Slashdot Mirror
Xbox 360 Has Nothing On Atari 2600
MBCook writes "Forbes has posted their thoughts on the launch of the Xbox 360. They start out with 'Has there ever been as confused a launch as the Xbox 360?' and it continues from there. Citing multiple confusing variations, unoriginal games, expensive bundles, and complexity of controls (among other things) it concludes: 'If anything, the Xbox 360 is aptly named: Microsoft is trying to give gamers the spin.'" Next Generation's not-so-next-gen impressions are similar. From the article: "The games you can buy today for Xbox 360 at your local retailer are not the future. As evidenced by the litany of solid but not outstanding reviews, and, my own hands-on experiences, they are but a whisper of what this machine (or the next generation of hardware as a whole) will ultimately be capable of."
What, exactly, is this potential? Sharper graphics? More movie cutscenes? Yet another FPS, this time with accurate gibs?
What matters in a game system is how much fun it is, not the graphics.
I dunno. I mean, I spent hours playing defender and saving up extra lives for bathroom breaks, days trying to figure out what the hell you were supposed to do in Earthworld and Fireworld, and still enjoy popping Adventure in from time to time.
But many games now allow you build up every aspect of your experience. Grand Theft Auto 3, Dynasty Warriors, any RPG... I've spent far more hours per cart on the newer stuff. A pretty simple benchmark for how fun it is, but applicable.
Then again, you have the angle that it didn't take much to entertain us back then because Atari was the first widespread video game. Now that we've built up an immunity, so-to-speak, games have to become even more fun to capture our attention.
We can't rely on game technology to push gaming forward anymore. Quake 4 was greeted with a collective ho-hum. Now that everything has 3D and 5.1 sound, now we only care about how good the gameplay is. And that's not any particular console's fault, is it?
Then again, innovation in the earlier days of gaming was easier in certain ways. Consider this:
...games were not as normal. We expect to use about 10-12 buttons for any given game without including directional pad functions these days. It was always scary to take that bold leap forward, but they hadn't tried as much back then. Now, we complain when a sequel doesn't behave exactly as its predecessor with more features and better graphics with a direct link to the previous plotline.
The limitation on what the hardware was capable of was exponentially lower than it is now, but...
Just as the 360 has games that lack originality, so do a lot of popular titles for the xbox or ps2. I practically weep when I hear PC users begging for a port of another banal sequel/rehash of a console title (not really, but it's disheartening none the less). It's funny to read about musicians and their fans pining for the end of the current record label system because it's quite similar to my pining for an end to the pop-culture game trash that makes it rather difficult to find an original game for any system.</gripe></bitch></moan>
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
Well, I couldn't disagree more. Sure I like a few old games, Gauntlet has seen some action on my 360 recently (playing online is a hoot), but most of them bore me to tears within a few minutes. I never was any good at Defender, Pacman loses it after a few levels and Space Invaders is hypnotically sleep-inducing. Asteroids was kinda fun in it's day but Geometry Wars 2 takes the same idea and rolls with it, with excellent results.
When I play a game now I want something else, I want an "experience" (for want of a better word). I like loud noises, music, flashy graphics and online play. I'm sorry if that makes me a lower form of gamer in your eyes, but I play games to be entertained and immersed for a couple of hours. When I get home from work a quick blast of PGR3, or PD0, or Star Wars Battlefront, or even Katamari Damacy does wonders for my relaxation and general well being. If I want intellectual exercise I'll watch a movie or read a book.
I'm not trying to have a go at the kind of games you like (though I personally think you owe that taste more to fond memories of yesteryear than anything else) but please, leave off the "all modern games suck" cliche. You sound a lot like my parents complaining about this new fangled pop music.
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
It's sad to realize that I'm not employed by Forbes to write, even though the writer of this piece (reference intended), Ed Lin, is cashing Forbes paychecks even though his writing is absolutely terrible.
Let's begin with the gaming controller statements the author makes. The author states that it is a fact that games with more buttons are not as fun as the simple games of yesteryear. While this is true sometimes, it certainly isn't always true.
The author then exhumes the tired, dead horse, Macintosh one-button mouse example, and states that it "was always easier to use" than the PC two-button mouse. Apparently this is a fact as well.
The author then states that "The best title ever made in the history of U.S. videogaming was DragonStomper." Was this determined through numerous studies?
What a joke.
