Retro games - Do you still enjoy playing them?

[tongue_of_colicab]

Those of you still playing the old games (psx/n64 and before) do you still enjoy the games? I recently bought a snes wii controller so I can play the snes games like back when I had my snes. Now I've been playing some old snes games on my wii (homebrew channel ftw) and im kinda unsure on whether I like it or not. Some games are still cool, like mariokart. Also harder than what you have on DS/Wii and after some getting used to its still a very playable game. Same goes for the donkey kong games. But some other games kinda piss me off. Im now playing castlevania and its so aggrevating that you have things like time (why is that there anyway?) when I dont know where I need to go and you cant search everything, button presses that dont seem to get registred properly etc.

I suppose some games stood the tooth of time alot better than others. How do you feel about this?

 

[Cheezdoodles]

I played fallout 1 & 2 not to long ago, still enjoyed it.

 

[ShadowRunner]

Apart from the obvious timeless classics like Mario World about the only games i can go back and play are RPGs. I recently replayed Shadowrun and Secret of Mana and still enjoyed them as much as i ever did.
Its probably due to the fact that RPGs realy havent evolved that much in the years gone buy so you dont feel like youre putting up with flaws that have been long since eradicated through better design, which is one of my major frustrations with most of the non-rpg retro games.

 

[Murakami]

I still play Wip3Out...

 

[NERO]

Yes. But the point isn't if a game is old school or not, but whether it is a good game. The best ways to access "old school" games is to (1) download them on your console (Wii has the best selection), (2) get an emulator for your PC, and (3) get a Gamecube on the cheap with a Gameboy player. That said, if one is old enough to have played games in the 8/16 bit era through the current era, it is easy to point out limitations. The biggest difference between the old school and current era is difficulty, but the lack of indefinite continues, one hit death and general pit death gave those games an edge that many games today do not have. The incredible fear that stems from barely surviving a level only to have one life, one continue and a half bar of energy prior to a boss fight is something few games of the past two console cycles have recreated. The only game I can curreently think of, that gave me this fear/excitement is the obscenely difficult DMC3.

 

[Dregun]

I grew up playing the Atari 2600, 7800; Comodore, NES, Sega Master System and the like. I played the living sh*t out of those sytems and games and thought I was in high heaven..OMG the graphics in SMB3!!! I still feal the same way towards those games now as I did back in the day...until I play them.

Emulators or not, those games are very weak in todays standards and I'm not just talking about graphics or other hardware limitations either. What we consider shovelware today would compromise over 99% of the games from my past.

They didn't have much for a story and when they did have a story it was so weak and poorly thought out that trying to follow it ruined the experience. Now I'm not trying to crap all over the games of our past that I know some people still cherrish. Its just that really, when you look at those games with the same judgmental eye we have today they were very poor and basic shovelware that we all chewed right up!

In my opinion we have given way too much credit to the games of our past and do not give enough credit to the games being produced today and its quite sad. Now I'm not saying SMB3 was a bad game, but compared to Ratchet and Clank it lacks depth, story, difficulty (more then just reflexes) and an emotional connection with the characters. Did I care about the princess..no, I just wanted to beat the game. If someone bagged up SM3 with just better graphics it would get destroyed by reviewers, all the games of our bast with better graphics would get slammed so hard it would make Kane and Abel look like the Messiah of gaming.

Some games hold up to the test of time because they had a good story, you can forgive the graphics and other limitations because you enjoyed the game for the story and its journey. Unfortunatley most of the games I remember playing were nothing more then: Jump, Jump, fire, fire, fire, jump, run run, jump jump ..next level. I mean come on, we got the old school Arcade Hero's who still think games like Missle Command were the peak of gaming and everything released today is garbage.

I say leave the past were it belongs, in the past. If you don't enjoy what you have today then you will have nothing to look back on in the future.

 

[RudeCurve]

Shmups are timeless and I love playing them.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I grew up playing the Atari 2600, 7800; Comodore, NES, Sega Master System and the like. I played the living sh*t out of those sytems and games and thought I was in high heaven..OMG the graphics in SMB3!!! I still feal the same way towards those games now as I did back in the day...until I play them.

Emulators or not, those games are very weak in todays standards and I'm not just talking about graphics or other hardware limitations either. What we consider shovelware today would compromise over 99% of the games from my past.

This.

Nostalgia aside, the games are mostly horrific compared to today's standards.

Go back and try to play Pac-man. Sure, you can waste maybe 4 hours doing it. Then see if you want to spend another 4 hours playing Pac-man tomorrow.

I'll bet you won't, you'll have gotten it out of your system,
(and I'll bet it won't even take you 4 hours to do so).

Also, let's not forget there's a difference between old console games and old arcade games that are available on consoles.

The entire purpose of arcade games were to keep you feeding quarters into the machine. That's why you have to deal with things like artificial time constraints, because they didn't want to you succeed quickly or the first time.

