How 2600 reaches 90s when better consoles fail

[BassGuitari]

I must be a fossil from an era I don't even belong to; the short play time of arcade-style games is one reason I actually prefer games from the '70s-90s. Who even has time to play a 30- or 40- or whatever-hour game?

My idea of a long game is something like Resident Evil 2. My idea of a really long game is Resident Evil 4 or Half-Life. I feel like the PSX/N64/Dreamcast era really hit the sweet spot in the Game Length:Actually Have Time For This Shit ratio.

[+wongojack]

I must be a fossil from an era I don't even belong to; the short play time of arcade-style games is one reason I actually prefer games from the '70s-90s. Who even has time to play a 30- or 40- or whatever-hour game?

 

My idea of a long game is something like Resident Evil 2. My idea of a really long game is Resident Evil 4 or Half-Life. I feel like the PSX/N64/Dreamcast era really hit the sweet spot in the Game Length:Actually Have Time For This Shit ratio.

 

I don't "have time for this shit," so I've had to think about modern games as a similar time commitment to reading a book (which is an interesting observation considering how movie-like they are compared to past eras). Do people still read books even though they take a long time? - YES. Do I read more than 100 books a year and keep up with every NY Times best seller? - No, and I will die before I read them all.

 

Same with modern games. You have to figure out how to get 45-90 minute play sessions in for X number of days. There's also a moment typically where you need to decide if it is worth it to keep playing or reading. Sometimes it is just better to quit.

[+KaeruYojimbo]

Whether bigger games are better or not is purely subjective. Some people like them and they exist for those people to play. Something to keep in mind is that some of the games that most often appear on lists of the best 2600 games are Pitfall II, Solaris and HERO, games that, while pick up and play by modern standards, are "big" by 2600 standards.

[Flojomojo]

I like short game sessions (like 80s arcade games), and I also like a sense of progression (which comes from being able to save your game). I am unsure how I feel about "finishing" a game (which wasn't really a thing until Famicom/NES).

 

So my main games these days are on mobile. Short sweet action/puzzle type things. "Social RPGs" where you check in and level up a tiny bit each day. Nothing that makes me sit in front of a screen for 2 hours at a time or make me forget what I was doing when I take a long break. Downside: they're kinda endless treadmills, and will (gradually) consume infinite time and money if you let them. I figure that if a game holds my attention, it deserves a bit of my cash.

[Raticon]

One does not necessarily exclude the other for me. A game like Skyrim or Far Cry 4 for example has a gazillion quests, places to go, people to talk to and stuff to explore. It's less a matter of finishing it and more a matter of having a world to return to for a long time when one wants it.

 

But then there's days where I can't be arsed to go into those kind of worlds, when I'm too tired or not in the mood. There is the perfect moment to dig into my stack of 2600-games or hook up any one of the Flashbacks I have and enjoy 30 minutes or an hour of Inty or Colecovision to enjoy some arcade action.

 

Having long and massive games is just another step forwards in gaming I believe. Even some games from the NES and SNES era has some staggering length to them. Chrono Trigger comes immediately to mind, and do not forget some of the early text adventures and RPGs that came for the 8-bit computers way back. If one could make a massive RPG for the 2600 back in the day I'm positive it would have been done by someone.

[Flojomojo]

One does not necessarily exclude the other for me. A game like Skyrim or Far Cry 4 for example has a gazillion quests, places to go, people to talk to and stuff to explore. It's less a matter of finishing it and more a matter of having a world to return to for a long time when one wants it.

 

Yup. I'm finding that the biggest time sinks of all, MMOs, are actually super casual and kinda fun. I know that Elder Scrolls games like Skyrim are quite similar ... I bought Skyrim AGAIN, this time on Switch, for the promise of getting hooked in a good way.

[vidak]

Yeah, I guess I am pretty moralistic about games.

 

The first thought I had to reply to this was that games are now becoming mixed with insidious forms of behavioural science which causes you to become addicted, but that's not really a new phenomenon at all. Games even before the semiconductor era were designed to addict and manipulate people, so such an issue is not even unique to the modern age.

 

I still have this hunch that something has gone wrong with modern home gaming. Maybe despite by radical politics I'm fairly traditionalist about my video game aesthics. I do concede that open world games aren't a terrible genre.

I suppose it's not the aesthetics of modern gaming I have an issue with, but the way they're socially deployed. I guess I have to think more about this.

