Appeal of new 8-bit software.

[+Stephen]

I still don't believe it. I mean the original Wolfenstein was written for what...386 or 486? The 6502 in the Atari is a 1970s CPU. Orders of magnitude difference.

Check the programming forum for Project M 2.0. I also have a video of it running on my machine

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uupLVGm_lA

[emkay]

W1K playing the "secret Level" . on the real thing....

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obfXcjS5TYA

[emkay]

lol

 

[w1k]

ah that budgies.. now i record videos only when budgies sleep

[oky2000]

In response to the original question.

 

I think people who still follow their childhood favourite 8bit do like to see stuff BUT what is really divided is from which format users will pay for new homebrew.

 

I think one of the reasons A8 homebrew is so strong is most people don't mind if the game isn't free and they have to buy the complete version. On other formats people who write the games imply they don't sell much but people really bug them for a free download of the completed game.

 

I have 1 C64 game I want to finish and also 4 Amiga games I want to finish. I don't know if I would give them away though. I don't see the point in writing non commercial quality games so from my point of view they are worth a few euros at least. Ho hum.

[potatohead]

Well, the point of non commercial quality games is to advance one's skills toward the state of the art. If programming is fun at all, there's the point of it right there.

[ledzep]

For me the appeal of new 8-bit games is the same it always was, 30 years ago or today. Why, just becuase technology has made games much more sophisticated on new technology (and I enjoy the latest games on new tech too), should it make new games on old, less sophisticated systems of years passed any less enjoyable?

 

Why, just because they are new games on old tech should they be any less fun to play than new games were years ago when the the old tech was new? I still enjoy playing chess, and it's an ancient game. Is chess only fun to play now with 3D graphics on the latest PC? People still like board games, even though they rely on no technology at all. Baseball and Football have been around for 100-200 years, but they are even more popular today than ever! Old does not equal bad or boring!!!

 

We have tons of interactive media, but billions of people world-wide still enjoy non-interactive movies, new or classic, or even classic books (whether in books or on a Nook or other electronic tablet). are new books only good if read on technolgoy instead in a bound book? So why should it be any different than playing new games on old systems?

 

Personally I think it's all in people's heads. They have been brain-washed by the industry and media into thinking it's only good if it is on the latest technology. If more people would give old tech a chance, they too would realize it's still good too.

 

I see this mostly the same way. If it was good then, why shouldn't it still be good now? Now, that's a bit subjective, some things (disco) were abominations and thank Odin they're gone. But other things stand the test of time so why not still like them?

 

Much of my liking of 8-bit software is, honestly, because I grew up with it, it's what I got used to. Atari and Vectrex games meant the world to me back then and hold a special place with me to this day. I very much doubt that if were born today and never laid eyes on 8-bit software until I became an adult 20 years from now that I would be compelled to like any of it or seek it out or try to re-invent it or even understand why anyone would give a damn about it. It's how I feel about '50s-era pop music, it is horrible and I can't believe anyone could like that stuff and I wouldn't care if I never heard any of it again. But people who grew up with that music love it. Same goes for the 8-bit games.

 

Part of what I like about 8-bit games (not including 8-bit word processors and art programs and such because those are miserable failures compared to what's currently available) is the fact that since the graphics were, for the most part, laughably primitive and incapable of representing reality, the programmers had to concentrate on making the action playable and fun and interesting. Simple rules, simple goals. Asteroids and Star Castle can go on forever doing the same thing. Xevious takes a while to go through the entire land but it's just super Galaxian. But I'm a big twitch/shooter game fan so I'm biased. Sure, if you made Dig Dug today you could render everything practically photoreal and it might look like real dirt with real beings being blown up by real guys in vacc suits. So what, I never cared that Pole Position didn't look like a live-action race or that Tempest didn't represent anything real, I loved the gameplay and the difficulty levels. Defender supplies more than enough blocky 8-bit shapes to convince you that you're seeing a spaceship flying over ground rescuing humans and killing aliens, nothing would be gained by adding 64-bit graphics but everything would be lost if the action changed. Vector graphics are even worse, wire-frame shapes moving around other wire-frame shapes? But the gameplay of Battlezone and Star Trek is unmatched... if you like that kind of gameplay. If you're into RPGs or first-person perspective combat shooters with realistic texture maps and interactive lighting then all the 8-bit games suck.

 

Another part of what I like about them is due to nostalgia. I see those games, I see just the packaging, and I feel like a kid again. It applies to original Hot Wheels (before they ruined them), LEGO sets, WB and MGM cartoons, all of that stuff. One of the cool things about new homebrew games is that it allows me to feel that "oh boy, a new game came out" rush again, like when I first owned an Atari 2600 (and, later, an Atari 800) and went to the store to buy a game for it. Now I have a Vectrex and Atari 5200 as well so that's 4 separate ways to experience that feeling again when someone makes a new homebrew game. I mean, the Crash wasn't necessary, those systems could have survived longer than 1984 and some company could have released a "real" Warrior for the Vectrex or an official Warlords for the 5200, right? So we had to wait 20+ years, big deal. It is for that reason that I very very very much prefer homebrews released as physical carts with boxes and manuals, so it's exactly like when new games came out in stores back in the day. It also explains my love of the new Camaros, Challengers and Mustangs even if they're not as cool as the original '60s/'70s versions, the nostalgia pull still works because they finally got close enough to that ideal.

 

I think the OP would get a truer, unbiased answer if he were to ask the question only to 8-bit software fans who didn't grow up with 8-bit games and only got into them later in life so nostalgia and familiarity couldn't play into the answer.

