Slashdot Mirror


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?"

40 of 316 comments (clear)

  1. It just goes to show by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can lead a gift horse to water, but you can't shoot it in the foot.

  2. Darker? by Rotten168 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's a tad melodramatic don't you think?

  3. Nothing beats today's games by krell · · Score: 5, Funny

    ....where everything is a hi-res shade of brown, and the boss is always a giant bug.

    --
    Where were you when the voynix came?
    1. Re:Nothing beats today's games by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have also wondered why the mega boss always leaves tons of ammo for weapons possible enemies might have sitting outside thier door.

    2. Re:Nothing beats today's games by AlexMax2742 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ....where everything is a hi-res shade of brown, and the boss is always a giant bug.

      Compared to the 70's where everything was a dime-a-dozen maze game? Or maybe the 80's where everything was a dime-a-dozen platformer? Or the early 90's with their dime-a-dozen beat-em-ups? Or the late 90's with their and dime-a-dozen arcadey first person shooters?



      Gaming...gaming never changes. You have the games that define the genre and you have a couple of other worthwhile titles and then you hve the vast amount of crap. Tell me, have you ever tried looking through a complete Atari, NES or SNES ROM collection and picking a game at random to see how it played. Trust me, it's just as much of a crapshoot back then as it is now.

      --
      I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
    3. Re:Nothing beats today's games by Stormwatch · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not anymore! With the power of the next generation, we can fight GIANT ENEMY CRABS!

    4. Re:Nothing beats today's games by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you have put your finger on the problem. We remember the great games of the past when we get nostalgic, for the very reason that they have enduring value. Of course a merely average modern game doesn't stack up, even if that game is superior to an average older game.

      I play a lot of games via MAME and enjoy them a great deal -- but I don't play every game I can find. I don't want to. Most of them weren't that good. Still, I think TFA overstated the case.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    5. Re:Nothing beats today's games by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because a supervillain's ultimate weakness is always their arrogance. "Ha ha ha! There is no way a puny mortal like you could defeat me, even with all the nuke-blaster ammo in the world! Here, have a truck load! And I'll heal you to maximum health first! And I'll stand above pits of the only substance that can harm me, with levers that drop the floor into the substance! Ha ha ha-- What? Impossible!!!! I cannot be defea---"

      Okay, so their ultimate weakness is that they are stupid.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    6. Re:Nothing beats today's games by AlexMax2742 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      yes, but now we seem to be getting to the point where in most entertainment media, truely original ideas have almost no chance of getting through the bean-counters to ever be seen. It ain't just the game industry, it's movies and TV as well. The propblem is that our production values for entertainment is so high that just about any entertainment product MUST gaurentee the producers that it will make millions, because a loss isn't just "oops", it can be bankruptcy, or at least major cutbacks.

      to make a long story short, the fastest way to make any form of entertainment get stale and derivitive is to make the cost of failure catastrophic.


      A year ago I would have agreed with you. But with Steam finally getting some momentum under its belt, suddenly, it's been a lot easier for indie developers to find an outlet. It was a rocky start, and there were problems, but we owe a great deal to valve for taking such a big risk and fuck-starting steam's role as a content distribution system by putting their crown jewel, Half Life 2, on the line. The gamble worked, and the result is that millions of Half Life fans now also are exposed to the work of these indie developers. Think about it from a developers point of view. When millions of HL players from around the globe log in, they see their game, smack dab in the center of the Steam Storefront's main window. It's an IV directly into the pulse of their target market, and I guarentee you that getting such exposure through conventional means would be several orders of magnitude more expensive.

      What happened as a result of this? The developers of Darwinia sold more copies of their game in a couple days than their run of Darwinia or Uplink in a box by itself. Now, Introvision is on solid financial ground and also has the leeway to keep creating new games such as DEFCON. This basically opened the door to other indie developers who now market and promote their games online. And because you dont have to go out to a store and buy the game itself, it's a lot easier to make impulse purchases, which is good for developers at least. Of course, some of the indie games are sucessful, some of them not, but the point stands that it is a LOT easier for indie developers to get exposure now than it was a couple years ago.

