Can retro games hold up WITHOUT the nostalga?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I find games that tried for a realistic 3d polygon look age the worst. 2d games especially if they have an interesting art style can still look great.
The only polygon game that still looks somewhat good is the Panzer Dragoon series only because the visual style and world was so interesting and unique.
As for gameplay? It really varies.
The only polygon game that still looks somewhat good is the Panzer Dragoon series only because the visual style and world was so interesting and unique.
As for gameplay? It really varies.
Nope.
Two years ago, I first played Earthbound Zero (more commonly known as Mother) on a rom. I never owned a NES as a kid, yet I still felt like I was uniting with an old friend or that I had indeed played this game before.
I dunno. Maybe the game just does that to people.
Two years ago, I first played Earthbound Zero (more commonly known as Mother) on a rom. I never owned a NES as a kid, yet I still felt like I was uniting with an old friend or that I had indeed played this game before.
I dunno. Maybe the game just does that to people.
You mean 'does something made 20 years ago when designers were struggling to learn and master the medium compare to good games of today?' well no. To claim many games can is to say game design has stagnated for 20 years with graphics being the only improvement. The point is however that these games were good for their time, and many of the good ones had solid gameplay, and good stories. typos, and music/graphic limitations aside.
while i'ts bad to let nostalgia trick you into thinking something is worse because of exaggerated memories of the old, you have to understand the limits we had when those games were made and recognize the skill and talent that went into making them as good as they were.
while i'ts bad to let nostalgia trick you into thinking something is worse because of exaggerated memories of the old, you have to understand the limits we had when those games were made and recognize the skill and talent that went into making them as good as they were.
It depends which games you're talking about, and who's playing them. Allow me to elaborate;
Some games stand the test of time on two simple merits before nostalgia is taken into account. Those merits would be genuinely good design, and by extension, revolutionising the design of other games in their genre.
The two franchises most often credited with those merits for their earlier games are Mario & Sonic, and rightly so. Boot up Mario 3 or Sonic 2 and you'll find they stand up incredibly well next to their modern incarnations (and sometimes surpass them - I'm looking at you, hedgehog).
This isn't just because they're so well designed. It's because those designs deeply affected designs of platformers of their time, and continue to do so to this day. When we play modern platform/action adventure games, they've been influenced so greatly by Mario/Sonic that going back to those older titles doesn't feel like such a huge leap backwards in time.
Also helping these games is their visual aesthetic. They're games from the 16-bit era, and yet they're still pleasing to look at. It's because they were designed with the limitations and strengths of their systems in mind and, through use of bright colours, imaginative scenery and sharp, well defined sprites, still look great, even without nostalgiavision.
The earlier Halo games hold up for the same reasons. Whether you love them or hate them, the changes they made are still used in the industry today. Dedicated buttons for grenades and melee attacks, regenerating shields/health and the two weapon limit (among other things) are pretty much standard for modern FPS. So, when you boot up a copy of Halo 2, the only thing holding it back from being a "modern" FPS is its last-gen graphics. Whether you think that's cause for praise for Halo or condemnation for modern FPS is up to you, but it's still true.
Some games don't hold up so well because the genre moves on - other games in their genre innovate and revolutionise, and so when you boot up Resident Evil on the PS1 or Mortal Kombat on the SNES, they feel like archaic remnants of a time gone by, because they lack modern features that bettered their genres.
Let me elaborate using Resident Evil as an example. At the time, the game really was revolutionary - its influence can be felt in virtually every horror game of its era. Such things as pushing a statue from a second floor balcony in order to collect an item from its shattered remains on the floor below had never been done before. Hell, it had never been possible before. But now, it's commonplace and outdated. Resident Evil's maligned "tank" control system was a necessity because it used pre-rendered images to create high quality back grounds. With static images forming the background in a 3D game, the camera angle needed to change from one fixed position to another every time the character moved off-screen. To feasibly control a character in this situation, the controls needed "Forward", "Back", "Left" and "Right" to be constant directions, unaffected by the camera's position, lest the character end up running in circles as the camera angle changed.