[oky2000]

I think the OP would get a truer, unbiased answer if he were to ask the question only to 8-bit software fans who didn't grow up with 8-bit games and only got into them later in life so nostalgia and familiarity couldn't play into the answer.

 

Surely there are more people using this stuff/emulation who owned them (any retro 8bit/16bit machine) in the 80s than new comers?

[flashjazzcat]

Part of what I like about 8-bit games (not including 8-bit word processors and art programs and such because those are miserable failures compared to what's currently available) is the fact that since the graphics were, for the most part, laughably primitive...

 

You probably inadvertently nailed part of the appeal right there. One man's "laughably primitive" and "miserable failure" is another man's unique and abstract, utilitarian and uncluttered. How many people have dumped MS Word for something much simpler because they only use five percent of Word's functionality? And as for computer art programs: computer art is now effectively photo processing. The tremendous appeal of retro computer art is discussed at length elsewhere. I suppose success or failure needs to be quantified by the task at hand. And here speaks someone who wrote his dissertation using TextPro on the A8 and printed it using Daisy Dot II - and had no complaints!

Edited May 18, 2012 by flashjazzcat

[ledzep]

I think the OP would get a truer, unbiased answer if he were to ask the question only to 8-bit software fans who didn't grow up with 8-bit games and only got into them later in life so nostalgia and familiarity couldn't play into the answer.

 

Surely there are more people using this stuff/emulation who owned them (any retro 8bit/16bit machine) in the 80s than new comers?

 

Oh, no doubt. But those previous owners would have a nostalgia/familiarity bias like I do and I am guessing most others do. "I remember it as a kid," "It was my favorite," "My parents never bought me one but always wished I had one," "Those games got me into video games," etc. It would be hard to get a true reason for the appeal for new 8-bit software from people who were driven by nostalgia.

 

On the other hand, people who grew up after 8-bit computers and consoles were long gone and only knew 32 and 64-bit gaming wouldn't have that bias to contend with. If some of those people, who grew up with Sega Saturns, Playstations and Nintendo 64s, finally laid their eyes on old 8-bit software and fell in love, thought those were the best and so much better than 32 and 64-bit games, and decided they had to have them even though they grew up with much more powerful systems and games, then you would have a fan source that would be viewing 8-bit stuff from "the outside". They would see the appeal of 8-bit software as 8-bit software, not as part of their childhoods or some memory trigger of favorite times of their lives.

 

As I said, part of what I like about 8-bit games is that they were so primitive in looks and in processor power that they had to have great gameplay. Without that it was a disaster. But I also know that much of the appeal, for me, is due to nostalgia and growing up with those systems.

[Gunstar]

Part of what I like about 8-bit games (not including 8-bit word processors and art programs and such because those are miserable failures compared to what's currently available) is the fact that since the graphics were, for the most part, laughably primitive...

 

You probably inadvertently nailed part of the appeal right there. One man's "laughably primitive" and "miserable failure" is another man's unique and abstract, utilitarian and uncluttered. How many people have dumped MS Word for something much simpler because they only use five percent of Word's functionality? And as for computer art programs: computer art is now effectively photo processing. The tremendous appeal of retro computer art is discussed at length elsewhere. I suppose success or failure needs to be quantified by the task at hand. And here speaks someone who wrote his dissertation using TextPro on the A8 and printed it using Daisy Dot II - and had no complaints!

 

I still used Atari Writer and Textpro up to about a year ago, for my wordprocessing needs (high school in the 80's, college in the nintees and the "great american novel" in the 2000's). Recently I upgraded to The Last Word and with my extended memory, fast I/O and great 1200XL keyboard, I love it. I have yet to find something I have ever used on Microsoft Word or WordStar (I've used them professionally on the job for years), that I can't also do with The Last Word processor. It's a "new" app for an old 8-bit system.

[JamesD]

There are thee reasons 8 bit software appeals to me.

 

Playability, and replay-ability are the main reasons though.

 

When I buy a modern game, initial retail is $50 or more. The vast majority have play mechanics issues of some sort, cheating AI, and it only takes me two or three days to get through. If I play through again, there isn't a huge difference no matter what I do and it's just not as fun. That's why I wait for most titles to hit $20.

 

When I buy a new 8 bit game, the vast majority are very playable, and most are as fun to play the 50th time as the first.

 

I also get a kick out of seeing the old hardware do new things. The new hardware is supposed to do pretty 3D and everyone does it. Sure I like 3D... except for that whole run around in the dark so you can't see anything modern game designers always seem to want to put you through. Was PAC-MAN in the dark? NO! Defender? NO! In fact, I'm pretty sure I can see where the hell I'm going in all the old titles! Dumbest freakin' idea ever. Why waste a bajillion hours and millions of dollars on level design when you can't see it?

Edited May 18, 2012 by JamesD

[sack-c0s]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK7pfLlsUQM

 

I enjoyed that film, and I wasn't around in the 1930s. I assume 99% of the cinema weren't either.

The thing with 'The Artist' is you need to see it in a cinema - the retro style and the experience of seeing it in that way is part of the overall feel of the thing and is why it works.

 

Now if someone doesn't understand why you have a C64/Atari/Spectrum/Amiga/etc. set up aruond the house replace 'film' with 'game', 'silent movie' with your genre of choice, and 'cinema' with 'original hardware' and you get a pretty reasonable way of explaining things.

[Fox-1 / mnx]

Was PAC-MAN in the dark? NO!

 

"If Pacman had affected us as kids we'd be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music." (Marcus Brigstocke)