      This is to say nothing of the strides that free software, with its vast array of mature and free compilers and libraries making serious programming accessable without having to fork over hundreds of dollars for Visual Studio .NET.

      Digital content distribution is the way of the future. There will always be titles of all shapes and sizies being at the whims of the publishers, but now with digital content distribution, the indie developer is no longer relegated to living on the margins, scraping out a living on a small fanatical fanbase...if that.

      --
      I'm the guy with the unpopular opinion
  4. Super Mario Bros by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Super Mario Bros is still lots of fun, I don't care what you say.

    1. Re:Super Mario Bros by rootofevil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      not to mention the sequels are pretty well true to the spirit of the original game

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
  5. Developers not Consumers by neonprimetime · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's time we put away the Conkers and Contras and Castlevanias of our past and focus on the games we have yet to dream of

    This message should be for video game developers, not video game consumers. Developers definitely need to get their heads out of their @sses and start dreaming up new, creative ideas instead of just taking the easy way out with throwbacks. Consumers on the other hand have little impact on what games are being developed, and therefore consumers can do whatever they want. If they want throwbacks or if they want brand new fresh ideas, no biggy. But the writer of this article needs to direct his ranting towards the appropriate people.

    1. Re:Developers not Consumers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm a professional game developer and have been for nine years, my entire post-collegiate life. As you might expect, I'm also a dedicated gamer and on the one hand, I really agree with what you're saying. We rely too much on rehashed ideas, license tie-ins, clones, knockoffs and sequels. I'm sick of it, and I just don't buy those games anymore. So I can sympathize and agree with where you're coming from.

      That said, your comment is awfully naive. It's really, really easy to sit outside the industry (or pretty much any creative-based industry) and complain about the lack of originality. Big-picture creative ideas for games are cheap; practically worthless. Just about every single person I've worked with, every kid I meet that finds out I make games, my friends, etc. has ideas for some weird, creative, potentially fun game. But the vast, vast majority of those ideas would collapse under the crushing weight of the reality of game development. Got an idea for a game? Great. Now, is it going to make money? (The large majority of games don't justify their existence, financially speaking). Is it technically feasible? Is it appealing to a wide audience? Will it sell overseas? Can you get capital to finance its development? If so, can you get it without giving up the rights to your idea? Not likely. Can you find money and people to actually build the game? How are you going to market it? Who pays for marketing? Who's competing with you? Is your idea fun to play for 10 minutes? 10 hours?

      It's not as simple as pulling your head out of your ass, and presto, crazy new creative games start showing up on shelves. Like everything, money speaks loudest.

    2. Re:Developers not Consumers by Dun+Malg · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Devs continue to make "throwback" games and sequels because that is what all gets bought mostly, nothing new ever goes anywhere anymore becasue the gaming demographic has aged and all you old fuckers hate change.
      Hogwash! It's all you young whippersnappers that have ruined gaming with your short attention spans and aversion to thinking. When's the last time we had a decent turn-based strategy game? Nowadays all this "Rea-Time Strategy" crap is the rage. Real-time my ass! Did General Patton have only a fraction of a second to select and click a company of troops and send them in the right direction before they got clobbered by the krauts? What kind of stupid game requires lightining fast reflexes to execute strategy? C&C, I am looking in your direction! But no, you kids with your Mario-tuned twitchy monkey brains need that or you will get bored.

      Don't even get me started on the watering-down of "puzzles" in modern games. The modern idea of a difficult puzzle is one that requires you to find eight levers (hidden beyond reflex-based "jumping puzzlre" obstacles) and push them all up (changing a red light to green) to open a door somewhere. You punks would WET YOUR PANTS if you saw the kind of monstrously devious crap we had to solve in our day. Plover's egg emeralds hidden beyond a crack your lamp doesn't fit through? Try THAT on for size!
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    3. Re:Developers not Consumers by Richard+Steiner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe the problem is the specific RTS games you're playing (e.g., C&C rather than TA). :-)

      A decent RTS isn't a clickfest, but rather a strategic conflict over resources. Let the units do the work, and make the high-level decisions.

