Hey guys,
I'm keen to hear from retro gamers for a feature I'm writing for The Age.
Respondants would only need to answer a few quick questions via email - it would probably only take 5 minutes of your time.
Many thanks,
Jason
Hi Jason
Count me in. I've helped you with a feature before, I think :) Gazunta@gazunta.com. I'm more retro than a big retro thing in a tank full of retro fish or something.
thanks :)
Cameron
That?s Easy
Cause they are so much FUN and still hold true today. Back in the days when graphics barely existed and epic cinematic stories spread over 12 DVD's weren?t even conceived we had simple little titles that concentrated on just pure fun game play mechanics. Titles that you could pick up and instantly play for enjoyment. No realistic physics.. No believable rag doll death animations... ahhhh the good ole days! When games were designed with a concentration on character abilities and fun mechanics as apposed to being designed, sadly to tie in with the companies latest tech development as most companies do today. In ten years time will you dust off Doom 3 and give it a go, probably not as its graphics will be dated and there is simply nothing underneath that to put a smile on your face. That?s why I still play the classics, for that quick burst of sheer fun without ever debating with a mate how the quasi parallax omni bump mapping doesn?t look detailed enough on the terrain.
2 beers = rant.
Hear hear!
I haven?t bought or played a new game in a long time (with the exception of Nintendo DS games, which i'll get into in a second), because I've played them all before. Lately I?ve been going back over my old SNES and NES (re-released on GBA because my NES doesn?t work like it used to) because they are just as good as (and often better than) any new game with the same (and often inferior) gameplay but with the next-gen of quasi parallax omni bump mapping whatever that Mik ranted on about. Which is why i buy DS games - they offer new gameplay, or at the very least, new spins on old gameplay. There is so much more that could be done with this medium, so why have we been mostly just re-inventing the same gameplay for the past 20 years?
I'm not getting an Xbox 360 - Perfect Dark Zero being case in point: an N64 turned GameCube turned Xbox turned Xbox 360 game, which in itself is a sequel to the successor of a first generation N64 title. It's freaking 10 year old gameplay with all new shiny plastic visuals! Could there be any better example of derogatory gameplay??
I rest my case.
2 beers = another rant (except I?ve been drinking good Queensland beer where as Mik's been into that VB rubbish)
quote:Originally posted by LiveWire
There is so much more that could be done with this medium, so why have we been mostly just re-inventing the same gameplay for the past 20 years?
The almighty buck. Little gameplay industry is coming of age and it seems we're rapidly moving into the hollywood blockbuster vs independant film kinda model. Die-hard film game fans will seek out the new, but the cinemas stores will be full of technically proficient but soulless unimaginative remakes. Playing retro games is just like watching old movies, you have a combination of nostalgia and the joy of watching/playing something that was well crafted on the day it was minted, and is still well crafted.
ObOnTopic, the last retro game I played (yesterday actually!) was [url="http://www.atariage.com/software_page.html?SystemID=2600&SoftwareLabelI…"]Chuck Norris Superkicks[/url] after seeing yet another email chain degrade into [url="http://www.chucknorris.com/html/events.aspx"]Chuck Norris [/url] territory.
Warning, old timer coming through [;)]
My main reasons for playing old classics from the C64, SNES, and early arcade era is due to their quick/easy pick up and play nature, and for nostalgia reasons.
A lot of the classics back then are really simple games that many people can pick up and understand straight away. They're also pretty short, and there are a fair few games that I remember which could be beaten even within half an hour (Commando (C64), Ghost 'n Goblins (C64) just to name 2 [;)]). For those of us who've grown up playing those games and don't have as much time to invest in modern games anymore, these retro games are nice quick alternatives to satisfy our gaming urges.
A big part of retro games appeal for me is for nostalgia reasons. It may be the music (and some of the most memorable game music is from those times, I reckon), the fun graphics, or the goals in the game that when reached, all of which let you relive some of the good times you've had when you were a kid.
I enjoy a quick blast on the retro games from time to time. I?ve often thought about why I find them so fun, but I?m not certain. I think a big part of it is definitely that the retro games tend to be largely simple action/response type things. Like you kind of play it on instinct, dodging out of the way of an approaching pixel blob, or timing your attack precisely to kill the bad guy. No deep level of thinking or problem solving, just instinctual play. At least this is the case with most of the retro games that I play. It?s certainly not true with all of them, such as RPG?s.
I think maybe this instinct idea for why retro games are so fun is very similar to why more modern FPS games are fun. I think possibly that any game, no matter how old or new, is highly enjoyable on a very basic instinctual level if the game draws on natural human instincts. Running into a room guns blazing and instinctually dodging enemy fire is exhilarating in a very similar way that flying your pixelated space craft into a blocky alien armada and dodging enemy fire is exhilarating. Not because of any sort of problem solving, but because of very simple gameplay tactics such as dodging and timing movements just right.
Okay, now this might be taking it a bit too deep, but thinking about the instinctual aspect of retro gameplay gives me an idea. I wonder if the reason these basic gameplay tactics in retro games are so enjoyable is because of some primeval instinct inherited from our evolution? I know, its way to philosophical, but it?s an interesting notion. In our evolution our ancestors developed a knack for escaping predators, right? They probably got a jolt of elation as they escape a predator. So could it be possible that this feeling has been passed on to us, and when we play a game that in some way mimics that primeval survival instinct, we also get a slight jolt of elation?
