How do you play old games ?

[sut]

May seem a silly question, but let me explain.

 

Ive been into retro-gaming for a while, but mainly NES onwards. I've recently taken an interest in the really early period Atari 2600, Channel F, Odyssey 2 etc. But with no way to actually 'beat' these games I'm finding it a strange experience.

 

I know there is a beat your high score to slot of these games, but how long do you run with that for 3 goes ? 50 goes ? A weeks playing time ?

 

I would add this interest was ignited by Atari Anthology on PS2 as I've often ignored games from this era, I really enjoyed the games on there but the compilation sets you objectives and goals in the form if unlockables. I just can't seem to get the same fulfillment by playing to an undetermined goal.

 

I may simply be too conditioned to the desire to finish games and 'put them to bed' so to speak.

[hex65000]

I would add this interest was ignited by Atari Anthology on PS2 as I've often ignored games from this era, I really enjoyed the games on there but the compilation sets you objectives and goals in the form if unlockables. I just can't seem to get the same fulfillment by playing to an undetermined goal.

 

I may simply be too conditioned to the desire to finish games and 'put them to bed' so to speak.

You might try competing in some of the High Score Clubs on Atari Age. That'll give you a goal. I did it once for a game I liked and it was a blast.

 

As for the never ending aspect of many Atari games, I would agree that it's a conditioning thing. A lot of games have an ending and you want to see it, or at least have the bragging rights of being able to say "I got to the end." I honestly can't think of a modern game that has a full on endless aspect to it. Sure there are a few 'endless mode' remixes, but I can't think of a proper "endless" modern game right now.

 

So yeah, I'd suggest checking out the high score club forums and enjoy yourself.

 

Hex.

[ Suspects that a lot of coffee will be needed on this day... ]

[HatefulGravey]

May seem a silly question, but let me explain.

 

Ive been into retro-gaming for a while, but mainly NES onwards. I've recently taken an interest in the really early period Atari 2600, Channel F, Odyssey 2 etc. But with no way to actually 'beat' these games I'm finding it a strange experience.

 

I know there is a beat your high score to slot of these games, but how long do you run with that for 3 goes ? 50 goes ? A weeks playing time ?

 

I would add this interest was ignited by Atari Anthology on PS2 as I've often ignored games from this era, I really enjoyed the games on there but the compilation sets you objectives and goals in the form if unlockables. I just can't seem to get the same fulfillment by playing to an undetermined goal.

 

I may simply be too conditioned to the desire to finish games and 'put them to bed' so to speak.

 

Like Hex said, the highscore clubs are a great way to add something to the game.

 

Personally I play all my games for a while when I get them and the ones I play often stand out in the short testing period. There is normally something about the challenge that I like, or maybe a gameplay aspect that is different that draws me in. I start playing it because I like the way it plays and before long I find myself writing down highscores and taking notes no what patterns come up at certain levels and so on.

 

While there is no "end" to a lot of these games there is a next level. From one level to another the difficulty can jump from simple to impossible on some games. Just seeing how fast the bombs fall in Kaboom!'s next level is amazing to me.

[BydoEmpire]

Not having an end is really one of the big draws of the older games for me. It keeps them endlessly fun for me, because you can always do just a little bit better. A lot of the fun for me is in playing the game - trying to survive, to learn the AI, to get that perfect shot, to score a bonus, etc - with scores as almost a secondary motivator. It's not about a goal or the reward it's about playing the game - the mechanics, the action, the hand-eye coordination. It's also less of a time commitment to get that enjoyment. With games that have an ending I kind of feel like it's not worth my time if I don't finish, but I know ahead of time there's no way I'm going to commit the time necessary to finish it, so I don't even start. There are exceptions, of course, I do play the odd platformer or adventure game just to check it out, but I do think twice before spending time w/ a game I know I'll never finish. Just my 2c, but that's how and why I play the older games.

 

The Atari Age HSC's are a lot of fun as well if you want some competition.

[sut]

I think another interesting aside in the evolution of games is that these early games carried on until they beat you, but who likes losing right ? Perhaps that's why they evolved into games you can beat ?

 

It feels good to complete a game, doesn't feel good to lose a game. Perhaps it's that streak games appeal to.