These days, such trickery isn't necessary. Modern consoles and PCs can render near-photorealistic environments without breaking a sweat. Controllers have dual analogue sticks as standard, negating the need for "stand and turn" controls. Developers figured out real time weapon change & item usage, on-screen mini-maps and so on, negating the need to pop open your inventory every few seconds. As storage space on discs became bigger and compression techniques more effective, games could pack in more and more locations, eliminating the need for games to enforce backtracking as a way to pad their length. Resident Evil had none of these more modern innovations and thus, doesn't hold up, except perhaps in the eyes of players already adjusted to and accepting of its flaws.
This doesn't mean games that haven't aged well can't have redeeming qualities that make them still worth a look in a time that left them behind, though. To use the cliché example, Shadows of the Colossus looks like shit, has horrible controls, a worse camera, far too few changes in scenery and is incredibly dull at some points. But, for all the reasons we're familiar with already, it's still worth experiencing.
You can apply this logic to just about any title from the past to judge how well it holds up. Just be careful who you point out a game's flaws to - as accurate as you may be, pointing out that Silent Hill 2 looks, plays and sounds like a sedated bovine is likely to earn you a few stern words.
Some games stand the test of time on two simple merits before nostalgia is taken into account. Those merits would be genuinely good design, and by extension, revolutionising the design of other games in their genre.
The two franchises most often credited with those merits for their earlier games are Mario & Sonic, and rightly so. Boot up Mario 3 or Sonic 2 and you'll find they stand up incredibly well next to their modern incarnations (and sometimes surpass them - I'm looking at you, hedgehog).
This isn't just because they're so well designed. It's because those designs deeply affected designs of platformers of their time, and continue to do so to this day. When we play modern platform/action adventure games, they've been influenced so greatly by Mario/Sonic that going back to those older titles doesn't feel like such a huge leap backwards in time.
Also helping these games is their visual aesthetic. They're games from the 16-bit era, and yet they're still pleasing to look at. It's because they were designed with the limitations and strengths of their systems in mind and, through use of bright colours, imaginative scenery and sharp, well defined sprites, still look great, even without nostalgiavision.
The earlier Halo games hold up for the same reasons. Whether you love them or hate them, the changes they made are still used in the industry today. Dedicated buttons for grenades and melee attacks, regenerating shields/health and the two weapon limit (among other things) are pretty much standard for modern FPS. So, when you boot up a copy of Halo 2, the only thing holding it back from being a "modern" FPS is its last-gen graphics. Whether you think that's cause for praise for Halo or condemnation for modern FPS is up to you, but it's still true.
Some games don't hold up so well because the genre moves on - other games in their genre innovate and revolutionise, and so when you boot up Resident Evil on the PS1 or Mortal Kombat on the SNES, they feel like archaic remnants of a time gone by, because they lack modern features that bettered their genres.
Let me elaborate using Resident Evil as an example. At the time, the game really was revolutionary - its influence can be felt in virtually every horror game of its era. Such things as pushing a statue from a second floor balcony in order to collect an item from its shattered remains on the floor below had never been done before. Hell, it had never been possible before. But now, it's commonplace and outdated. Resident Evil's maligned "tank" control system was a necessity because it used pre-rendered images to create high quality back grounds. With static images forming the background in a 3D game, the camera angle needed to change from one fixed position to another every time the character moved off-screen. To feasibly control a character in this situation, the controls needed "Forward", "Back", "Left" and "Right" to be constant directions, unaffected by the camera's position, lest the character end up running in circles as the camera angle changed.
