On Remakes and Nostalgia

[SupaMechaDeathChrist]

If you want to get nostalgia you simply just play whatever old game you have fond memories of... if they're fond whats stopping you?

And the whole "Mario God notion" doesn't stop there. While that is the case for many gamers, including veteran, there seems to be a similar habit with certain Wii games now, the worst offenders being "Wii This" and "Wii That", that families will flock out to buy even though it really is the same thing... so with some Mario games you're doing exactly what they are... feel dirty?

That's because either...

A) Women think they are fat

B) The Wii fit even tells you your fat so you will buy these games to "work-out" with them.
(doesn't that sound ironic?

C) The parents think their whole family is over weight (when they aren't) and buy 5 Wii's for everyone

and D) Ya seeing a pattern here?

The Wii watches you, it watches everything you do, watch the ENN report, it tells you everything...

(P.S. Yahtzee you are extremely right.)

 

[Falseprophet]

The weird thing is I do not like the nostalgia train on old franchises, I do not mind it as well. The practice is much older than we think. back in the Victorian era, the practice for a writer was to write the book in a serialized form, kind of like how certain comic books are done nowadays. Then 6 months after the last chapter was complete, the serials are collected and turn into a novel. It is also common practice for writers to come back to their works and constantly update them. Charles Dickens, in addition to releasing pretty much the same story over and over again, would also make changes to the ones he already had. He did this for nothing more than making a quick buck on the nostalgia of his readers.

Complete agreement. How many people realize "classics" like ''Little Women'' and ''Kidnapped'' had crappy, barely-remembered sequels? Or that Victorian/Edwardian penny-dreadfuls, dime novels, Boys' Own Adventures, gialli and other pulp stories were mostly derivative crap but form the foundation for most speculative fiction?

Hell, the movie industry is built around nostalgic memories as well. In the 90's we had nostalgia for 70's, in the 80's, it was the 60's, and so on back down the road. Now we have to go through 80's nostalgia.

Basically, when a generation enters its late 20s/early 30s and start having families of their own, they grow wistful for the stuff they liked as children--even though most of it was crap. Only now they have their own money to throw at it.

 

[AkJay]

I'll be honest, I Nostalgia'd at "Time Team".

Also, I'd to mention that you say Left 4 Dead 2 had a lack of story, and this is absolutely true. But when you think about it, Valve games never really have a story. They have settings, and interesting characters, but most of the stories are wrapped up in complete mystery (Half-Life series, Portal, Left 4 Dead games). I think this is a brilliant move, seeing as people hate seeing a mystery go unsolved, so they keep buying the new games in hopes of getting new nuggets of info to try and solve it themselves.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a huge Valve fanboy, so I'm going to say that even though the games do leave a mystery for oyu to buy more, it doesn't mean it's not fun , the gameplay and settings are amazing, and the characters seem believable.

 

[VGFreak1225]

That's ridiculous to consider that gameplay must take the front for a great game. Great games, the ones that everyone plays and come back to (Uncharted, MW2, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Half-Life, Portal, etc) have a great story with great gameplay. It's not unrealistic to demand in our medium that people make games with great stories. Story is an important centerpiece for many game players, and without it, a game thats fun can be considered good (but not fantastic and deserves retreads).

Tetris wants a word with you.

But does Tetris have any presence in anyone's minds when they aren't actually playing it? Any emotional impact?

Doesn't change the fact that people are still playing it. Not every game needs to have both story and gameplay going for it. I can appreciate the fact that gamers want different things. Some want gameplay, some want story. Yahtzee wants story as much as gameplay, doesn't make him wrong, he just has different tastes.
Mario games can be just as affecting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-2L4PTV14A

Show the video in that link to people who have played Mario for a good long time, fanboy or not, and they very well can get choked up. Even if they haven't played all their lives, there's almost no denying that proper presentation can make any game, even those soley focused on "fun", breathtaking. Some will not care, I understand that, but there are other ways to be affecting outside of storylines.