      --
      Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
      The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
    4. Re:Developers not Consumers by Lord+Apolon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Is that you, Cranky Kong?

    5. Re:Developers not Consumers by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't even get me started on the watering-down of "puzzles" in modern games. ... Plover's egg emeralds hidden beyond a crack your lamp doesn't fit through? Try THAT on for size!

      "google plover's egg emeralds"

      Within 4 clicks I had a walkthru that told me exactly how to do it.

      The internet ruined those kind of puzzle games, because almost nobody is going to spend weeks trying to figure something out when they KNOW the answer is sitting within arms reach.

      At least jumping obstacle reflex puzzles require some semblance of dexterity to solve.

      The internet fundamentally changed the dynamics of these games. Many (most?) players find it difficult to ignore that the answers to all their questions are within arms reach.

  6. Light at the end of my Tunnel Vision by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My gaming experience maybe jaded by my memories (I can't enjoy half-life 1 quite the same way anymore) and tunnel vision might obstruct my modern game view (New Super Mario Bros. was good, but It could have been so much more,)but they haven't discouraged my number one reason for buying the Wii...Fun new games with their classic predicessors all in one system.

    --
    Demented But Determined.
  7. You know, some of us still play these games by terrisus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For some of us, gaming past isn't "looking back on things and remembering them."

    While it's true some people do just look back on it and remember things as better than they were, and that's their issue, it's not the case for everyone.
    Some of us still play those games you know.

  8. "Old Bones" by keyne9 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.


    Those "old bones" have a tendency to still have similarly excellent gameplay as the newer generation (and are usually far more challenging to boot!). When will we realize that gameplay isn't all bells and whistles?
  9. EA Strikes again by fotbr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why put out new stuff when you make extremely minor changes and call it a new game? EA proved that business model to be a successful one, and everyone else has followed.

    From a business standpoint, it makes sense -- why take a risk when you don't have to?

    From a consumer standpoint, it sucks. Eventually enough consumers will quit buying SUPER-COOL-GAME-2,3,4....x and force a shift in the market. Until that happens, enjoy Madden 2007, 2008, 2009, etc and FinalFantasy-WHATEVER because its not going to change.

  10. Shooting ourselves in the foot by the_crowing · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Are we shooting ourselves in the foot by staying obsessed with the old classics?
    Yes. I think people have too much of a tendency to look back at a game as being better than it really was and better as it gets older. When they hear of a new sequel in the works for an old series they're in love with, they expect it to be as much (if not more) fun than previous games, however, they expect the gameplay, setting, and monsters to be the same as the old game while, at the same time, they expect the new version to be fantastically different, addictive, and genre-breaking.

    Truth is, newer installments of classic games can be as good as ever, but they will never live up to the memories that gamers have developped for their classic, personal favorites.
  11. Some games withstand the test of time. by Maul · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Many of the great Super NES and Genesis games still have excellent replay value. Some of the fad titles and the crap shooter/fighter clones don't withstand the test of time when replayed. However, the true classics like Super Metroid, Yoshi's Island, Final Fantasy 4-6, Phantasy Star 2 & 4, the Sonic games, etc. are still as fun to play as they were back in the day.

    --

    "You spoony bard!" -Tellah

  12. Don't ever try to go back. by shoolz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The first RPG I ever played was simply called "Dungeon", this was the Commodore game that got my entire family hooked on video games for the rest of our lives.

    We would sit around the supper table, each trading stories about our experience in this expansive and immersive alternate reality. I would inform everyone about the secret passage I found, where I found a secret spell called Temporal Fugue; my brother would update us as to how much money he had stolen from the bank that day; my father would describe his run-in with "The Devourer".

    This game held a special place in all of our hearts and often we would fondly discuss how great the game was... until last year... when I found an emulator and ROM and decided to relive all my old memories. The lush and vibrant full-color dungeon memories that I had in my mind was immediately shattered by a crude 4 color, blocky rendition of what vaguely looked like walls and doors. My memories of thrilling game-play in a true-to-life virtual world were replaced by agonizing and seemingly endless boring hall-walking.