Edited December 6, 2017 by vidak

[Keatah]

Beginning with the 8-bit era like Apple II and Kim-1 and other single-board computers all the way up to and through the Pentium III era I felt that most games were an art form. I envisioned the designers and developers having fun making something I would be having fun playing.

 

Sometime in 2006-2008 I felt that monetization took over. Games became a vehicle and a way into your wallet. Unabashed. Unabated. And it has been getting worse.

[high voltage]

Atari games take long time, it took my wife seven hours (with breaks) to finish River Raid, and after finishing you knew that you've accomplished something and you felt great

Edited December 6, 2017 by high voltage

[Jim Pez]

if you love the VB just get an oculus rift and the VB emulator.

[vidak]

Beginning with the 8-bit era like Apple II and Kim-1 and other single-board computers all the way up to and through the Pentium III era I felt that most games were an art form. I envisioned the designers and developers having fun making something I would be having fun playing.

 

Sometime in 2006-2008 I felt that monetization took over. Games became a vehicle and a way into your wallet. Unabashed. Unabated. And it has been getting worse.

I agree with this.

[vidak]

Like today, I invited a friend over to play some Sega Megadrive, and as it came close to a certain hour we had to break from playing so he could log into his MMORPG and "collect some items".

 

I thought it was really bizarre that you'd pause a social interaction with a friend in order to log into your virtual life and do something at some scheduled hour.

 

It seemed like the game was work, something you show up on time for. The game was playing HIM, really.

[NE146]

I don't have time either.. I play Call of Duty which I guess is "modern", but multiplayer matches last an average of 10 minutes at a time. So it's pretty easy to pick up and play a quick round and you're done.

 

Else for long games I find I have to relegate it to handhelds since the only time I have to play them in depth is on the crapper. That short window for gameplay means it takes me a LONG time to go through games. I've been playing Pokemon Fire Red for maybe 5 months now and I'm probably only about 70% of the way through it.

Edited December 12, 2017 by NE146

[Jinks]

Cause atari rules!

And the other consoles sucked.

What else do you need to know.

[zzip]

I must be a fossil from an era I don't even belong to; the short play time of arcade-style games is one reason I actually prefer games from the '70s-90s. Who even has time to play a 30- or 40- or whatever-hour game?

 

I'm convinced it's the guys with no jobs and play games all day. They get very angry if a game is shorter than 30 hours or so, and claim they are being ripped off. Companies try to avoid pissing them off, so they pad out their games to keep them happy and avoid the kind backlash that EA is getting right now.

 

Me? I don't have time for many long games. It takes me weeks or even months to get through them with only an hour or two max each day. When I heard Witcher 3 had 200+ hours of content, I decided not to buy. I don't care how great it's supposed to be, I don't have time for that kind of commitment.

[+GoldLeader]

Yeah, I guess I am pretty moralistic about games.

 

The first thought I had to reply to this was that games are now becoming mixed with insidious forms of behavioural science which causes you to become addicted, but that's not really a new phenomenon at all. Games even before the semiconductor era were designed to addict and manipulate people, so such an issue is not even unique to the modern age.

 

I still have this hunch that something has gone wrong with modern home gaming. Maybe despite by radical politics I'm fairly traditionalist about my video game aesthics. I do concede that open world games aren't a terrible genre.

 

I suppose it's not the aesthetics of modern gaming I have an issue with, but the way they're socially deployed. I guess I have to think more about this.

 

 

Like today, I invited a friend over to play some Sega Megadrive, and as it came close to a certain hour we had to break from playing so he could log into his MMORPG and "collect some items".

 

I thought it was really bizarre that you'd pause a social interaction with a friend in order to log into your virtual life and do something at some scheduled hour.

 

It seemed like the game was work, something you show up on time for. The game was playing HIM, really.

 

Ya know...I was trying to go all day without thinking...Then I re-read your posts and they made me think, so...Cut it out!

[tbb033]

I have the same question about the GameBoy. Terrible system, and yet it crushed the Lynx and all other comers in the North American market. See? Rarely does the "best" tech translate into the highest sales.

Gameboy had a huge advantage in battery life. You could play it for a week while Lynx or GameGear you'd get a few hours if you were lucky.

[Andromeda Stardust]

Gameboy had a huge advantage in battery life. You could play it for a week while Lynx or GameGear you'd get a few hours if you were lucky.

