Our children will n'er know the beginning, will not remember first and second generation videogames.

[Olikunmissile]

Ha. If i have kids I'll make sure they know about the earlier generations of videogames, and that they have a good apprechiation of them. I still have my first Sega, and I have a NES, although it was given to me by my older brother. So they will be able to play thm. Of course only if they're into games, else I'd look like some sort of game-nazi.

 

[Mjolnir07]

-snip-

I was kidding about Burger Time, I don't believe I've ever even so much as looked at it past its cover. Allow me to reevaluate my initial meaning of depth. Creativity. More thought went into games before graphics were such a big focus.

Battle Toads is actually a prime example. Who the hell thinks up such a rivetingly bizarre idea and actually manifests it into an endlessly iconic form of entertainment these days in the vein of videogames. It's all the same regurgitated trash. Any attempt at innovation today is weakly contrived and wrenching. Nostalgia aside, I am not one of those people who looks fondly upon the old days of Mario just for the sake of being hip, I actually found Mario frustratingly repetitive, but it had merits to it that games in this age seem to never grasp, and may never again.

I'm afraid that I can't agree with you. I don't see how just absolute randomness is a good kind of creativity, in most cases at least. Sure, one could make a game about a pizza pie-samurai (hey, that actually rhymes) that fights Martians using a shark as a sword and throws pepperonis off itself. Is that creative? I don't think so.

Sure, absolutely random things can be fun and highly enjoyable - I'm quite a fan of Invader Zim (but that's not a game...) and older games like Lost Vikings and some of the other old platformers, but that's hardly the type of creativity I'd want in most games.

They should strive for a deeper, interesting story instead of just piling up random things - as if their whole development period consisted of passing a pipe of marijuana for a few hours and recording everything.

But it was absolute randomness that rarely had anything to do with the gameplay, battletoads was merely a sidescrolling beat em up, but it stroked more in you because it was an actively thought out pretense for a beat em up that was like a bonus to its face value, which was no more than the same old crap of the era. As opposed to today, where the same old crap of the era is a formula based upon the response of other successful implementations with variations in color and the facial expressions of the characters within the game. Before graphics were such a big deal, game designers had little to separate themselves from the competition with which they, like today, were essentially doing nothing less of copying, except for making it appear unique. That unique quality is absent from todays videogames. Battletoads played just like double dragon, what was the difference? The bizarre premises, really nothing more. All FPS games play very similarly to their competition today, what's the difference? Better pixelation. The selling point has changed, and therein the motivation behind game design as been altered to something far more tasteless and deviously shallow.

 

[lostclause]

The morality I presented in the original post was intended to be conveyed as a parallel. I'm not disagreeing that morality is present in videogames today, just that it isn't present in childrens cartoons in the same way that ingenuity is lacking in videogames today.

Okay then, sorry for my misunderstanding. Morality often involves some complex or disturbing actions, why would they put that in a children's cartoon? They usually stick to 'beat up someone doing cartoony evil', like building a freeze ray (though it made a good movie). Seriously, read some Alan Moore books and you can see how morality can quickly become quite disturbing (such as the holocaust parallel in V for Vendetta). I wouldn't want kids to watch that! But let's put this tangent to rest.
As for ingenuity, the industry has been based around rip-offs for a long time. Sonic was designed to rip off mario, everyone ripped of Dune when the RTS fad came round and people did, and still are, rip off doom. Everyone rips off other people in a hop of sharing the success until they have to chase the market elsewhere.
But original games are still being produced. PoP: SoT, Bioshock (it was original even if it was based on SS2 gameplaywise) and I'm quite looking forward to Achron (a time-travelling RTS that looks great, google it).

 

[Standby]

Well, I'm keeping all my really good games, even my dead copy of Mass Effect. Im not letting my children forget the good stories of gaming (or the consoles). While most people would never even heard of a "Legend of Dragoon" my kids would be getting lectures on how cool the story was when i got it.

I freiking loved the demo for that game, lost count of how many times i played it, never found anywhere that had the full game is stock though, GAME never rang me back

There was a demo for Dragoon? Sweet, sucks i missed it though... Anybody ever played the MGS1 demo?

Unless i'm missing something at least you got to play the full game?!
And by which do you mean the demo where you could find the nikita launcher inside the same truck as the SOCOM?

 

[quiet_samurai]

More reason to make your kids go play outside.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Well, I'm keeping all my really good games, even my dead copy of Mass Effect. Im not letting my children forget the good stories of gaming (or the consoles). While most people would never even heard of a "Legend of Dragoon" my kids would be getting lectures on how cool the story was when i got it.