Also, you can see Tetris in your sleep after playing it for too long. Just sayin'.

 

[SextusMaximus]

This Was a great Read.

But I predict that Mario is still gonna live.

Of course Mario will live.
Nintendo have the most sales in the gaming market and this partially from Mario games (and 99% Wii Fit, for housebound women who consider themselves "Fat")
But so long as it's a novelty to own a mario game and so long as they add new characters every now and again, the series will always be considered fresh by anyone new to the Gaming Market.

 

[Belano]

Great read. However, this made me wonder:

"Story is and remains equally as important as gameplay [...] Nothing wrong with that, there are plenty of games that get by on pure gameplay, but they don't have the lastability, and they'll never be anything more than a quick bit of fun."

I disagree, it entirely depends on what kind of game it is. Most Mario games don't have much of a story and they are a lot more than "a quick bit of fun".

Furthermore, some of the games that has lasted the most don't emphasize on or don't have a story at all, take Counter-Strike for example.

Starcraft has been around for 11 years now and it's still the most competitive RTS out there, and who really cares about the story? I play the game on a daily basis, and I have only played a couple of hours into the campaign.

 

[DrDeath3191]

In regards to the RPG, why is the Mario RPG franchise so popular? The story is hardly rivetting (though it is funny at times). It certainly wouldn't win a Pulitzer. So why are they heralded as some of the best RPGs ever made? Gameplay. The game is actually fun to play, not necessarily to watch. Stories are fine, but if the underlying interactivity of the game is flawed, the game fails. Because that is what makes games what they are: gameplay. Otherwise, you could very easily have made that a book or a movie.

Sure, a game could easily survive just on gameplay qualities alone, but that doesn't mean that narrative is not important in the medium. Also, I don't even consider Mario RPG to be an RPG. It's a game with gameplay elements usually associated with RPGs, and leave it at that. Same applies to MMORPGs (with the exception of its RP servers). If there's nothing there for me to role-play as, then I don't think it should classify as an RPG.
I still stand by my statement that a game with great narrative can survive despite gameplay flaws. I didn't think that the gameplay of Indego Prophecy/Farenheit was that great, but it's still one of my favorites games. The same will probably apply to Heavy Rain. But if you take the narrative out of Dragon Age: Origins, you basically end up with a game engine tech demo.
Again, the importance of story vs gameplay depends on what the developers want to make. If they wanted to make an interactive movie or interactive book, they can hardly do so without a narrative. If they wanted to make shooter, then the story can be thrown out the window and most people wouldn't miss it.

Now I'm not saying story is completely and totally unnecessary. Some games do require a tale to be told. But not all, as Yahtzee seems to claim here. The majority of RPGs without their story are just numbers games. However, there are still RPGs that are great without stories with substance: look no further than Pokemon.
I loved Indigo Prophecy as well. Unlike you, though, I actually enjoyed the gameplay. That's what lead me to continue playing despite the nonsensical plot nearing the end (seriously? Internet monsters?). I suppose it is all a matter of opinion in the end though, as well as what the developer actually wants. I'm glad we had this discussion.

*sigh*

First of all, this is not a retread of any sort. You claim that this game is a remake of Mario 3? Mario is far more maneuverable in this title than he is in that game. He can wall jump, butt-stomp, and pretty much do anything he could in 3D in a 2D plane. You might immediately claim that therefore this must be a carbon-copy of the DS game. Again, no. There are many new levels, some new power-ups, a 4-player versus option, a 4-player versus component, motion controlled areas and the Super Guide. This is not the same game.

And you're really going to emphasize story and gameplay on the same level of importance? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy narrative in games as well. However, you should remember the medium we're discussing. We're not talking about movies, novels, or plays. We're talking about games. Therefore, the gameplay must always take full position of importance. Following shortly thereafter should be level-design that compliments the gameplay, not the story. In fact, narratives in games are rather unimportant in the whole scheme of things. Yes, they may give you a compelling reason to continue playing. But if the game itself is not enjoyable to play, then what's the fucking point?