+infinity.

 

Is it just me, but do modern Rayovac alkalines kast longer in a Lynx I than vintage 1990s Duracel/Energizer? I think I've changed my batts twice since last summer. Or maybe I'm not playing enough Lynx games?

[Jinks]

Rayovac suck. Duracell is the best. Nobody tops the copper top.

Everready are absolute shite.

[Cynicaster]

I must be a fossil from an era I don't even belong to; the short play time of arcade-style games is one reason I actually prefer games from the '70s-90s. Who even has time to play a 30- or 40- or whatever-hour game?

 

 

 

Precisely what I was going to say. I am starting to kind of feel like a broken record with this point because I bring it up all the time when modern games are discussed, but it's hard not to bring it up because it is a very real-world incompatibility between modern games and the busy adult life.

 

I guess you can say that if something is important enough to you, you will "somehow" find time for it. I think for most of us, the only "somehow" available is to attempt to play the games in little chunks of 45 minutes or so, and I used this approach for a few games in the PS3 era. What I found was that, in games like those, with all the time spent waiting for loading, cut scenes, updates, and all of the time it can take to just slowly roam through big open worlds, etc., 45 minutes to an hour is simply not enough for a satisfying session. You feel like you're at a fancy restaurant waiting for this epic meal, and you're only allowed to nibble at your salad before you've got to get up and leave because you have to be at a meeting. I did 2-3 AAA games like that before I just said screw it... haven't attempted one since.

 

I agree that the online multi-player "death match" type games, at 10 minutes or so per match, may on the surface seem like an ideal option for short sessions. And I have played those, too. The problem is, I'll be in there with my "45 minutes per day" skills getting utterly shellacked by some prepubescent kid or some unemployed basement-dweller who hasn't changed his underwear in 3 days because he's been playing for 72 hours straight. It's just not remotely fun getting beaten that badly with no realistic hope of fighting back.

 

With classic games, assuming you enjoy the games (as I do), you can get a pretty satisfying little session going with just 45-60 minutes -- for me, it's the perfect little dash of "me time" at the end of my day, and the only form I realistically see gaming taking for me going forward.

[Osgeld]

I know the feeling but I also know there's these things called saves, its not like sonic the hedgehog where you have to go from start to finish in one go, I can play massive games, and it might take me a year to do so thanks to work, home life, and kids

Edited December 30, 2017 by Osgeld

[AW127]

The "problem" i have with some of the modern games is not, that the gaming-session to finish such a game is so long (cause you can often save the gamestate or use a password to go on from a certain point), it`s more the fact, that some of these games are so complicated, that you first must read big manuals and try around for some days to just know, how the game really works and whats about. And this often kills my fun before i even start with such a game, especially when it comes to roleplaying-games or strategic-games.

 

It´s normal, that training is necessary for being good in a game, this is the same in retro games, but in the most older games, it`s clear from the beginning on, what goes on and what`s the aim. Getting better in steering and remembering the ways that the enemy-sprites walk then is not a problem at all for me and makes fun. But when i first must read a 100-side manual-book, just to know what a new game is about and how to play it, then my motivation goes down. Playing should be fun and not "working", cause when i come home from my work, i want to play to zone out.

 

Don`t understand me wrong, there are some really superb modern games around, which i like alot. For example, i could not stop playing "Resident Evil 4" (cause this game was mentioned before in the thread) on my Gamecube when i started playing, cause this game fascinates me so much, that i played for about 2 hours every day for some weeks, until i completely finished it (without any cheats and so on). Great game and it`s easy to come in. Not easy to play it good, but this then comes by it`s own when you play longer. Important is, that it`s easy to come into the game and for this "Resident Evil 4" is a rolemodel how it should be done in modern games. Sadly this can not be said from all modern games, but there are also some around which i like alot. "Forza 7" on the PC is another modern one that i really like. Graphic in this game is extremely realistic and superb to play on a big screen with a quality-steering-wheel. And here it`s the same like in RE4, for playing it good it needs experience and training, but it makes fun from the beginning on.

 

But i think, when i had to choose to give up playing modern or retro gaming, i would choose giving up modern gaming. I just like my favourites on Atari2600, Amiga, C64, SNES, Mega-Drive to much. Maybe also because i played them since childhood on. But i can understand that the most children, which starts playing now, are more fascinated by modern games with all those fotorealistic graphics and so on. Depends with which you grown up i suppose.

