
But all the same, they are making some pretty damn great games today. Without thinking too deep, Viewtiful Joe, DDR, Metroid Prime, Wind Waker, Halo, GTA 3/VC, Dynasty Warriors series...etc.
All of those games give me an experience that wasn't possible a few years ago. An experience that is wonderfully fun.
Market Saturation.
I don't recall a time when more and more people were into games, and gaming has become so mainstream you see the gaming culture intermingled in everything else. In the old days, there were fewer gamers and fewer genres of games. When Wing Commander came out it rocked our world, there was nothing like it. When Wolfenstein 3d and Doom hit the scene, we all fell out of our chairs. The old school gamers remember those moments watching in awe at a buddy's house as they loaded those ground breaking games for the first time.
Now 10, 20 years later, we're on the Nth iteration of everything. Inovations are measured in minor graphical updates and "physics models". Even online gaming is quickly becoming saturated with titles that are just knockoffs of a handful of pioneers (how many Counter Strike clones can you name?).
So it basically comes down to this to get old school gamers attention: re-release a classic title on a new platform (i.e. the upcoming Zelda classics on the GameCube), release a sequel of a known classic (i.e. Metroid Prime), release a really inovative game (i.e. Wind Waker).
--
hecubas
Hecubas
"So if this breed of 'l337' gamers refuse to look at today's games, where do they go? What do they do? The answer - they look into the past."
That sounds to me more like a bunch of OMG-1337-g@merz (a minority group amongst actual gamers, I hasten to add) from some random forum or another who desperately wish they could have been old-skool gamers, but weren't around at the right time, or are too young to remember those days.
"In ten years time, what will today's gamers be playing? Why, the software they failed to appreciate today."
I don't think so, somehow. If people find a game to be non-entertaining now, I doubt they will find it entertaining in a decade's time.
"There's nothing wrong with following the mainstream, and liking the same things as everybody else. Nothing wrong with that at all."
There's nothing wrong with people having their own taste in games, and playing older software if they don't find modern titles particularly entertaining, either. There is, however, something wrong with making generalisations that all people who like to play older games are some sort of elitist prats.
Articles like this are damned easy to write when you simply assert the existence of a stereotype. By immediately disconnecting yourself from reality, you are then free to spout whatever meaningless rant you want.
I defy you to find someone who actually behaves like the gamer this article is ranting about, who never plays new games and never thinks they are good.
Some of us may look crotchety, but after playing games for 20 years some of us do have higher standards. And some games meet them; many don't. Guess what percentage of movies I see in the theatre, though... am I "elitist" for only watching the best (in my opinion) 1% or so?
What a pointless article. I think I'll write an article about how stupid people who eat dung as their primary food source are. Sure, they don't actually exist, but I'll get a great, if pointless, rant out of it.