I?m not sure if I made any sense or not..
quote:
Do you think it matters if a current retro gamer plays games on the original console, or is it still considered the same thing if they are just playing the game emulated on their PC?
I used to play the old Atari a fair bit. Then I got a bunch of old Activision games on a PS2 compilation, and I was amazed at how much easier they were simply because of the modern controller. Playing on the dodgy old unresponsive Atari joystick certainly added to the challenge. But I think it?s more fun when you have a responsive controller, or keyboard for PC emulated games. It?s still good fun playing old games on the PC. I?m sure not going to pull out the old C64 anytime soon. Hmmm, Monte Mole, 40 minuets to load, or 4 seconds?
I think another big draw for retro games is their replayability factor. Even when you've completed them for the umpteen time, you still don't mind picking it up again for another run through. They're just fun to play.
I find that a lot of modern games, barring those with a multi-player only focus, I would never play again once I complete them. Games like Doom 3, Half Life 1 & 2, Call Of Duty, the Silent Hill's and Metal Gear Solid's. It's not that they're bad games (with exception to Doom3), but I think that when you've invested all the time to beat it and experienced all the game has to offer (the story, visuals, and challenges), the appeal to play it again just for the game mechanics isn't there anymore for me. I'd just prefer to wait for the next derivative to play through. [;)]
The stories in Retro games are either non-existant or as simple as you can get, so in contrast to modern games, they weren't a huge part of the appeal in playing those games..
yeah i agree.
just as as a disclaimer though, this post might not make much sense as i've been out all night drinking and i just got home and my flatmate is watching an episode of battlestar i havnt seen yet and i dont want to see it so i've come online.
ok.
i think retro games are so re-playable because they are so short and simple, designed to be replayed many times (they were arcade games afterall). Where as new games are designed as 40 hour + marathons designed to be completed one or twice
I'd say the first machines I played games on overlap with Souri,
although I never owned a C64 (had an Amstrad and Spectrum).
The C64 has really good sound for the time, and the ports to
other systems didn't match up in that department (although the
res was typically better). I think the first real game I played
was 'Elite' on the BBC Acorn.
Games from that era I feel personally were 'concentrated gameplay'
because you didn't have fancy graphics to fall back on - so gameplay
made or broke a title. The games were typically a lot harder and
didn't have save slots usually. Unlike modern desktop applications
the code had to be efficient both in time and space, since machines
had between 32k-128k of memory and processor speeds of 1-3.75mhz.
The most technologically advanced games on those platforms had filled,
flat shaded 3D. Isometric games were also popular. There were a lot
of 2D games.
As Souri mentioned earlier, replay value was also important, and
was typically part of the game's rating in reviews.
I?ve just started playing retro games again & I?d have to agree with just about everything that?s been said so far.
why do retro fans still find classic games appealing? So far we?ve talked about
*fun game play mechanics
*pick up and play
*nostalgia
*replay ability factor
*simple action/response gameplay
but what about things like
Co-op: double dragon! battle toads!! river city ransom!!!
game difficultly: games actually required some skill and had real consequences and rewards for your actions. Now you can just save before you come up to something difficult and keep replaying it until you get it right.
Rewarding gameplay: Back in the day it was an achievement to actually finish a game
I got [url="http://hardware.commodoreworld.com/default.aspx?i=3&s=products&p=52"]the C=64 one for christmas[/url] :)
Thanks for your help guys, the feature ran today and contains some familiar names - [url]http://www.theage.com.au/news/games/play-again/2006/03/01/1141095746591…]
There's also a companion piece about the demise of arcades at [url]http://www.theage.com.au/news/games/why-arcade-parlours-are-scoring-low…]
Cheers,
Jason
That was a great article on arcade game parlours. I'm surprised that Timezone still has outlets! I certainly remember them in their heyday.
I grew up in those years where arcade parlours extremely abundant. Near where I lived (back in the early 90's), Parramatta had over seven or eight arcade parlours. Four in close vincinity of Westfields, and there were plenty on the other side of the train station. Arcades were *everywhere*, and always bustling with activity.
In the city (Sydney), the parlours were much, much larger. I remember the one that opened up on George street which had two huge levels packed with so many arcade machines. You'd walk in and just be overwhelmed on what game to play first. It's still there now, but it's only a tiny fraction of it's former glory.
Does anyone remember Intencity? They sorta popped up after the peak of arcades had been reached and built all these elaborate outlets with special areas that had Virtual Reality rooms and sports areas. They tried to make it more family orientated and fun, and even opened up real late. I remember when they got staff to hold competitions, so in linked games like Daytona, the winner would get to stay on the next round for free. I managed to get plenty of free games that way [;)]
The excitement was initially there, but it just wasn't sustained. People just got bored of it pretty quickly.
Oh, and let's not talk about the disaster that was Sega World in Sydney. [;)]
It's interesting to read that arcade parlours are still quite popular in Japan. It's probably for the reason that LAI managing director Malcolm Steinberg mentioned in that article, where I think the arcades over there offer prizes and rewards, and so are perceived to be better value for players.
I'd be happy to participate in your your questions, I've played games as a religion since Atari days if thats far enough back for you.
Email addy is on my Profile.