On Remakes and Nostalgia

[Byers]

Just because I loved the shit out of something when I was 13 doesn't make it groundbreaking 15 years later

So only 13 year old's played Doom and loved it because they did not know any better? Doom was played by people of all ages, and still is. Recently one of the greatest mappers/user made level designer for Doom died from cancer and he was over 40 years old.

Whether you're 13 years old or are a 40 year old with a very limited exposure to computer games, your love for games like Doom were inspired by the fact that you hadn't yet seen anything quite like it before. If Doom had been released today, after games like Half-Life and Portal, it would have been looked at for about 5 seconds. Doom 3 proved that, even with the huge name attached to it, it fell quite quickly into obscurity and had overall tepid reviews.
As for a 40 year old Doom modder, I'm not sure what that's supposed to prove. There are 40 year olds spending their time collecting empty tin cans and bottles in my local shopping mall too, that doesn't necessarily mean it's the most worthwhile use of their time.

As for not begin groundbreaking, do you know anything about early 90's games? Doom was groundbreaking in almost every way you can think of. It was the first game where you could move around in a 3D world and walk up and downs stairs making it the first game ever to have a believable world the player get immersed in. It was the first game to have a lighting system where each room could have many different kinds of lighting and flickering lights. It was the first game shooter to have moving floors and elevators, it was the first first person shooter ever besides Wolfenstein (and that game was made by the same company). Doom was new in almost every way and did shitloads of things no other game had ever done before it.

You're aware that you're just proving my point now, I assume.

Doom did do all those things, and it was a giant leap forward in game design. That makes it an important game, and a vital part of gaming history, but not necessarily a great game 15-20 years later.

The fact that people choose to cling on to something for far longer than it deserves tells me something about the lack of worthwhile things they have to spend their time on

And who are you to say that the game no longer deserves to be played? And the reason for why there are still people who play the game is because they simply don't have anything better to do? Do you actually mean that or are you just one of those stupid 12 year old's who insists that only recent game are worth anything and that playing old games is stupid "because there old"?

If I was 13 years old 15 years ago, how can I be 12 now? And you call me stupid.

Almost all of my top fav games are old.

Worms.
GTA 2.
Half-life 1.
Crash Team Racing on the PS1.
Ace Combat 3 on the PS1.
Doom.
Doom 2.
Quake.
Quake 2.
Super Mario Brothers 1 and 3.
Super Mario 64.
Star Fox 64.

There are games that age well and games that do not. Games like the original Mario games and Worms belong to more or less dead genres, or genres that's been sufficiently altered by the leap to 3D that they bear little similarity to their "evolved" counterparts.
You can't go out and buy a good Worms game in 3D. The gameplay of Mario games has remained more or less static the last 15 years.

Furthermore, if there's one genre that has aged terribly, it's the early 3D games of the Quake era. On top of primitive gameplay and non-existent story, you also have murky brown textures, blocky models and environments, non-interactive static objects and all that goes with a primitive 3D engine of yesteryear. Many old 2D games age far better, unless they're faux-3D games like Doom.

I could go on and on like this forever, and all of these games are either 2 console generations old or older (and some are much older). Am i some stupid fanboy who has nothing better to do because i consider these games better then most tittles that are pumped out today? And this is coming from someone who bought both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 in order to enjoy all of this generations best offerings.

If you genuinely think Doom and Quake are better games than Half-Life 2 and Portal, then yes, absolutely so.

 

[squid5580]

It supports both actually You just want to call it a different word saying "setting" instead of "story". What do you think gives you said goals? Would a game be very much fun if you do what you have to do for no other reason that the dev said so? No! You need something more to hold the game together.

Bollocks.

No story holds Tetris together; you form lines to make them disappear. The game plainly says that is your goal without further ado and, you know what? It's fun, challenging and timeless. So is Chess.

So there goes your argument:

A game where there is a goal without a story can be fun.
A game does NOT need a story to have goals. And...
A game's developer can define said goals without compromising the fun of the game's design.

And a "Story" has a flow and a narrative that moves forward. A setting is static, unchanged and unaffected by your actions. You can play all 50 levels of Pacman and the setting won't change; no story has been told, no narrative advanced.

Stories and settings may enhance the experience, but they are not required, let alone equally important to gameplay.

So there: gameplay = required; story = not required.