That's ridiculous to consider that gameplay must take the front for a great game. Great games, the ones that everyone plays and come back to (Uncharted, MW2, Assassin's Creed, GTA, Half-Life, Portal, etc) have a great story with great gameplay. It's not unrealistic to demand in our medium that people make games with great stories. Story is an important centerpiece for many game players, and without it, a game thats fun can be considered good (but not fantastic and deserves retreads).

I'd suggest that it was the gameplay, not the story that keeps you coming back. I'm not suggesting that people abandon storytelling in games: I'm reminding people that we are expected to play games, not watch them. So it'd be best to focus on that which we do, not that we see and hear. Why are the Mario games so popular despite being similar? Because they're fun to play. We don't need a narrative to have fun with a game, necessarily. As long as the gameplay and level design are strong, pretty much everything else becomes toppings on the cake.

 

[duchaked]

mm the first 3 paragraphs are a bit hard to stomach, I'll come back and re-read the rest of the article later

but still hahaha oh sonic...alas it never ends (unfortunately? lol)

 

[deathbypiano88]

If you want innovation don't play a platformer. If you want new levels to fulfill your platformer needs then get any platformer as they are all about the same. I bought Super Mario Brothers wii and got 3 friends together and we had a great time just joking around killing each other and what not. Its better than playing the same Super Mario levels over and over again, and for people new to video games I think it's a great game. Games don't need to be innovative to be fun which ultimately curses critics as they have to constantly play video games and get bored with anything that doesn't present something new. I imagine it feels like playing through the same video game 50 times through and shelling out 300 dollars to do so. For the rest of us, we get to casually play through a platformer every year or so and be happy with the nostalgia and feel like we've added another trophy to our wall.

 

[Razhem]

Who cares if the game doesn't do anything new and who cares if it doesn't have a compelling story? The point is that it's fun, you just pick up the pad, play for a while and have fun. I don't care that it players like Mario 3, Mario 3 isn't magically going to make pop and get new levels nor power ups. Also, who cares where you go to after space? The point is that it is still enjoyable. I just see this as another example of Yathzee's pretentiousness and another fantastic showing of why I preferred him when he just did the Zero Punctuation and didn't get a column.

Games are supposed to be fun, and the new Mario does that, the reason Nintendo can get away with doing this year after year is a track-record of quality on the core franchise and it is still there, not like some poor Hedgehog who doesn't know what to do anymore. As long as that quality is there, they will still be marketable and people will still enjoy them, the moment it starts screwing up like Sonic, Mario will start getting ignored, it's as simple as that.

 

[y1fella]

i can't explain how sick of Mario (and every single Nintendo franchise)i am. like every gamer on earth i liked the originals and the first sequels. I did not enjoy the:further sequels, the prequels, the spin offs, the sequels prequels, the spin off prequel, spin off sequels spin off to the sequel, the exact same game rereleased every bloody time(Pokemon especially) and who can forget there evil horrible line of movies TV shows toys casual games bed sheets pillows plush toys and god knows what else. every current Nintendo franchise needs the sonic treatment as explained by yahtzee in his sonic unleashed review. oh yeah i like left 4 dead but i really hate just how lazy valve are. why the hell did they make a bog standard zombie game(as good as it is its still bog standard) when they could work on the most heavil antisipated game since ..... I don't know what! they been dicking around with 2 hour (at best) sequels (half 2 ep 1/ep 2) when they could at least actually show us there working on somthing. i would murder for a screen shot of the final half life chapter. wow thats the longest comment i've ever bloody written. but my points are valid.

 

[squid5580]

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.