 

I'll have a look at the Atari Age HSC's and see what I would be up against :-)

[HatefulGravey]

I think another interesting aside in the evolution of games is that these early games carried on until they beat you, but who likes losing right ? Perhaps that's why they evolved into games you can beat ?

 

It feels good to complete a game, doesn't feel good to lose a game. Perhaps it's that streak games appeal to.

 

I'll have a look at the Atari Age HSC's and see what I would be up against :-)

 

You are up against me, and that isn't much to be up against. I certainly only play because I like to, winning isn't really an option for me in there, but its a lot of fun, and you will learn a lot about how to play older games for scores.

 

I went back recently and played the Mega Man games on NES. I used to play through those like it was nothing, now they kick my butt. They are much harder then modern games. That must have been a gap between games you can't beat because they have no end, and the games we play now. Mega Man had an end, but getting there is a pain in the butt! Kids these days have no idea what a hard game is.

[sut]

I know what you mean I had an Atari ST and I think I finished 3 games ! But it was my choice to give up and concede the game beat me. I can still recall when I finally got 100% on Gran Turismo 3 on PS2 after spending weeks on a time trail (can't remember the track name, but it was the really windy one where you drive a Lotus) I danced around the room like I won the world cup ! I just enjoy that feeling. But hell yeah games have definitely gotten easier, personally I think the PS1/Saturn/N64 generation got the difficulty balance about right tough but achievable.

[FastRobPlus]

May seem a silly question, but let me explain.

 

Ive been into retro-gaming for a while, but mainly NES onwards. I've recently taken an interest in the really early period Atari 2600, Channel F, Odyssey 2 etc. But with no way to actually 'beat' these games I'm finding it a strange experience.

 

I know there is a beat your high score to slot of these games, but how long do you run with that for 3 goes ? 50 goes ? A weeks playing time ?

 

I would add this interest was ignited by Atari Anthology on PS2 as I've often ignored games from this era, I really enjoyed the games on there but the compilation sets you objectives and goals in the form if unlockables. I just can't seem to get the same fulfillment by playing to an undetermined goal.

 

I may simply be too conditioned to the desire to finish games and 'put them to bed' so to speak.

 

I bring the system to work and let everybody play. Certain games (like Yoomp! and International Karate) attract a following of folks trying to set a high score.

It may help to work for a videogame company.

[Petran79]

I went back recently and played the Mega Man games on NES. I used to play through those like it was nothing, now they kick my butt. They are much harder then modern games. That must have been a gap between games you can't beat because they have no end, and the games we play now. Mega Man had an end, but getting there is a pain in the butt! Kids these days have no idea what a hard game is.

 

I find it a paradox that a kid today can play a fps game flawlessly with a dual analog joystick (something i am incompetent), yet finds big trouble in an old platformer with a simple joystick.

 

I tried to play world end on atari and the game after 20 years looks ultra hard. Yet i reached stage 6 but now cant pass beyond 4.

[Pixelboy]

I may simply be too conditioned to the desire to finish games and 'put them to bed' so to speak.

I understand on a very personal level what you're saying. Before the NES era, there were very few games that had actual endings. They had to use the "keep going until the game beats you" paradigm because video game cartridges didn't have enough ROM/RAM space to contain a game as expansive as say Super Mario Bros, Mega Man, Metroid or Zelda. Playing for a higher score was the only way to extend the life of such games.

 

When the NES/SMS/etc came along, programmers could actually create games that were designed to be like interactive movies: They had a story premise, a starting point, levels of increasing difficulty, and often a climax against the toughest boss in the game. This applied to platformers, RPGs and shoot-em-ups, but sometimes in other types of games as well, like sports games. Once the whole concept of games with endings really caught on, the industry never looked back, except to offer retrogaming products.

 

It's an evolution which I welcomed, personally, because it made games more "disposable": I could finish a game a few times, and then I could more easely move on to another game. And of course, the older you get, the less time you have to play video games, so being able to put a game to bed after reaching its ending is a good incentive to buy said game.

[+Ransom]

Plus, older games were emulating the arcade experience. Arcade games were tuned to make sure your quarter lasted just long enough to make you want to put another quarter in, and no more. At the time, "beating" the machine meant getting a lot of play time out of your quarter.