Those games have SETTINGS, not STORIES. Arkanoid is a Breakout clone with a "story", and that's not even the reason why it's better. Most people don't even know that Arkanoid even HAS a story; that's how pointless it is in that game.

I keep on forgetting back in those days we combined our imaginations with the game. What was I thinking? And I guess you missed the other post where I explained about Tetris, Peggle and games like that.

 

[PhiMed]

Yeah, I think Nintendo should probably stop making Mario games for a year or two. Super Mario Galaxy is officially the best game in the series, so it's hard to go anywhere after that.

On the other hand, Nintendo knows how to actually innovate, it's just that with Mario they really don't. I mean, look at Metroid. It never jerks off with nostalgia. The series is always moving forward and if it can't come up with anything solid and new, it takes a pause.

That makes me wonder...has Yahtzee ever said anything about Metroid? I don't think so. He has reviewed Mario and Zelda, but not one single Metroid. Maybe that's because the latest Metroid came out in 2007. It'd be really nice to hear what he thinks about the franchise.

He hasn't actually reviewed one, but he's made passing comments about them. In one of his reviews, he mentions that all FPSs for consoles will always be hindered by their lacking the precision of a mouse, but good consoles FPSs (then shows a picture of Metroid Prime's box cover art) make up for this insufficiency with innovative mechanics like lock-on ability and other compensatory techniques. I know it's not a full-on review, but I'd say it's a pretty shining endorsement.

 

[Yeq]

After space, where the hell are you supposed to go? And don't say Alternate Dimensions and cross overs please.

Maybe...time travel?

But in terms of "where", that's essentially the wrong question. You can't just slap another setting onto a game and call it a legitimately progressive sequel; AS2, for example, wasn't just Assassin's Creed BUT IN ITALY, it genuinely improved the gameplay. And I think if Nintendo isn't up to that with Mario, they should let it die, but I assume that with all that money and talent they should be able to do something new even if it happens to stick with the Mario paradigm. Look at Okami. Nintendo isn't completely useless.

 

[TraumaHound]

Game-talk aside, I really want to find somewhere here in Seattle that sells Branston Pickle. Then I'll finally be able to grasp Yahtzee's judgement of a good game design element compared to how good Branston Pickle is.

Unless I hate it, in which case that may muck up how I view videogames (and Yahtzee, I suppose.)

As for the games mentioned, Mario is a mascot and he'll live on as long as Nintendo is making games whether new, rehashes, or simply using Mario character faces in place of gems in some sort of Bejeweled clone.

And I have yet to play LFD1 so I can't comment on LFD2, really, but I'm fine with zombie killing in whatever format it takes. Sure, a story is better than none (having recently played through HotD: Overkill I do enjoy a good zombie tale) but, really, isn't a zombie game really just about killing frickin' zombies? How much story can one really expect or need?

 

[Stylish_Robot]

as much as I like Valve, I wasn't a big fan of L4D2, it just got old and in the first game when the horde was alerted it was like "ohhhhhh shit", in this game it's like "oh goodie, more zombies " but I can't fault them completely, they do Team Fortress 2...well unless you're on 360 where it's just ass

 

[morpher80]

I must agree that Nintendo has over used some of there characters like Mario (mainly mario). They should bring back some of the old games from the super nintendo and Nintendo 64. Some of those games are better than the current ones now for the Wii.

 

[Optimystic]

Story is and remains equally as important as gameplay

This line deserves a round of applause. You sir are my new internet hero.

I think the idea of the story begin as important as the gameplay to be a load of crap. If it were, then the original Doom games (the games story is almost none) would not have an active community even 16 years after it's release.

What are you talking about? Doom had an awesome story.

"No. You will be KILL BY DEMONS!"

 

[7ru7h]

To take your Mass Effect and Bioshock examples from eariler, yes they had good stories. But they were also good games. They were actually fun to play. That's why I played through them multiple times: they were fun.

I wont argue that Bioshock had good gameplay, but Mass Effect? No, the gameplay in that one was mediocre at best. The combat was bad, the vehicle missions were bad, and yet it was still a really good game, mainly because of the expansive story and how Bioware drew the player in and made the player really feel part of the events.

You can't try to compare board games and video games, the gap is too wide there. Sure they can be fun, but its usually because of the people you play with. Try playing monopoly by yourself. Still fun? No, because you lose out on what makes them fun.

