Don't Need Anything Other Than Genesis & 2600

[Laner]

*shrug*

 

I've been gaming since I was 5 (I'm 33 now), and I get just as excited about today's games as I did when my dad used to take me to play ADVENT on the local community college's mainframe. I currently have seven different systems connected to my main TV, from the 2600 to the latest consoles. I've been playing Resident Evil 4 whenever I can for the past month. I'll be getting an Xbox 360 tomorrow. And I still love playing games on my old Atari and Commodore machines.

Edited November 21, 2005 by Laner

[rockfistus]

Back when I was playing the 2600 in the 80's, I was full of wishful thinking of games like GTA existing one day.....and now we got it and people bitch. Well I understand the bitching because todays developers seem to think that just because we can make games in 3d that everything should be 3d.....

 

2d and 3d, blocky and hi-res, those are just different styles of art as far as I'm concerned, no one type is better than the other.

 

Same for the music and sound, I like my beepy music and in a game like GTA I like the studio music.

 

Know what I mean?

[silverpoodleman]

Know what I mean?

I do, but there seems to be more people who swing one way or the other rather than both.

 

I hope this thread doesn't steer into the whole old games versus new games debate because no one wins. It is clearly a personal choice. I represent those who embrace the older games, the prices that come with them, the decade plus of the reviews that pinpoint which games you'll likely enjoy, etc.,

 

I know there are many, MANY people out there who know what day the latest and greatest games are coming out and are willing to shell out the $$$ to get them. The Xbox 360 is coming out tomorrow and now doubt many people will love it, the company will make millions and people will cheer (horray!). I will still be playing Ristar trying to get to level 7 without hitting the cheat codes!

Edited November 23, 2005 by silverpoodleman

[JB]

I'm in the "little bit of everything" camp.

 

2600, Vectrex, NES, PS1, Dreamcast, it's all good.

 

 

 

I can see playing a Star Trek "holodeck." Ultimate realism would be fun.

So would that same holodeck with flattened cel-shading, the "playfield" restricted to a thin strip of terrain just a tad wider than me, and the physics tweaked so that I can jump 20 feet in the air while running at mach 2.

 

 

 

Video games aren't all about escapism.

 

For me, it's a test of skill. Is there any escapism in Asteroids? Not really. It's not a very convincing simulation of much of anything.

But it's good clean fun, and the only measure of progress is score. It's all about driving the score up, and at the end of the game you can point to a single tiny # as "proof" of your skill.

 

 

Have I enjoyed games without challenge? Sure.

Have I enjoyed them as much? Nope.

Have I enjoyed them more or less depending on how realistic they were? Not really.

[Dr. Morbis]

Are you saying that you can't create unique gameplay or a funky universe in a 3D world?

No but your summary of current/future gaming proves that they're certainly not going down that path:

 

A 3D realistic game world that hasn't been invented yet can be an escape from reality depending on how you look at it. I will never fly an airplane, especially one with simple controls. I will never climb a mountain and jump off of it or spawn a car and drive off of it. I will never smash windows, crash my car into buildings, rob houses, have a huge shootout with the cops and the army, or drive a sports car really fast as I weave around traffic. I will never fly around a city using a jet pack. I will never steal a police car and go on missions or any of the other things you could do in a game like that. If all you want to do is go shopping in Paris and drink tea in London with your pinky in the air, you could do that too.

ALL of those things can be done in real life in our modern world. Every last one of them. That's called reality. Think outside the box. Most of the things you could do in 8 bit games could not possibly be done in real life (ie: stomp a goomba. Insert "cartoony" remark here).

 

Games have rules or parameters. The more you can do, the less you are playing a game. You seem to be more about living a virtual reality experience than playing an actual game with set rules that severely limit what you can do (for reference see the rules for all sports, board games, card games, etc). 8bit games had stricter parameters and were more "game"-like to me.

 

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you point for point, but I will say this: your reply was quite immature in that it was inflammatory, derogatory, and condescending (though I did get a kick out of your frequent use of the word 'cartoony' in an attempt to put me in my place). This is the internet, and you are an adult. Not everyone is going to agree with everything you say.

[+Random Terrain]

ALL of those things can be done in real life in our modern world.  Every last one of them.  That's called reality.  Think outside the box.  Most of the things you could do in 8 bit games could not possibly be done in real life (ie: stomp a goomba.  Insert "cartoony" remark here).

969851[/snapback]

They are things from reality, but the average person is never going to have a chance to do them and many people wouldn't want to risk their lives trying them. You can stomp a goomba in a 3D world too. You can create any kind of world you want, but if you want it 2D, it still doesn't have to look like a cartoon. The word Cartoon is not synonymous with the word imagination. And exactly what box do I have to think outside of? What box are you trapped in where you cannot imagine 8-bit game worlds coming to life? Ever watch a live-action movie based on a cartoon? Ever watch H. R. Pufnstuf? Try thinking outside of that box you have chosen to crawl inside of.