"The television is the retina of the mind's eye" - Videodrome
apparently you don't remember the HUNDREDS of horrible games released for the NES and Atari (and Intellivision, and Atari consoles, and early computers)
There are only a handful of good games for any particular generation of gaming console, and there are only a handful of good games for any particular period of time in the desktop computer world.
horrible games are the norm, and they always have been. Its just that as you get older, you notice the horrible games much easier.
The first article could have been written with xbox 360 replaced with any console from the last 3 generations. Old gamers will generally think the games of their time are the best. In reality, the 2600 had a myriad of horrible games. Out of that there were a few good games. The bad games are fogotten and the good ones embraced.
Same goes for the NES. I still play NES games on emulators to this day. However, going to vimm.net and playing some of those games makes me shudder. There were some horrible ones.
The last generation of systems had some terrible games too. But there were some gems. Maybe the idea is that the gems are becoming fewer and far between? I can agree with that. The only company still making a console that I find puts out really enjoyable games is Nintendo. I was playing the new Mario Party the other day and someone brought up a point. On what other system can you spend a whole day enjoying a game designed for 8 year olds? Nintendo still produces games today that I would put head to head in enjoyablity with the 2600.
As for the second article... Have we missed the whole point of the gaming console? Gaming consoles have one purpose. It isn't the GUI (dvorak). It isn't for the graphics. It isn't for the startup music. It isn't for the cool factor. It's definately not for the weight. It's about games. I bought a PC for my PC needs. I bought a home theater for my multimedia needs. Why is my console going to be judged on the same criteria as the previous two?
And in reality you can't judge a system in it's first months out of the gate. In ten years, no one's going to care about the initial launch. If the games are still lame in a year, then write the system off. It's really too soon to say.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
horrible games are the norm, and they always have been. Its just that as you get older, you notice the horrible games much easier.
Actually, I think it goes more like this: horrible games are the norm, and they always have been. It's just that they usually get forgotten after a month or so. The best games are the only ones that actually get remembered, which makes it seem like there were no horrible games in the first place.
I agree with your sentiment though.
The article in Forbes is obviously both human interest and nostalgic. I'm not sure why a discrete number of buttons is ever considered in rating a game as "fun" or not. Let's face it, if Pac Man had a button and didn't use it, it'd be less fun. If Galaga didn't have the button, but required you tap the joystick down, it'd be less fun. When the buttons match the required utility of a game, the game interface can then be rendered as "natural." Bank Panic and Missile command had Three that were intuitive and felt right. Defender had tons of buttons, including "Reverse," but it was fun to those who played because they learned how to use the complex setup effectively. Since there's the Atari 2600 comparison, Raiders of the Lost Ark required two joysticks for one player because the controller was inadequate.
I think the real point to walk away with is that a fun game with a bad control scheme is diminished.
I read the Forbes article and it was terrible! The author complains about how the Xbox 360 was much worse than the Atari 2600. He even mentions that the 2600 was the best console ever - well.. that's probably the NES, given that the progeny of the NES are still being played today, and people are all talking about the Revolution. Can't see anyone mentioning a brand new Atari console coming any time soon.
The author mentions that the Atari joystick was better because it had one axis and one button, and the Apple mouse is much easier to use because it only has one button. While technically you could say he was speaking the truth, you can't do a lot with only one mouse button (take away a Mac users funky bonus keys on his keyboard then ask him to do something useful with his mouse!) and you can't have intellectually satisfying games with only one joystick button.
He goes on about how much fun the Atari games were and how he doesn't get any of the same joy from playing 360 games. Well frankly, the article is just misguided. You can't bag the Xbox 360 on the premise it didn't make you 12 years old again, so you can experience all the wonder of discovering computer games once more. But that's just what the author is really doing.
The Xbox 360 is a great console (despite heat issues, something the PS3 will suffer from as well). It won't make me a kid again. But the games will still be fun to play, and on a face value, I would always choose an Xbox 360 game over Atari. As the consoles have become more sophisticated, people's tastes have followed. Ask anybody you know who's into retro gaming if they've spent an all nighter playing space invaders. Ask any contemporary gamer if, lately, he's stayed up all night playing, say, Civ 4 or any other very addictive new game. I think I know who'll be saying yes.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
These new "talkie" motion-pictures are horrible! I remember when you had to imagine what people were saying on the screen, or watch ornate subtitle screens with delightful piano music, to follow the plot. And these new plots these "talkies" have: how awful! Whatever happened to tying a damsel to a train track? That little device has a lot of legs on it still, and these "stories" told by "talkies" are just making things more complicated. They take away from why I watch my motion-pictures in the first place!