    I showed my father. All he did was scream "NO! THERE IS NO WAY THAT THAT'S HOW BAD IT LOOKED! CHRIS YOU MUST HAVE MADE A MISTAKE. THIS CAN'T BE DUNGEON!!"

    While my father is STILL in denial, I have accepted the truth. My fond memories of that game are gone forever.

    1. Re:Don't ever try to go back. by porcupine8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You should have played text-based games instead.

      I was addicted to Legend of the Red Dragon in high school. A friend of a friend got a copy of LoGreenD running on his server last year, and I had a blast on it until Katrina took his computer away. It looked just as good as ever!

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
  13. Exactly. by Sage+Gaspar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just look at Metroid, Mario, Metal Gear, Castlevania (SotN and gameboy), Zelda, Prince of Persia, Final Fantasy... Fans and newcomers alike hated the more recent installments, right? Right?

    No, it's not hard to involve the themes, maybe part of the storyline, and the major gameplay elements from the original game into an entirely new engine. But it does make a convenient scapegoat if you're a developer whose games are failing or a pundit firing off the first story idea that came to his mind.

  14. Atari Anniversary Advance... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Informative

    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

  15. Re:Old games have advantages by WilliamSChips · · Score: 3, Interesting
    as opposed to having games which take nigh on 40 hours now.
    If Valve isn't just blowing steam(pun semi-intended), we might be going full-circle there.
    --
    Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  16. If you're nostalgic, then *go back and play it* by roystgnr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's the point of hypothesizing about "if", when emulators are cheap and plentiful? If you think that Castlevania 1 was better than it's latest sequel, go play it. Nobody's going to pick on you for not keeping up with the times.

    Sometimes I find out that I just had low expectations when I was young. (e.g. Dragon Warrior 1, Final Fantasy 1, Paperboy)

    Sometimes I find out that games which were good have nevertheless been surpassed by better alternatives or sequels. (e.g. Zelda 1, Mario Kart 1, Duke Nukem 3D).

    And sometimes, the old games are fondly remembered because they were really, really good. Star Control 2, Deus Ex 1, and the Baldur's Gate series are each 5 or 10 years old, but (despite playing Starcon 3, Deus Ex 2, Neverwinter Nights, and lots of similar games from the same genres) I still haven't found any similar-but-better games to replace any of them. Judging by sales, there are a lot of people that feel the same way about Starcraft and Half Life 1. We don't all have some retro-gaming fetish, we just know what we like and know how rare it can be.

  17. Oregon Trail by andrewman327 · · Score: 5, Funny
    If they made a 3D version of Oregon Trail using the Doom or Quake engine and the old storyline, I would buy it. I would expect significantly improved hunting. The ability to shoot in towns wouldn't hurt either.


    Of course, I would not want interactive 3D dysentary.

    --
    Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
    1. Re:Oregon Trail by krell · · Score: 5, Funny

      "If they made a 3D version of Oregon Trail using the Doom or Quake engine and the old storyline, I would buy it. I would expect significantly improved hunting. The ability to shoot in towns wouldn't hurt either."

      And, along the way, you pick up enough shoot 'n' strafe kills to be able to kill the giant bug boss you find at the end in the Portland level.

      --
      Where were you when the voynix came?
    2. Re:Oregon Trail by generic-man · · Score: 5, Funny

      Computer: u pwned 2149 lbs of food but u can only take 200 lbs back to ur wagon
      Bison: rofl noob

      --
      For more information, click here.
    3. Re:Oregon Trail by Sabaki · · Score: 3, Funny

      I live not too far from the end of the Oregon Trail, and we're still trying to get enough rocket ammo to take on the giant bug boss.

    4. Re:Oregon Trail by markana · · Score: 3, Funny

      You mean the giant Slug boss... this is Portland, after all...

    5. Re:Oregon Trail by imboboage0 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Rocket ammo? You don't have the BFG yet? It was in a secret cave along the north route.

      --
      Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
  18. aka "The Episode One Effect" by xdroop · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is precisely the same problem with Star Wars: Episode One. It is impossible to live up to the memory of seeing Star Wars for the first time, especially when the first time you saw it you were seven.