I freiking loved the demo for that game, lost count of how many times i played it, never found anywhere that had the full game is stock though, GAME never rang me back

There was a demo for Dragoon? Sweet, sucks i missed it though... Anybody ever played the MGS1 demo?

Unless i'm missing something at least you got to play the full game?!
And by which do you mean the demo where you could find the nikita launcher inside the same truck as the SOCOM?

No idea, only got into an outside area with quite a few guards in addition to little cover.

 

[pigeon_of_doom]

So you'll just be another old codger bemoaning kids today, and how everything was so much better in your youth? In an age of Half Life, Mass Effect and Bioshock, can you really speak for every company when you say visuals come second to narrative, unlike the mostly clichéd fantasys of the SNES era? What reason is there to believe gaming will stagnate, or even regress in the coming years? The industry has a history of embracing technological advances and using them well,.

Gaming will evolve, in fact, it is evolving. A new breed of gamer will arise out of the next generation and those who are being drawn to gaming in droves. We may not like what gaming will become. Gamers may not even know the heritage of their hobby. Names like Zelda and Sonic may become as aged and austere as the names of Shakespeare and Dickens.

Sorry, just felt like having a little speech with no clear conclusion. And what is it about the PSOne generation that has imbued us with integrity? Has our lust for Lara Croft developed our sensitivity towards women? Has the apocalyptical events of FFVII taught us to treat the environment with respect? Metal Gear Solid caused us to take to the streets with placards decrying nuclear weapons and eugenics? Do we uphold the imperialistic regime Link struggled so hard to maintain? No, of course not. Although I'm not in touch with modern cartoons to comment on that.

Anyway, my response to the OP? Bollocks. Change happens, we have no choice but to deal with it, and inflict our misery upon our successors.

 

[Mjolnir07]

-
To use your TV analogy, I don't see Bugs Bunny as all that different from Spongebob. Comic antics. It's a different generation, same content.

Bugs Bunny had to use wit, though wit that is aimed at a young audience, to outsmart a man who was hunting him. He had to display a charisma and charm that directed his attacker at Daffy Duck instead of himself. He had to perpetually reinvent himself to keep himself out of Elmer Fudds hands. He did all of this while maintaining a coy and everpresent zen. Spongebob Squarepants pisses his brown shorts and runs around smacking things and crying. Bugs Bunny used comically oversized objects to annihilate his foes, or atleast apprehend or dissuay them.

I am insulted that there is a single person who cannot see the difference between Bugs Bunny and Spongebob Squarepants.

Fred Flinstone and George Jetson dealt with common dilemmas handed to them by their clearly adult lives at work and at home, but found solutions that fit the betterment of their familys. All while doing so in a way that subtly taught children their principles of family character and yet keeping them entertained. Spongebob Squarepants simply entertains children.

 

[Arkhangelsk]

-
To use your TV analogy, I don't see Bugs Bunny as all that different from Spongebob. Comic antics. It's a different generation, same content.

Bugs Bunny had to use wit, though wit that is aimed at a young audience, to outsmart a man who was hunting him. He had to display a charisma and charm that directed his attacker at Daffy Duck instead of himself. He had to perpetually reinvent himself to keep himself out of Elmer Fudds hands. He did all of this while maintaining a coy and everpresent zen. Spongebob Squarepants pisses his brown shorts and runs around smacking things and crying. Bugs Bunny used comically oversized objects to annihilate his foes, or atleast apprehend or dissuay them.

I am insulted that there is a single person who cannot see the difference between Bugs Bunny and Spongebob Squarepants.

Fred Flinstone and George Jetson dealt with common dilemmas handed to them by their clearly adult lives at work and at home, but found solutions that fit the betterment of their familys. All while doing so in a way that subtly taught children their principles of family character and yet keeping them entertained. Spongebob Squarepants simply entertains children.

I agree on that. You could categorize them all in the same genre just cause they're kids entertainment, but it's still difference. And I preferred Bugs Bunny, just cause his funny witty remarks.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I'll kick anyones ass who says Final Fantasy LICDXXEF% is better than OOT. Thats proabably why I wont have kids

Also so help me god if my son doesn't love mario

 

[Mjolnir07]

So you'll just be another old codger bemoaning kids today, and how everything was so much better in your youth? In an age of Half Life, Mass Effect and Bioshock, can you really speak for every company when you say visuals come second to narrative, unlike the mostly clichéd fantasys of the SNES era? What reason is there to believe gaming will stagnate, or even regress in the coming years? The industry has a history of embracing technological advances and using them well,.

Gaming will evolve, in fact, it is evolving. A new breed of gamer will arise out of the next generation and those who are being drawn to gaming in droves. We may not like what gaming will become. Gamers may not even know the heritage of their hobby. Names like Zelda and Sonic may become as aged and austere as the names of Shakespeare and Dickens.