Lots of arcade games have what we would call 'poor design' today, but were actually designed quite well to force failure yet not achieve frustration. Now that we don't have to deal with the constant 'insert quarter to continue' because of new "better" game designs, we get frustrated more easily when we see it.

My advice is to leave the past in the past. If you really want to try your hand at an old game, try to find a local arcade and spend a couple of bucks.

If you purchase these games and can play them at will through emulators or XBLA or the homebrew channel, with no replay constraints because of loss of quarters, you are just going to destroy your fondest memories.

 

[NERO]

Whoa folks

A good game is a good game, but of course that depends on your preferences past and current. My advice is that if a game falls in line with your preferences or is an earlier iteration of a franchise that you currently enjoy - give it a shot. I do agree with Rancid on the difference between enjoying arcade classics versus console classics, however I don't believe one should not attempt playing arcade classics altogether even if they were meant for the arcade. The only question is cost and most classic compilations are pretty cheap (or free).

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I've never played in a arcade so that is not my problem. I started out gaming on my snes (well, we had a atari 2600 before but I wont count that as the games are just to simplistic to stand the tooth of time). I still think there are 16bit games that still hold up pretty decent today. Maybe also because the 2d genre has pretty much died out. Some games now show some defects, like castlevania I mentioned it just doesnt always play nice. But others games still do. My main problem is that you can finish them to fast now. When I got DKC for VC I finished it in like 4.5 hours while I spend god knows how long on the game when I first got it on the snes. It doesnt have the same impact anymore as it had over 10 years ago. But as far as design and playability goes it still holds up pretty good.

I wish someone would start making true 2d games again. NSMB sold awsome so I'd think there is a market for it. Also the Castlevania DS games sold pretty good I think. Now they just need one for consoles. A full pixelart Mario or DKC on the wii, now that would be awsome.

 

[Npl]

Recently started playing Oddworld: Abe`s Oddysee again, and I come back to old Amiga Games now and then (Cannonfodder, Turrican, Lemmings, Wings and so on).

Some games still are great today, I think 3D-PSX games did suffer the most though. Even with Emulators that render everything at higher res, the edgy movement, disjointed and wobbling textures are very painful nowadays.

 

[Skrying]

Super Mario World. The best game ever made, and by a long shot in my opinion. Some say SMB3, but they're simply insane. Super Mario World is literally perfect. I play it all the time, I did another complete clear just a few weeks ago, loved every last bit. Other games have not aged as well, but Super Mario World is the exception... it got better.

 

[DeadlyNinja]

But some other games kinda piss me off. Im now playing castlevania and its so aggrevating that you have things like time (why is that there anyway?)

This is why today's gamers lose their skills or newer generations can't play old games. Back then, games required skills, not like today's games. This is why I find it mind-blowing that people consider the recent Castlevania Order of Ecclasia difficulty a joke, while others herald it as one of the hardest games out there. OOE is more of a joke compared to the older games. This is the reason I quickly lose interest in today's games. I don't even consider myself that good of a gamer, but my skills haven't degraded so badly that I would find Bioshock challenging.

This is also why old games are so playable. I just recently went back to play Ducktales on NES. The game is still damn good. Before Megaman 9, I went back and played all the NES Megamans to warm myself up. I thought MM1's controls were a bit too loose though. The thing with old games (well designed ones anyway) is that each and every step of the way is design to challenge you and test your skills. Order of Ecclasia's Training Hall is the only area in the entire game that tests those skills. Too bad the rest of the game wasn't designed like that.

I find it sad that with all the so called advance AI, games just get easier and easier to the point where an average at best player like myself don't find them challenging.

 

[function]

Back then, games required skills, not like today's games.

Back then games required more practice. Games nowadays require more skills. We're talking "in general" of course.

 

[joker454]

Those of you still playing the old games (psx/n64 and before) do you still enjoy the games?

I've been playing The Secret of Money Island, mostly because I couldn't use both hands for games lately due to some temporary medical issues. It's still surprisingly fun to play! I'll still play certain arcade games anytime I see them, like Robotron or Ghosts 'n Goblins. I don't think those games will ever get old to me, and they bring back great memories.

Super Mario World. The best game ever made, and by a long shot in my opinion. Some say SMB3, but they're simply insane.

Ooooh, getting into dangerous gray area here. I still look back more fondly at SMB3. The sheer scope and playability of that game was just unmatched by anything at the time in the console world. I'll agree that Super Mario World was a masterpiece though. I always thought Phantasy Star 1 on the SMS was incredible as well for it's time, but I haven't played it in over 20 years so who knows if it's held up.

I don't even consider myself that good of a gamer, but my skills haven't degraded so badly that I would find Bioshock challenging.

My skills have degraded over the years, but I think my patience has degraded far more. I finished Mega Man 1, Castlevania 1 and Blaster Master on the NES back in the day, but there's no way in heck I'd have that kinda patience now.

 

[Dregun]

I would say the type of difficulty between the 8-16bit generation and our current generation is based on "timing" more then anything else. Really the games didn't require problem solving in the way they do now, you just had to learn the timing to beat the game.

