Atari Games are actually 90% Gameplay & 10%.. True?

[Sharky]

Last year I didnt bother about Atari 2600 Nostigia because theres so many Atari 2600 screenshots around the web and it put me off those memorys.

 

It looks like you've seen the screenshot and then you've seen it all!

 

But Lately after discovering Atari 2600 Emulation.

 

I found those are perfect for the "Quick 5 mins Nostigia" thing.

 

Those days you pay for the Game.

And these days your paying for the Speical Effects/Audio more than the game.

 

Gee! Games have changed so much in the last 23 Years !

 

[Mind Master]

I find that Atari fits my schedule. I don't have time for complex games anymore. Right, Left, Up, Down, Fire button - that's it for me!!!

[theaveng]

Agree 100%. In the 1980's, games couldn't hide behide special effects. Games had to be fun, or else they'd collect dust.

 

In contrast, a modern game like Kingdom Hearts makes everyone go "oooh ahhh" over the crystal-clear animation and surround sound effects.... but is actually very boring to play. (IMHO)

 

That's why I started that High Score Challenge. There's nothing as much fun as going neck-to-neck against someone to score the highest in Asteroids or Space Invaders!

[Sharky]

Mind Master and Theaveng seem just like I go thur these days.

 

When your not on the internet or W/E

 

You can play a good modern game which probably take you half a day to enjoy

 

Or you can have a quick blast an a Atari 2600 Game and have the full-on enjoyment for 5 or so minutes.

 

I guess that the great magic Atari 2600 has got !

 

I used to have 35 cartridges when I had an Atari 2600. Wasnt I continuously swapping cartridge every 5-15 mins and having the fun of my life!

[Godzilla]

I think that's the no. 1 reason the 2600 is still held in the regard it is, and it's games still played and enjoyed. games have moved from speed and gameplay to slowness and effects. and real gameplay just cant be beat imho.

[George Gray]

I dunno...I think there is a place for the old stuff and the new. I enjoy a quick game on the 2600 or Inty, but I also love the platformers on my N64 and Gamecube. The Super Mario and Donkey Kong games are fantastic (and both have lineage all the way back to the early '80s.) I also like (as does my 5 year old) the newer GameCube rendition of Pac Man (Pac Man World 2) which includes the original games. Yeah, there's some real crap out there today, but I recall quite a bit for the old consoles as well. But I do agree that there is a certain charm that the newer games just don't have. As crude and clunky as the 2600 is, the better games have a certain charm and a 'warmth' that all of the newer games simply lack. As much as I enjoy the Mario games, they just don't have the same appeal for me as something like Galaga or Pitfall!. The blocky graphics, the blurps and bleeps...somethings are better left to the imagination.

[AtariDude]

I enjoy both the modern games and the classic games of Atari. When I want something simple with a lot of action, I usually choose a shooter like Demon Attack or Spider Fighter. When I want something a bit more complex, I might choose Return to Castle Wolfenstein or Counter-Strike.

[snorlaxnut]

The challenge in the games have changed. Today's games I can get through in 2 to 3 weeks, first time around, and then in just a few days the next time around.

 

But not Atari. I keep playing them over and over and I just try to get a better score, or a better strategy to get past something. That makes me want to play those games more often. Graphics and music don't matter to me. If it isn't challening enough, I won't play it for a long time.

 

The challenge in the old systems' games was a lot better than most games today.

[theaveng]

Yeah, there are some modern games with that "quick-play Atari" style. Like the fast-paced battles in Final Fantasy 7 or 9, gathering honeycombs in Banjo-Kazooie, and first-person shooters. It's just that today, there are too many games trying to use special effects to sell themselves instead of fun.

 

Older games couldn't substitute effects for fun, because effects were virtually non-existent.

[Sharky]

Yeah, there are some modern games with that "quick-play Atari" style.  Like the fast-paced battles in Final Fantasy 7 or 9, gathering honeycombs in Banjo-Kazooie, and first-person shooters.  It's just that today, there are too many games trying to use special effects to sell themselves instead of fun.

 

Older games couldn't substitute effects for fun, because effects were virtually non-existent.

 

Thats right!.. These days playing a modern game is just like watching a movie with control too it.

I cant say Im gonna have a quick 5 min blast at Half-Life or Thief 2 or something. Becuase your 5 mins you will still be playing the Introductions.

 

But Atari 2600 Games. U immediately go straight to the action.

And todays Games? What happened to the Score that used to occupy the top or bottom of the screen continously?

[theaveng]

Today's games are all about "beating" the game i.e. reaching the end of the story. So score is irrelevant. Kind of like Adventure, but extended from 1/2 hour to 50 hours. Battling for the highest score is no longer sufficient motivation for modern gamers.

[cryptik76]

I don't think it's necessarily true that modern games are all flash and no substance and that the older games are better because they focus on gameplay.

 

Sure, we remember the Activision, Imagic, and Atari classics on the 2600, but I've downloaded enough ROMs for Z26 to know that many games (usually from the the lesser-known companies) are either pure crap or just rip-offs of better games. In fact, my favorite 2600 game was a rather complicated one (Mountain King), and while many of them are great in short sessions, there are few (if any) that I can play for hours like I used to back in the day.

 

I don't know what modern games you're looking at as examples of "modern games," but I'm not sure anyone could convince me that the Thief series, or Half-Life, or Splinter Cell, or System Shock 2, Deus Ex, Diablo II, or StarCraft are not great games, even without the modern graphics.

 

They're just different from the old games, that's all.

[chrisbid]

i think that 90% of games from any era are either marginally fun or pure crap. Only 10% of games can really stand the test of time, and can continue to be fun once its repsected generation passes by.

[mos6507]

There are two types of games, sport games and interactive fiction.

 

Just about every game on the planet falls under one of these categories.

 

Sports require rules. Rules involve limits on what you can do and where you can go, and when. This was partly a byproduct of the technology, but also it made sense in the classic era to create games that only featured a single non-scrolling screen, a 2D perspective, timers, lives, and so on.

 

By removing the technical constraints on the hardware, the temptation is to ALWAYS do a 3D perspective and ALWAYS have lots of levels and other hard-coded data spooling off the CD. There is that drive for realism and depth and narrative.

 

It's like if you take Chess and turn it into Starcraft at some point it's just not the same game anymore. These genres transform themselves when you change the perspective and make things more realistic.

 

That's not to say no new games are good, but I don't feel the market can accept, let's say, a modern flat-out 2D Robotron or Defender. People think it's cheap.

 

It's like if in Basketball people expected the players to be getting equipment upgrades to the point where they'd be fighting in mechanical suits today.

 

Some classic game concepts just don't need updating. But it's hard to convince that to game publishers who need a steady stream of new product to sell gamers.

 

If they were content with their existing games forever, they'd never be able to sell them something new.

 

I really do think the industry has slowly convinced gamers to accept planned obsolescence using the excuse of technological progress.