I found this comment to be very ironic, considering the extreme popularity of online deathmatch games which, traditionally, feature no story or narrative whatsoever. Fighting games are the same when it comes to Vs matches. The story becomes irrelevant.

For the last time, I AM NOT saying storyless games aren't popular, I'm saying they don't tend to last. Sure, you can bring up games that don't agree with what I'm saying, but can you honestly see some of the games we consider classics lasting if they had their stories removed? After all, what's a LoZ game without the "Save the princess/world" story? A collection of fetch quests and boss fights with no discernible purpose.

Seriously, does anyone honestly believe people bought Modern Warfare 2 for its story?

I do, but that's because I'm stupid and tend to hang around with people who would rather play a game for its content instead of the end-game material. Almost all of the people I have talked to that have played MW2 (both at work and my friends) talk about the story much more than the multiplayer.

 

[Nazulu]

You can't try to compare board games and video games, the gap is too wide there. Sure they can be fun, but its usually because of the people you play with. Try playing monopoly by yourself. Still fun? No, because you lose out on what makes them fun.

I found this comment to be very ironic, considering the extreme popularity of online deathmatch games which, traditionally, feature no story or narrative whatsoever. Fighting games are the same when it comes to Vs matches. The story becomes irrelevant.

For the last time, I AM NOT saying storyless games aren't popular, I'm saying they don't tend to last. Sure, you can bring up games that don't agree with what I'm saying, but can you honestly see some of the games we consider classics lasting if they had their stories removed? After all, what's a LoZ game without the "Save the princess/world" story? A collection of fetch quests and boss fights with no discernible purpose.

Thats not the slightest bit true, not even close. In fact most storyless games I know of have lasted longer than any games with story's. The story's in Zelda and Mario doesn't even matter really, it's not like they put any real thought into it. None of these game story's are original or clever, they are mostly just action movie story's.

Also I disagree with you Yahtzee, the gameplay is the tasty filling in your bun, gameplay is always going to be the most important.

 

[Kenjitsuka]

"Time Team ... Tony Robinson" Oh yeah, we had that here in the Netherlands as well.
Don't think lots of people know what the heck you're talking about, but as I always think when you start about Tex Avery or stuff: "Yayyyyyyyyyyyy! Nostalgia plus humour makes for the laugh-ey times!" Then my mind goes blank and after wiping some bucket of saliva off my shirt I rewatch Zero Punctuation again... "Duhrrr ?"

Oh yeah, Post Scriptum yall;
All games have SOME story, maybe not a lot...
"Shootz them demons from Mars back to Hellz!!!111!!111"
Was the full background story from Doom 1, and it's almost the same story as Gears 2, only that one has an arbitrary backstory stapled to it's back, as unnecessary as nailing your beer glass to your hand with some two inch nails in case you'd drop it.

Anyways, if you are drunk enough to laugh at the above, please ask your also drunk friends to actually nail your glass or mug to your hand! It'll be a joke on your mom the next day!

She'll laugh and make you more cookies! *

* "Anyone stupid enough to do anything I said or didn't say does this on their own accord, and this is a nearly funny disclaimer!"

 

[7ru7h]

You can't try to compare board games and video games, the gap is too wide there. Sure they can be fun, but its usually because of the people you play with. Try playing monopoly by yourself. Still fun? No, because you lose out on what makes them fun.

I found this comment to be very ironic, considering the extreme popularity of online deathmatch games which, traditionally, feature no story or narrative whatsoever. Fighting games are the same when it comes to Vs matches. The story becomes irrelevant.

For the last time, I AM NOT saying storyless games aren't popular, I'm saying they don't tend to last. Sure, you can bring up games that don't agree with what I'm saying, but can you honestly see some of the games we consider classics lasting if they had their stories removed? After all, what's a LoZ game without the "Save the princess/world" story? A collection of fetch quests and boss fights with no discernible purpose.

Thats not the slightest bit true, not even close. In fact most storyless games I know of have lasted longer than any games with story's. The story's in Zelda and Mario doesn't even matter really, it's not like they put any real thought into it. None of these game story's are original or clever, they are mostly just action movie story's.

Also I disagree with you Yahtzee, the gameplay is the tasty filling in your bun, gameplay is always going to be the most important.