These days, such trickery isn't necessary. Modern consoles and PCs can render near-photorealistic environments without breaking a sweat. Controllers have dual analogue sticks as standard, negating the need for "stand and turn" controls. Developers figured out real time weapon change & item usage, on-screen mini-maps and so on, negating the need to pop open your inventory every few seconds. As storage space on discs became bigger and compression techniques more effective, games could pack in more and more locations, eliminating the need for games to enforce backtracking as a way to pad their length. Resident Evil had none of these more modern innovations and thus, doesn't hold up, except perhaps in the eyes of players already adjusted to and accepting of its flaws.
This doesn't mean games that haven't aged well can't have redeeming qualities that make them still worth a look in a time that left them behind, though. To use the cliché example, Shadows of the Colossus looks like shit, has horrible controls, a worse camera, far too few changes in scenery and is incredibly dull at some points. But, for all the reasons we're familiar with already, it's still worth experiencing.
You can apply this logic to just about any title from the past to judge how well it holds up. Just be careful who you point out a game's flaws to - as accurate as you may be, pointing out that Silent Hill 2 looks, plays and sounds like a sedated bovine is likely to earn you a few stern words.
Imma bein' stalked!AlternatePFG said:
And no, I don't think that's the case. For example, I loved Fallout 1. Only got it in 2009, promptly played it twice back-to-back. Hell, one of the first games I ever played was Exile: Escape from the Pit. I then went on to play all the Spiderweb RPGs.
My problem is not with the genre. My problem is with PS:T's boring, unnecessary and repetitive combat, clumsy GUI and lousy storytelling. Wait! Hear me out before you jump down my throat on that last statement. I think the story is pretty good, at least what I've seen so far. Plus, the setting is fascinating. But the storytelling, the means by which the narrative is presented? Piss poor. Especially that dialogue system that feels like navigating an options menu.
I think the game would have been better as a point-and-click adventure game. Or a book. Probably the latter, considering that it already relies heavily on text.
Fair enough. I can't really disagree with any of the things you've said, considering they're all problems that I've had with the game too. (Though I've yet to play a 90's CRPG with a halfway decent UI, Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale are the only ones I can think of off the top of my head that didn't bother me too much. Fallout's UI would be alright, if it wasn't for the tiny, tiny buttons and low sensitivity) I think the way the story is told is pretty rather clumsy, lots of exposition through NPC's, but the story itself is worth playing the game for.Zhukov said:
I think that the influence of nostalgia is often directly related to the replay value of the game. Some titles are inherently linear and their excitement and immersion drop off quickly past the first play through. There are only so many ways you can jump on the first goomba in world 1-1, and so the game then loses a factor which made it enjoyable after you've exhausted those options. Nostalgia (wasn't it a thrill when i first saw that goomba) carries the enjoyment on years later, but it will never have that same kick.
Compare that to a game you always come back to for whatever reason, such as an RPG with various successful character options or a multiplayer game where the enemy humans can dream up so many different ways to change the game on you. Therein, the game retains its value far longer. The chief example I'd put forward for this is M.U.L.E., which few of you have probably played but ought to look into. The value in playing that game, released in 1983, surely isn't in the amazing Atari 400 graphics or melodic 8-bit sound. It is in playing competitively with friends. No nostalgia, just good solid gameplay.
Compare that to a game you always come back to for whatever reason, such as an RPG with various successful character options or a multiplayer game where the enemy humans can dream up so many different ways to change the game on you. Therein, the game retains its value far longer. The chief example I'd put forward for this is M.U.L.E., which few of you have probably played but ought to look into. The value in playing that game, released in 1983, surely isn't in the amazing Atari 400 graphics or melodic 8-bit sound. It is in playing competitively with friends. No nostalgia, just good solid gameplay.
they can if it isnt a game based on graphical quaility,
for instance Premier manager 98, although outdated, it the best football management game i have played, balacing in depth management and speed of play like no other game.
although i do regad it with nostalgia, that is mainly due to using players from the 97/98 season haha
(ps look it up on facebook
for instance Premier manager 98, although outdated, it the best football management game i have played, balacing in depth management and speed of play like no other game.
although i do regad it with nostalgia, that is mainly due to using players from the 97/98 season haha
(ps look it up on facebook
It's certainly rarer that it doesn't than not. It's easy to choose a game from around 2000, which already laid the formal groundwork for today's games and also were sometimes superior. But when people talk about retro, they normally mean the beginnings of 3D and 2D. I don't share the fascination for retro games of the sidescrolling type (like they often do in Youtube videos and also are supposed to look hip on a t-shirt) or other extremely simple games with nostalgia factor, including Zelda games and every Mario game.