Lets take SMB, the majority of the difficulty was in navigating the course, jumping at the right time, for the right amount of hang time with the proper speed. Games like Ninja Gaiden allowed you to do some pretty crazy stuff if your thumbs were quick enough and that is what was required to beat the game. Todays games are different, although you still need to have some decent timing you also need to have problem solving skills. LBP requires you to "think" your way through each course, Uncharted required you to think your way through and even Halo required you to think your way through.

Mike Tysons punch out was a fun game, until you mastered it and realized it will never get harder. Everybody did the same routine over and over, once you memorized the routine and honed your playing style to match even Mike Tyson was a whimp. In todays games you don't have that luxury, with AI (even poor AI) the enemy reacts and engages differently. This has allowed for some people an easier playability because it doesn't require them to master only one form of attack. Yet for others it increased the difficulty because they couldn't master only one form of attack.

In my opinion games of the past were hard because they required:
Timing
Reflexes
Practice
Endurance
Rarley allowed for save points

Games of the present are hard because they require:
Problem solving
Button memorization (most games use every button available)
Precision (using analog sticks is much harder to be precise then using a D-Pad)
Button combinations (some games require certain sequences of button presses much more complicated then just A & B)
AI


This is some of the reasons why the Wii exists today, Nintendo thought the controllers were getting too complicated and wanted something easier to pick up and play. They also thought games were getting to complicated and wanted to focus back on the games of our past by making them more timing based. Motion controlls aside that is why I have always believed the Wii was moving backwards in the gaming world. It is even partly responsible for my dislike of the machine because I don't view it as a movement foward in gaming but a movement backwards to when Nintendo was king. Some might say it has payed off because they are making money hand over fist, well thats great if you own stock in the company. I prefer getting the best bang for my buck and to me, if one company is making profit off of the inital sale of the console while the other two are taking a loss means one company is taking people for a ride. Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft's financial success does not concern me when I buy one of thier products, it shouldn't matter to any consumer. It amazes me people are so accepting to the cost of the Wii when compared to the competition. I fear this is the start of the decline in the evolution of console gaming, as companies will look for the most profitible up front venture instead of long term investment and push for better technology.

Very sorry for my rant, I just get frustrated thinking about what the Wii's success means to the future of cutting edge gaming.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I think it really goes back to the fact that for even most of the early console games (non-RPG), they were based off the 'Arcade' model. That's all the developers knew to create.

So they were based on timing, practice, no save points, etc.

Then there was the shift to allowing save points, creativity, and improving the AI to increase difficulty (and to a lesser extent, replayability), because there was no cost involved (other than time) in getting timing & practice perfect.

In fact, what is often the biggest complaint for today's games? That the save points aren't frequent enough, that games are repetitive, that timing/position has to be perfect for a jump/shot/whatever.

The hallmarks of past games, which some are referring to as 'skill', are now seen as symptoms of poor game design.

 

[kyetech]

Super Mario World. The best game ever made, and by a long shot in my opinion. Some say SMB3, but they're simply insane. Super Mario World is literally perfect. I play it all the time, I did another complete clear just a few weeks ago, loved every last bit. Other games have not aged as well, but Super Mario World is the exception... it got better.

Asbsolutely 100% agree, I pick this game up at least once a year to complete all 96 levels.

The balance, game design, depth and replay factor simply has not been beaten by any other platformer... period. It is simply the most perfectly written and balanced game of all time. I cant big this up enough.

Every time I play this game I am in total admiration of its achievement.

 

[NERO]

Very sorry for my rant, I just get frustrated thinking about what the Wii's success means to the future of cutting edge gaming.

I understand your frustration, but (and I'm sure there's already a thread) what is the future of cutting edge gaming? I'm almost certain that the Wii's sucess means that there will be a wand in every box for the next gen not replacing every controller but suplementing them. There are better people on this forum than I to guess about the recent future of graphics, but it appears that we are getting diminshing returns and the new wave may be about controls. What is the logical projection in your opinion, more buttons?

 

[DeadlyNinja]

In fact, what is often the biggest complaint for today's games? That the save points aren't frequent enough, that games are repetitive, that timing/position has to be perfect for a jump/shot/whatever.

The hallmarks of past games, which some are referring to as 'skill', are now seen as symptoms of poor game design.

Maybe today's games without frequent save points are the ones that are poorly designed. That's why they're repetitive in the first place.

Nowadays, games put too much fluff and not enough substance. I mean, I think back about COD4's complaint about it being only 3 hours or so, but when it is in fact, much longer than most games back in the day. For a modern game, it feels like it's not enough due to it being extremely shallow. I can spend an hour in Ducktales on the NES and find a more satisfying experience than 3 hours of COD4.

Back then games required more practice. Games nowadays require more skills. We're talking "in general" of course.

Skills are only developed through practice. Be it sports, school, or gaming, the more your practice, the better you get. That's how it is. I know there are people who are naturally talented, but even they keep up with their practice to keep being good, or even better.