Of course you can name storyless games that have lasted longer than storied ones, because originally thats all there was. Back here in the present, storyless games don't go nearly as far. As for the zelda and mario bit, I will disagree with you on zelda, since mario's story has always been the same. If it wasn't for the story in LoZ, most people wouldn't have played it through to the end more than once.

 

[Nazulu]

You can't try to compare board games and video games, the gap is too wide there. Sure they can be fun, but its usually because of the people you play with. Try playing monopoly by yourself. Still fun? No, because you lose out on what makes them fun.

I found this comment to be very ironic, considering the extreme popularity of online deathmatch games which, traditionally, feature no story or narrative whatsoever. Fighting games are the same when it comes to Vs matches. The story becomes irrelevant.

For the last time, I AM NOT saying storyless games aren't popular, I'm saying they don't tend to last. Sure, you can bring up games that don't agree with what I'm saying, but can you honestly see some of the games we consider classics lasting if they had their stories removed? After all, what's a LoZ game without the "Save the princess/world" story? A collection of fetch quests and boss fights with no discernible purpose.

Thats not the slightest bit true, not even close. In fact most storyless games I know of have lasted longer than any games with story's. The story's in Zelda and Mario doesn't even matter really, it's not like they put any real thought into it. None of these game story's are original or clever, they are mostly just action movie story's.

Also I disagree with you Yahtzee, the gameplay is the tasty filling in your bun, gameplay is always going to be the most important.

Of course you can name storyless games that have lasted longer than storied ones, because originally thats all there was. Back here in the present, storyless games don't go nearly as far. As for the zelda and mario bit, I will disagree with you on zelda, since mario's story has always been the same. If it wasn't for the story in LoZ, most people wouldn't have played it through to the end more than once.

Thats still a load of crock! In fact my favourite game doesn't have any story at all and it was released not that long ago.

You can disagree with me all you want with Zelda but the story in Zelda has got shit all story in it, you could fit it all in one paragraph. I played the game for the game, not the story and that will go for just about everyone. If the game is fun, the game is fun, thats all there is to it.

 

[7ru7h]

You can't try to compare board games and video games, the gap is too wide there. Sure they can be fun, but its usually because of the people you play with. Try playing monopoly by yourself. Still fun? No, because you lose out on what makes them fun.

I found this comment to be very ironic, considering the extreme popularity of online deathmatch games which, traditionally, feature no story or narrative whatsoever. Fighting games are the same when it comes to Vs matches. The story becomes irrelevant.

For the last time, I AM NOT saying storyless games aren't popular, I'm saying they don't tend to last. Sure, you can bring up games that don't agree with what I'm saying, but can you honestly see some of the games we consider classics lasting if they had their stories removed? After all, what's a LoZ game without the "Save the princess/world" story? A collection of fetch quests and boss fights with no discernible purpose.

Thats not the slightest bit true, not even close. In fact most storyless games I know of have lasted longer than any games with story's. The story's in Zelda and Mario doesn't even matter really, it's not like they put any real thought into it. None of these game story's are original or clever, they are mostly just action movie story's.

Also I disagree with you Yahtzee, the gameplay is the tasty filling in your bun, gameplay is always going to be the most important.

Of course you can name storyless games that have lasted longer than storied ones, because originally thats all there was. Back here in the present, storyless games don't go nearly as far. As for the zelda and mario bit, I will disagree with you on zelda, since mario's story has always been the same. If it wasn't for the story in LoZ, most people wouldn't have played it through to the end more than once.

Thats still a load of crock! In fact my favourite game doesn't have any story at all and it was released not that long ago.

You can disagree with me all you want with Zelda but the story in Zelda has got shit all story in it, you could fit it all in one paragraph. I played the game for the game, not the story and that will go for just about everyone. If the game is fun, the game is fun, thats all there is to it.

Bullshit. Maybe the story for LoZ or AoL could fit into a paragraph, but most any game after that has had more than a paragraph's worth of story to it. Unless you are using ridiculously long paragraphs or only giving the barest of details, in either case the argument is invalid.

At this point, I really am wondering what the point of continuing this discussion, because you seem to be ignoring my points at every turn. Yes, the storyless game is your favorite now, but will it still be the same in 1/5/7/10 years? I have said before that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SHORT RUN POPULARITY, since any game can have that, but the ability for a game to remain popular and evolve into a "clasic".