To be honest, I never played a Legend of Zelda game until I picked up Ocarina of Time 3D with my 3DS. I haven't beaten it yet, but I already feel ashamed for not getting into this series sooner. Soon I will place a preorder on the gold Wiimote bundle for Skyward Sword.
On another note, I also picked up Chrono Trigger DS a month ago, and I let my brother play it first. Even though neither of us have played it before, my brother more or less agreed with everyone else declaring it one of the best RPGs ever after beating it. I'm quite excited to play it myself soon.
But I just love remakes in general. Just turning 15 two days ago, I never got to experience the majority of classics that came before the PS2/GC/Xbox era. In fact, I'm doing a lot of retro gaming right now, as I'm playing OoT 3D right now, with Chrono Trigger DS next in line. While on consoles, I'm playing Metroid Prime Trilogy, all as I await Uncharted 3 and LoZ Skyward Sword.
On another note, I also picked up Chrono Trigger DS a month ago, and I let my brother play it first. Even though neither of us have played it before, my brother more or less agreed with everyone else declaring it one of the best RPGs ever after beating it. I'm quite excited to play it myself soon.
But I just love remakes in general. Just turning 15 two days ago, I never got to experience the majority of classics that came before the PS2/GC/Xbox era. In fact, I'm doing a lot of retro gaming right now, as I'm playing OoT 3D right now, with Chrono Trigger DS next in line. While on consoles, I'm playing Metroid Prime Trilogy, all as I await Uncharted 3 and LoZ Skyward Sword.
Well, the BG series and Planescape: Torment without a doubt.
Hell, they even look good by today's standards in my view. So vibrant, aesthetically. Love 'em.
Hell, they even look good by today's standards in my view. So vibrant, aesthetically. Love 'em.
Yes, they can but a game that holds up well for some may not for others. It depends on four factors: Gamer "age", gamer tastes, game genre, and game quality.
Gamer "age" doesn't necessarily refer to the age of the gamer, but the age of the games they started with. A gamer that started with 3rd gen games will probably appreciate older games more than a gamer that started with 6th or 7th gen whether they be 10 yrs old or 40 yrs old.
Gamer taste refers to what the gamer looks for in games. Those looking for mind-blowing graphics will probably find less gems from the past than those looking for deep stories or great atmosphere. Also, some gamers are just more accepting of the limits of older games. For instance, I still love older fps games, mainly because I play them with the mindset of someone playing them when they came out and try to avoid comparing them to newer games.
As stated by previous posters (most notably, Arkley), genre and quality play a role as well. Certain genres hold up better than others, and of course, if the game wasn't that great when it was released
Gamer "age" doesn't necessarily refer to the age of the gamer, but the age of the games they started with. A gamer that started with 3rd gen games will probably appreciate older games more than a gamer that started with 6th or 7th gen whether they be 10 yrs old or 40 yrs old.
Gamer taste refers to what the gamer looks for in games. Those looking for mind-blowing graphics will probably find less gems from the past than those looking for deep stories or great atmosphere. Also, some gamers are just more accepting of the limits of older games. For instance, I still love older fps games, mainly because I play them with the mindset of someone playing them when they came out and try to avoid comparing them to newer games.
As stated by previous posters (most notably, Arkley), genre and quality play a role as well. Certain genres hold up better than others, and of course, if the game wasn't that great when it was released