 

 

 

Games have rules or parameters.  The more you can do, the less you are playing a game.  You seem to be more about living a virtual reality experience than playing an actual game with set rules that severely limit what you can do (for reference see the rules for all sports, board games, card games, etc).  8bit games had stricter parameters and were more "game"-like to me.

969851[/snapback]

A game is also an amusement or pastime. No rules are needed. Games that have rules can be fun, but so can games where there are no rules.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm not going to argue with you point for point. . .

969851[/snapback]

I didn't think we were arguing, just posting strong opinions and I think you are ignoring some of my points because you know I'm right.

 

 

 

. . . your reply was quite immature in that it was inflammatory, derogatory, and condescending. . .

969851[/snapback]

Now that's funny since the first two paragraphs of your original post that I replied to were inflammatory, derogatory, condescending, and ignorant. I just plopped some of that stuff right back in your lap.

 

 

 

(though I did get a kick out of your frequent use of the word 'cartoony' in an attempt to put me in my place).

969851[/snapback]

I used the word 'cartoony' twice. Is that frequent? And I don't believe I was trying to put you in your place. I was just trying to make you think outside of your own box and give you a taste of how offensive your post was to many modern gamers.

[Cybergoth]

Hi there!

 

A game is also an amusement or pastime. No rules are needed. Games that have rules can be fun, but so can games where there are no rules.

 

I didn't find the definition for "game" right now, but IIRC a game _must_ have rules in order to qualify as game. Without rules it's no game, but a toy.

 

(IIRC² the second requirement is having a winning condition. Now where's that damn book about game design when you need it...)

 

Greetings,

Manuel

[JB]

... but if you want it 2D, it still doesn't have to look like a cartoon.  The word Cartoon is not synonymous with the word imagination.

Cartoon's not synonomous with "lack of imagination" either.

 

There's no reason to NOT make it "cartoony." It's just a diffrent art style.

 

That's like saying that paintings suck because you can get photographs.

Both are valid art forms, both have their strong and weak points, and both of them have a place in the world.

 

 

Games have rules or parameters.  The more you can do, the less you are playing a game.  You seem to be more about living a virtual reality experience than playing an actual game with set rules that severely limit what you can do (for reference see the rules for all sports, board games, card games, etc).  8bit games had stricter parameters and were more "game"-like to me.

969851[/snapback]

A game is also an amusement or pastime. No rules are needed. Games that have rules can be fun, but so can games where there are no rules.

See: SimCity.

[Dr. Morbis]

You can create any kind of world you want, but if you want it 2D, it still doesn't have to look like a cartoon.  The word Cartoon is not synonymous with the word imagination

You brought the whole 'cartoon' issue into this thread and now you are trying to use it against me? Where did I say I prefer my games to be cartoony? And by the way, saying that every single thing that's not realistic is cartoony is a cop out.

 

Anyway, I will try to address this difference of opinion in a more general sense than rebuking every sentence individually like you do.

 

---

 

The direction in which videogaming is currently headed is clearly towards a goal of creating a real life holodeck, similar to the fictional ones seen in Star Trek. Assuming you’ve seen Star Trek, do you really consider the holodeck to be a game? I’m not talking about a crew member turning it into a basketball court or tennis court (which they could do if they felt like playing a game while in the holodeck), but when the captain turns the holodeck into a tropical beach or a restaurant in Paris. Is that a game? I say no. It is an experience; an escape from reality, not a game. I look to books and movies for an ‘escape’ and I look to videogames when I want to play a game. Judging from your posts, you look to videogames more for the escapism than any gaming aspect, not that there’s anything wrong with that. It’s just a preferential difference.

 

Your attacking someone because they enjoy 8bit games over modern games is akin to mocking a movie buff who prefers black and white movies to color ones. What you might fail to realize is that the reason the movie buff prefers b&w’s may actually have nothing to do with color at all. He may generally enjoy them because they were more plot-driven and focused on character development. It just so happens that when that was the focus director’s generally took, b&w was the norm. Similarly, I do not enjoy classic games more because they are 2D, nor do I dislike most modern games because they are 3D. It just so happens that the qualities that draw me to a game were much more prevalent back when most games were released in a 2D form than they are now. As a result, most of the games that have the qualities that I look for happen to be 2D. And this could easily change for me in the coming years if game companies decide to change their current focus.

 

Your attempt to belittle me for having different taste in videogames than yourself is utterly ridiculous (“crawl outside of that box”, “because you know I’m right”, etc). Do you seriously believe that someone who gets more enjoyment out of modern games than retro ones is enlightened? They are so different it’s like apples and oranges. It comes down to a matter of preference and what you are doing in this thread is attacking someone else’s personal preference in a cocky and antagonizing manner.

 

Finally, this thread was started by a member who was getting really excited about the Genesis and posed an interesting question to the rest of us. To come in and basically say that anyone who shares the thread-starter's point of view is ignorant, especially on a classicgaming board, seems like trolling to me.

 

Anyway, I hope you don't take this response personally. But somehow I can see a sentence-to-sentence disection coming...

Edited November 23, 2005 by Dr. Morbis