Don't Go Down Memory Lane?

fieldsofclover writes "Gamers With Jobs is running a piece today about the darker side of gaming nostalgia. From the article: 'Here's an example. Konami's Castlevania had interesting monsters, catchy music, and a great gimmick: a guy with a whip. But if you went back and played it today, chances are you wouldn't bother playing past the second level. Why are the newest games in the series so drastically different from the original? The answer is because gamers demand more from their hobby now, and there's just not a lot of meat on those old bones. But when the fully 3D, story-driven sequel fails, they point at the original on its lofty pedestal and demand an experience that lives up to their memories. It's a double standard that's next to impossible to satisfy.' Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by staying obsessed with the old classics?"

Comments

Atari Anniversary Advance...

[__aaclcg7560]

I noticed this problem when I was the lead tester for Atari Anniversary Advance for the GameBoy Advance. This title had the original ROMs of Asteriod, Battlezone, Centipede, Missile Command, and Tempest being emulated on the GBA. When I first got the title, I thought these were awesome games because I played them when they first came out. (I also played Pong when it first came out as well.) But, with the critical eye of a professional tester, I found out that there were sure buggy as heck. Mostly due to the limitation of the hardware during the early 1980's. The gameplay is still awesome and I still suck 20 years later. :P

Ah, just do some research

[Moraelin]

You'd be surprised what you _can_ find if you do your research instead of complaining about youth these days. And that's coming from a mid-30's guy, so don't rush back on the "you young whippersnappers" bandwagon yet.

E.g., "real time strategy" doesn't only include C&C clones. It also includes Paradox's games which span continents or even the globe, and are thus truly at strategic level. You don't have to select companies or order aim artillery strikes in real time, because such things are abstracted by brigades and doctrines. Plus you can do such things as setting divisions or indeed army corps to auto-reinforce any of its neighbours that are under attack, so you don't have to respond in real time to everything.

Plus, at least in single player you can always pause the game and take your time thinking up a strategy. So why the huge fuss about lightning reflexes and the like? (And trust me, you'll need to think pincer maneuvers, envelopment and cutting off supply to win a Paradox game. Try just grouping everyone and sending them that-a-way lightning fast, and you'll have the honour of seeing your Wehrmacht thoroughly thrashed by Poland. How's that for strategy?)

And you can even find the occasional turn based game published in the last few years. I know I even have one on the PS2, and there are several on the handhelds. And I can think of two for the PC too, just off the top of my head. So you can pick your poison.

And then there are games like Civ 3 and 4 which are technically empire building, but are turn based all right. Heck, even Rome Total War can be played as a Civ game if you leave the battles on auto. It worked for me, anyway.

And that's just in the commercial arena. If you move on to F/OSS games, you can find stuff like, for example, MegaMek. It's an excellent implementation of BattleTek. Turn- and hex-based, like in the good old days.

Puzzles? Get an adventure game, since they're making a spectacular comeback. It may not be an exact clone of whatever puzzles you have in mind, but there are plenty who'll exercise the little grey cells. E.g., the latest Sherlock Holmes game.