 

Just my thoughts on the whole thing.

[Osgeld]

I have not seen a big manual since the 90's and lets face it the most complicated games are based on a stat's system that anyone that has ever played a pen and paper game could figure out in 20 min, let alone someone completely new to a genera could figure out in an hour or 2

 

if you dont like old games its ok you dont have to make up a quarter page dissertation about it, but new games in their elaborate complexity are made for a 12 year old with a C average intelligence, and on the flip side there are plenty of old games that sucked way much more time and effort than anything new (I saw my bankers box of ultima maps drawn in graph paper notebooks, and my 2 inch thick 1990 world almanac for where in the world is carmen sandiego on the apple II)

 

that's kind of my problem with arcade style games, they provide me with enjoyment, until I die then I move on, just like they did when they ate my quarters, I am not going to spend half a night and a roll of quarters getting HS on space invaders, when after a few rounds its a tedious chore

Edited December 30, 2017 by Osgeld

[AW127]

if you dont like old games its ok you dont have to make up a quarter page dissertation about it...

 

I said the opposite when you read my text. I wrote, that i like older games more, cause the aim of those games are much more clear and you can start playing such games in minutes without studying a

 

if you dont like old games its ok you dont have to make up a quarter page dissertation about it, but new games in their elaborate complexity are made for a 12 year old with a C average intelligence...

 

Depends extremely on the kind of games. I wrote about new strategy- and roleplaying-games and not about a funracer or a simple third-person-shooter in which you only have to kill the others. In such games, you can start playing directly and improving with training, but playing some of the more complex strategy-games, often assume to read bigger manuals and this simply kills my motivation often. And how long i write my "disertation" about a subject, is a thing you don`t have to think about, cause a forum is about writing entries and oppinions. If an entry don`t interest me, i simply don`t read it. You can do the same.

 

I saw my bankers box of ultima maps drawn in graph paper notebooks, and my 2 inch thick 1990 world almanac for where in the world is carmen sandiego on the apple II)

 

This is true. This is where it starts. In the early 90`s, it starts that games becoming more complex and new game-genres appears, which seems to need bigger explanations to the users or bigger manuals. Before, it was different. I have here also some few Amiga-originals which have bigger manuals and where it needs time to get deeper into the game, but this was the exception at that time. When you look at the gamerange of 16bit consoles or computers like Amiga, Atari-ST, SNES, Mega-Drive, PC-Engine and so on, then 90% of these games had much shorter manuals, than games from the later era or from today. Like i said, it depends alot on the genre, but in the whole, games are getting much more complex today and as well their manuals. It`s a kind of normal development and it's a different type of playing. Not that it would be to complicated, to manage some modern strategy-games when they interested me. I did it with some newer games and it's possible of course when you deal with it properly, but for me then this often can be a hassle and i have no fun then. And gaming should be fun it's a freetime-hobby. Here i have my 42 hours-week in my normal work and when i come home, i want to play for fun and fore this, retro-games often are much more suitable in my experience. I don't say, that everybody sees it the same way, but when i read some entries here in the thread, i think that i am not the only one with this oppinion.

 

that's kind of my problem with arcade style games, they provide me with enjoyment, until I die then I move on, just like they did when they ate my quarters, I am not going to spend half a night and a roll of quarters getting HS on space invaders, when after a few rounds its a tedious chore

 

For me, it`s totally different at this point. When i play an Arcade-game that i like (and i like alot of them), in which the aim and all the steering is clear, then often it's my motivation to improve, kill more enemys in shorter time, mastering difficult positions in a level without loosing a life and so on. And i often dont need much quarters to strongly improve on some arcade-machines back in time. My friends sometimes was pissed, when they must wait cause i wanted to play a game to the end. Later i often had the home-versions of those games and maybe this was the reason, why i mostly won against my friends back in the days on Atari2600, C64 or Amiga.

 

So this shows, how different people can see gaming and types of games.

[NE146]

 

The problem is, I'll be in there with my "45 minutes per day" skills getting utterly shellacked by some prepubescent kid or some unemployed basement-dweller who hasn't changed his underwear in 3 days because he's been playing for 72 hours straight.

 

I know that's the standard belief.. but how do you know you're not getting shellacked by another 45 minute per day busy working dad?