Sorry, just felt like having a little speech with no clear conclusion. And what is it about the PSOne generation that has imbued us with integrity? Has our lust for Lara Croft developed our sensitivity towards women? Has the apocalyptical events of FFVII taught us to treat the environment with respect? Metal Gear Solid caused us to take to the streets with placards decrying nuclear weapons and eugenics? Do we uphold the imperialistic regime Link struggled so hard to maintain? No, of course not. Although I'm not in touch with modern cartoons to comment on that.

Anyway, my response to the OP? Bollocks. Change happens, we have no choice but to deal with it, and inflict our misery upon our successors.

I'd like to point out here that I am 22 years old, my sense of generational integrity is not so far removed from my peers.

I think you're not grasping the intention behind my initial inquiry. I'm not saying that the old days of concrete win in all ways over the new day of marble, I'm just curious as to how people feel the present era of videogames will shape their children, if they feel it will shape them any differently at all.

This is not a flame war.

 

[Mjolnir07]

The morality I presented in the original post was intended to be conveyed as a parallel. I'm not disagreeing that morality is present in videogames today, just that it isn't present in childrens cartoons in the same way that ingenuity is lacking in videogames today.

Okay then, sorry for my misunderstanding. Morality often involves some complex or disturbing actions, why would they put that in a children's cartoon? They usually stick to 'beat up someone doing cartoony evil', like building a freeze ray (though it made a good movie). Seriously, read some Alan Moore books and you can see how morality can quickly become quite disturbing (such as the holocaust parallel in V for Vendetta). I wouldn't want kids to watch that! But let's put this tangent to rest.
As for ingenuity, the industry has been based around rip-offs for a long time. Sonic was designed to rip off mario, everyone ripped of Dune when the RTS fad came round and people did, and still are, rip off doom. Everyone rips off other people in a hop of sharing the success until they have to chase the market elsewhere.
But original games are still being produced. PoP: SoT, Bioshock (it was original even if it was based on SS2 gameplaywise) and I'm quite looking forward to Achron (a time-travelling RTS that looks great, google it).

This is precisely what I am saying. Games back then ripped eachother off but still maintained a fancy for avoiding the mundane and repetitive. Cartoons back then had sincere morality in them, sincere. They were just molded in a way that children could relate to and appreciate, There are scarcely any cartoons present today with these qualities outside of PBS, but PBS force feeds it to its audience and therefore it's not entertaining. The subtlety is lacking in all areas. Not to bash PBS or at all claim it is in any way not what it wishes to be, just that it's never been part of this discussion.

Edit: Prince of Persia was always original, and did nothing but build upon itself from the beginning of its career in 2 dimensions, the only thing it rips off is itself, so it cannot be considered a part of present ingenuity failure. I have never played BioShock because since I entered college I haven't been able to afford xbox360 games, I hear good things about it but I cannot speak for or against its validity to this topic.

 

[f1r2a3n4k5]

-
To use your TV analogy, I don't see Bugs Bunny as all that different from Spongebob. Comic antics. It's a different generation, same content.

Bugs Bunny had to use wit, though wit that is aimed at a young audience, to outsmart a man who was hunting him. He had to display a charisma and charm that directed his attacker at Daffy Duck instead of himself. He had to perpetually reinvent himself to keep himself out of Elmer Fudds hands. He did all of this while maintaining a coy and everpresent zen. Spongebob Squarepants pisses his brown shorts and runs around smacking things and crying. Bugs Bunny used comically oversized objects to annihilate his foes, or atleast apprehend or dissuay them.

I am insulted that there is a single person who cannot see the difference between Bugs Bunny and Spongebob Squarepants.

Fred Flinstone and George Jetson dealt with common dilemmas handed to them by their clearly adult lives at work and at home, but found solutions that fit the betterment of their familys. All while doing so in a way that subtly taught children their principles of family character and yet keeping them entertained. Spongebob Squarepants simply entertains children.

You are personally insulted that I can compare on a large-scale? Intense.

If you want to get into semantics, we can also say that they are different because one is a rabbit and the other is a sponge and one takes place in a forest and the other takes place underwater. At their core, they are the same however. You're got an anthropomorphic animal engaged in a situation which they resolve through the use of classic prop antics towards their antagonist. Whether Bugs Bunny tricks Daffy Duck into blowing his beak backwards with a shotgun or Spongebob nets Squidward with a sampling gun, the goal is the amusement of small children with antics.