Anyway, I'm sick of beating my head against a wall to try to get a simple point across that you eschew in your responses. Have fun with your generic games, I'm done.

TL;DR - Story telling should be considered at least as important as gameplay. It may not be mandatory, but it can take a mediocre game and make it awesome (ME/Diablo 2).

 

[Donrad]

liked the god reference.. (*G*od?)
nintendo should seriously start something new
like.. zelda in space..

 

[Nazulu]

Bullshit. Maybe the story for LoZ or AoL could fit into a paragraph, but most any game after that has had more than a paragraph's worth of story to it. Unless you are using ridiculously long paragraphs or only giving the barest of details, in either case the argument is invalid.

Well that just proves my point doesn't it. And once again there have been many games after that with out story's, some of them turning out great so I don't go spurting shit about games with out story's don't go so well these days!

At this point, I really am wondering what the point of continuing this discussion, because you seem to be ignoring my points at every turn. Yes, the storyless game is your favorite now, but will it still be the same in 1/5/7/10 years? I have said before that I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT SHORT RUN POPULARITY, since any game can have that, but the ability for a game to remain popular and evolve into a "clasic".

Ignoring? You keep repeating yourself with the whole "story games last longer in popularity" and I will keep saying that is bogus shit!

Also I can't believe you said that. Yes, games I really enjoyed will remain favourites till I die, I remember having a good time with them and one day I will play 'em again. Thats how nostalgia works.

Anyway, I'm sick of beating my head against a wall to try to get a simple point across that you eschew in your responses. Have fun with your generic games, I'm done.

TL;DR - Story telling should be considered at least as important as gameplay. It may not be mandatory, but it can take a mediocre game and make it awesome (ME/Diablo 2).

Did you just turn thick in the last couple of hours? Have fun with your generic games you say, you don't even know what the fuck I am playing! You wouldn't know what generic is even if it punches you in the face!

You haven't proven anything to me, just that you have no proof and you can't help yourself and remain ignorant. Game play is the core of games, the heart, the brain, all the important parts and story is the apendix or something, nice to have but not a big loss when you don't have it.

So if your respond to this, instead of getting impatient and insulting me, get some proof because there are many storyless games out there and they have done fairly well. Oh, and originality is what makes a classic, not some action story.

 

[Syntax Error]

The sandwich analogy was brilliant. Would your opinion be changed if the Mario games had a palette swap? I mean like if they're the same games but the characters were changed?

 

[ShinningDesertEagle]

While I do not object to the comparison of Christianity to a game franchise; the way Yahtzeeh put it made it out to be his own ideology is automatically correct. Whether you believe in God or not nobody reads Yahtzeeh's blog for his views on religion or the metaphysical. Still there was some unintentional hilarity to be had that like a typical unhappy and disgruntled atheist he has a neurological need to mock the religious. Not that all atheists are unhappy and disgruntled, though.

 

[Gindil]

Ignoring? You keep repeating yourself with the whole "story games last longer in popularity" and I will keep saying that is bogus shit!

Also I can't believe you said that. Yes, games I really enjoyed will remain favourites till I die, I remember having a good time with them and one day I will play 'em again. Thats how nostalgia works.

Anyway, I'm sick of beating my head against a wall to try to get a simple point across that you eschew in your responses. Have fun with your generic games, I'm done.

TL;DR - Story telling should be considered at least as important as gameplay. It may not be mandatory, but it can take a mediocre game and make it awesome (ME/Diablo 2).

Did you just turn thick in the last couple of hours? Have fun with your generic games you say, you don't even know what the fuck I am playing! You wouldn't know what generic is even if it punches you in the face!

You haven't proven anything to me, just that you have no proof and you can't help yourself and remain ignorant. Game play is the core of games, the heart, the brain, all the important parts and story is the apendix or something, nice to have but not a big loss when you don't have it.

So if your respond to this, instead of getting impatient and insulting me, get some proof because there are many storyless games out there and they have done fairly well. Oh, and originality is what makes a classic, not some action story.

TBH to both opinions, there are a few story games that support him. I can think of Myst, The Secret of Monkey Island, and Riven, that all of their gameplay features were told through the story involved. It's not prevalent but these were popular games while others were playing Secret of Evermore or Shadowrun. Let's also not forget Psychonauts or anything Tim Schafer related that really pushed the boundaries (even if some of them didn't sell well)