No one said the story has to be good. It just has to exist. Doom wouldn't be very good if all you got was go kill that! Why? Because I the developer said so. Instead you get go kill that because they are bad guys. It may not be deep or complex or even good and that doesn't matter. As long as you are getting a reason to do what you are supposed to other than "because I said so"

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Modern nostalgia is either emtpy (see most 3D mario games,golden axe, and other crap wanked on because it had a IP to abuse) or its antiseptic(boreing,contrived,reduntant) and well..loony (too off the wall to be good but perhaps off the wall enough to be fun)see the 2D mario games and even some of the castilvina games.... I have yet to see a 3D game based on nostalgia done "right"..well...not since Star Fox 64.....

Its not a question of "where"(as in story theme direction) should Mario go now but rather "where"(as in gameplay mechanic theme direction) should Mario go....

Mario(sonic and a host of other games) needs to go back to basics on the 3D plane, Mario for instance needs to be more like SMB3 with powerups and some equipment from zelda change how powerups work) and the whole package molded in more an adventure setup than a ridged level platformer.

 

[Pingieking]

*snip*

Indeed, a good discussion. I hope we have more in the future.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

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.

No one said the story has to be good. It just has to exist. Doom wouldn't be very good if all you got was go kill that! Why? Because I the developer said so. Instead you get go kill that because they are bad guys. It may not be deep or complex or even good and that doesn't matter. As long as you are getting a reason to do what you are supposed to other than "because I said so"

I also ways thought that DOOM 1-2 handled killing as a way to place huddles while it lead you threw a level to explore(the exit of the level being the end of as chapter of bang bang,grrrooorrrr,brains, arrgg,ooooo items!,ooo secrets!,ect paragrahps and it still is better than the crap they write today...). Doom 3,Quake 4 and most modern shooters the things are there to kill as you stumble threw a hallway.....

 

[Mako SOLDIER]

In any good fiction it is the actions of the characters that drive the story, otherwise it's just some stuff happening to some people.

If what the main character does isn't engaging then the story fails. It's the same with games: if the gameplay is excellent, the story only needs to be rudimentary, because the fine details of how the character gets from A to B are compelling. The most epic story is useless if the main character just sits and eats a scone while it happens around them.

Would you play through an entire Final Fantasy game if all you had to actually do as a player was repeatedly play the same scone-eating minigame?

In short, story is important but it's just the icing on the gameplay cake. Do you play monopoly for the story? Nope, you essentially make the story yourself each time you play. It's the same with a good game, or it should at least feel like it.

 

[rize]

Left 4 Dead doesn't really shine unless you have 2 or more players of similar skill struggling to live through the game on a difficulty mode appropriate for their skill. If the two players are actually real-life friends and that difficulty mode is expert, the game is incredibly compelling. People can knock it all they want, but if you've got the prerequisites, it's awesome in a way that nothing else is.

Additionally, the sequel is a clear improvement over the first regardless of what you think about whether or not it should have been an expansion pack or a less expensive standalone game than it was.

 

[Cocamaster]

But does Tetris have any presence in anyone's minds when they aren't actually playing it? Any emotional impact?

Yes: the emotion is called "fun", and once you have it, the next time you want it, Tetris will come back to your mind.

That's how cravings work.

No one said the story has to be good. It just has to exist. Doom wouldn't be very good if all you got was go kill that! Why? Because I the developer said so. Instead you get go kill that because they are bad guys. It may not be deep or complex or even good and that doesn't matter. As long as you are getting a reason to do what you are supposed to other than "because I said so"

That's not a story, that's a setting.

"Rescue Pauline from Donkey Kong" isn't a story, not is ascending the building evading barrels and flames.

Pacman's setup is "Pacman eats dots while he's chased by ghosts!"; there's no story whatsoever. Ms Pacman's "story" is "This is Pacman's wife".

Videogames, fundamentally, don't need stories, only setups or goals. Sometimes stories enrichen the experience, but believing that they are required is a flawed notion.

It's like asking for the backstory of Simon from "Simon Says".