 

[lostclause]

This is precisely what I am saying. Games back then ripped eachother off but still maintained a fancy for avoiding the mundane and repetitive. Cartoons back then had sincere morality in them, sincere. They were just molded in a way that children could relate to and appreciate, There are scarcely any cartoons present today with these qualities outside of PBS, but PBS force feeds it to its audience and therefore it's not entertaining. The subtlety is lacking in all areas. Not to bash PBS or at all claim it is in any way not what it wishes to be, just that it's never been part of this discussion.

Before I can answer this properly you're going to have to tell me what PBS is (tried looking it up but I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're not talking about a Pharmasuetical Benefits Scheme).

 

[Seydaman]

I used to, but now I don't care cause if they EVER say Zelda sucks, there getting a boot up their ass. XD

EDIT: Hmm maybe I should of used a better example, because chances are Zelda will be around FOREVER

AND EVER AND EVER AND EVER...

 

[Mjolnir07]

-
To use your TV analogy, I don't see Bugs Bunny as all that different from Spongebob. Comic antics. It's a different generation, same content.

Bugs Bunny had to use wit, though wit that is aimed at a young audience, to outsmart a man who was hunting him. He had to display a charisma and charm that directed his attacker at Daffy Duck instead of himself. He had to perpetually reinvent himself to keep himself out of Elmer Fudds hands. He did all of this while maintaining a coy and everpresent zen. Spongebob Squarepants pisses his brown shorts and runs around smacking things and crying. Bugs Bunny used comically oversized objects to annihilate his foes, or atleast apprehend or dissuay them.

I am insulted that there is a single person who cannot see the difference between Bugs Bunny and Spongebob Squarepants.

Fred Flinstone and George Jetson dealt with common dilemmas handed to them by their clearly adult lives at work and at home, but found solutions that fit the betterment of their familys. All while doing so in a way that subtly taught children their principles of family character and yet keeping them entertained. Spongebob Squarepants simply entertains children.

You are personally insulted that I can compare on a large-scale? Intense.

If you want to get into semantics, we can also say that they are different because one is a rabbit and the other is a sponge and one takes place in a forest and the other takes place underwater. At their core, they are the same however. You're got an anthropomorphic animal engaged in a situation which they resolve through the use of classic prop antics towards their antagonist. Whether Bugs Bunny tricks Daffy Duck into blowing his beak backwards with a shotgun or Spongebob nets Squidward with a sampling gun, the goal is the amusement of small children with antics.

I am indeed personally insulted, and I yet still disagree. Bugs bunny tricks daffy duck into blowing his beak backwards for a REASON, the reason mind you is usually to escape danger. This entertained children AND delivered them a coefficiently proper and challenging scenario involving well thought out euphemisms and direct parallels to problem solving. Spongebob Squarepants beats on Squidward to Squidwards comic annoyance, this entertains children and nothing else. The substance is behind the motivation of the characters.

 

[rickthetrick]

There was more focus on story back then? Really?

You consider that stories like Mario and Battletoads, and pretty much almost every game from back then actually had a deep story? Most didn't. I'd even argue that there were more completely story-less games in those olden times then there are today.

They did have some gameplay value, of course - but otherwise, it was pretty much garbage.

And don't even mention the superhero junk, or at least most of it.

Everyone knows I was referring to Final Fantasy and Burger Time, silly.

Which are, I believe 2 games. Well, one long-ass and fairly badly thought out (in my mere opinion, of course) series that outlived itself, and one game that I haven't really heard of.

Out of how many games?

It's like saying that all today's games are works of art because I liked Half Life series and, I don't know, Morrowind or something.

Most of the "awesome value" that people tend to see in older games is sadly nostalgia.

I was kidding about Burger Time, I don't believe I've ever even so much as looked at it past its cover. Allow me to reevaluate my initial meaning of depth. Creativity. More thought went into games before graphics were such a big focus.

Battle Toads is actually a prime example. Who the hell thinks up such a rivetingly bizarre idea and actually manifests it into an endlessly iconic form of entertainment these days in the vein of videogames. It's all the same regurgitated trash. Any attempt at innovation today is weakly contrived and wrenching. Nostalgia aside, I am not one of those people who looks fondly upon the old days of Mario just for the sake of being hip, I actually found Mario frustratingly repetitive, but it had merits to it that games in this age seem to never grasp, and may never again.

Sigh I played Burgertime at the arcade when it came out. God I feel old.

 

[Arayis]

I still have my SNES and 64, so my kids will have access to gaming generations of older year, whether or not they actually enjoy and appreciate them is an entirely different matter, but I am at least allowing them they opportunity to experience it...

 

[Joshimodo]

I will keep my trusty SNES and humble NES for my future children. It will be a rite of passage, they must know their gaming heritage if they are to set foot in the world of gaming.

Many generations down the line, the teethmarks of frustration, frayed wires of overjoyous victory and worn buttons of constant play will mark the ancient ways of gaming.