    --
    you should read everything on the internet as if it had "but I'm probably talking out of my ass" appended to it.
  19. Re:yeah, right... by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, there were terrible games 15 years ago, but the shear number of bad games today is the difference.

    I disagree - I think it's all perspective. 90% of everything is crap, consistently. It was then, and it is now. But with older games, you're comparing the 10% of non-crap over a long period of time - because that's all you really remember - to the entire volume of current crap/noncrap that you notice on a daily basis. So it seems like there were more good games back then.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  20. I couldn't disagree more. by Captain+Rotundo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I completely disagree with almost all the comments in this article and made in response. I've dug out old systems, and downloaded emulators and while on a few occassions the games were much easier due to their play-style (The Orig. Super Mario Bros, I could never beat it as a kid, now I pull it out for my kid and its super easy for me) but by and large they are very similar to how I remember them, and they are still fun to boot! - I find the early 3D games a little tough on the eyes, but I imagine they were just as nausia inducing back then, we just tolerated it more.

    To this day I have never played a game as fun and well designed as the original Legend of Zelda, and I have played it many times on emulators, on original hardware, and on the gamecube release. It is still great. Sure it has no story, and no dialogue, but I find I play games for the play not for the story line anyway. I can always watch a movie for the story. Which brings up the problem with this piece, how can you hope to ever have games be considered art if you constantly rant about how dispossable they are? I'd like to see a film reviewer rant about given up on watching old movies because modern film techniques and special effects are so much better.

  21. 8 bit games are like a Monet painting..... by Kodack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've heard these arguments before and in some cases they have truth to them. I could say this about a game like Altered Beast, which when it came out on the Genesis was sold on it's graphics not it's game play. So when the draw was the graphics, and now those graphics are dated, there is no draw.

    Not all games get their fun from graphics though. Why is it that every system and cellphone has an Arkanoid type game? Because Arkanoid is fun to play and requires no time commitment. Play and put it down, no logging out or spending hours leveling your chracter.

    Castlevania 1, 2, and 3 on the NES were all excellent games because the gameplay was both challenging and rewarding. You kept playing to see what would happen next, what would the next boss look like? And in their own way, the graphics and sound contributed to it.

    Sometimes less is more. One of the charming aspects of the old 8 bit games is that the rasterized rendering engines relied on simple block like textures repeated and varied to form the game world. This was cruder than bitmapped graphics but it forced you to use your imagination more. The box art and the user manuals for the game is where the art was. Those told you what the game was supposed to look like.

    Any 10 year old can loose themselves in the world of Legend of Zelda with it's water falls and dangerous ascent to mount doom with it's falling boulders, and explore an entire world. And the map that came with the game showed you what that world was really like. So when you played the game you didn't see raster blocks stacked end on end, you saw woods and rivers. And since your mind was filling in so much, the real world, and hence real world realism, could never possibly be as fantastic as the one in your head.

    There is no better example of this than reading a good book. You have nothing to go on but your imagination and the words of the author. Any bookworm here can tell you that the movie never lives up to the book. As fantastic as Peter Jacksons movies were, they can never capture the raw fantasy of reading the books themselves.

    So rather than be disappointed by playing older games, they remind me of the shortcomings of newer games. As the graphics become more and more realistic, the imagination and fantasy elements took a back burner to the eye candy.

    I can't look at a full moon in a clear sky to this day, without remembering the opening cinematics for Ninja Gaiden. And I absolutely lost myself in the world of Castlevania. In particular, Simons Quest was especially fulfilling to play over and over to get the different endings. I wanted to live in that world, and playing the game was the closest I could come to it.

    Some people like nice rendering and graphics, they prefer photo realism to impressionism. Some people like Monet and some people just see little paint daubs.

    The old games that are worth saving, are still completly viable games that continue to hold my attention and I only wish there were more games that sucked you in so bad that you dreamed about them.

  22. 1999 by 80+85+83+83+89+33 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    When's the last time we had a decent turn-based strategy game?


    Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri
    --
    i disable sigs