It turns out that, just like fancy graphics, not constantly trying to empty your customers pockets actually represents some kind of economic value. The ironic thing is so many of these old games were literally designed to steal your quarters.
Well, only the arcade versions of games were designed to steal your quarters. The home console versions were much better about not harassing your wallet.
For instance, Gauntlet Legends on its arcade cabinet hardware drained your health at a consistent time based rate. Add more quarters to gain more health. All home console versions abolished this health drain mechanic.
That’s mostly true, except for games made specifically harder so that you’d have to rent them multiple times (eg: ActRaiser 2 NTSC-U/C / SNES is much harder than its NTSC-J / SFC counterpart).
games made specifically harder so that you’d have to rent them multiple times
Fucking BattleToads
That’s mostly true, except for games made specifically harder so that you’d have to rent them multiple times
Wait this was a thing game designers actually to into account? I’ve never heard this
Except there were so many Japanese games not brought to the west because they were deemed too difficult for western gamers.
Did game companies get royalties from rentals? I though the idea was that you’d want to buy it if you couldn’t beat it in a rental period
It’s because those old games are good and fun
Because the games are good? Does their need to be a deeper reason then that? I mean, I guess a boom in retro games among Gen Z and younger says something about the state of the modern industry, but younger generations have always liked older things despite entertainment industries trying to push them towards the shiny and new. Still definitely nice to see though.
They made gaming a chore.
Games used to be a simple concept, and fun to play. I still play Tetris more than anything else by a huge margin. Imma go play a round right now.
They made gaming a chore.
I couldn’t agree more, every damn game looks exactly the same to each other, a huge ass RPG like with tons of sidequests which can be or not good and with cosmetic upgrades or paid DLCs.
The last four games that I have played follow this formula:
The Witcher 3
Batman Arkham Knight
Breath of The Wild
Nier Automata
Currently I have only finished The Witcher 3 and Batman Arkham Knight, and got “tired” with the last two, currently playing SIFU and god it feels very fresh… Although I’m stuck at the “git gud” phase.
Until VR came along I had long lost interest in modern games for that very reason. Everything was the same. Nothing I hadn’t already played. VR gaming has breathed new interest for me with gaming. Currently 150+ hours Into the Radius.
Saying stuff like Witcher 3 and Nier are “just a huge ass RPG with tons of sidequests” has to be the least intellectual take I’ve seen in years. They’re both groundbreaking games with (at the time) unique systems never before seen. BoTW was also a breakthrough in that it was the first mainline Nintendo game to embrace modern advancements, and did so without sacrificing much of their traditional fun-oriented design.
Are most AAA games complete unsalvageable garbage? Sure. But to classify the few exceptions as equally bad is disingenuous - ESPECIALLY when most of the games you listed are actually fairly old.
Look, I don’t need you to teach me how good those games are, I chose them for a reason, and I rarely quit games, I take breaks, yes I do, that shouldn’t be rare at all.
I still stand my point about all of them having their unique formula, even when they pretty much mastered it in all of its aspects, for example The Witcher 3 having the best DLCs I have ever seen, and maybe they are better than the main campaign, and I’m not the only one who thinks that.
My initial point was that all those games have the same functioning core (I forgot to mention the three skill, maybe BOTW handles it differently here) and I’d pretty much replay a Mario game than re visiting any of those.
“every game looks exactly the same” proceeds to list 4 games that could not be more different from each other lmfao. You have to be trolling.
I swear I’m not, I didn’t mean to offend anyone by listing these awesome gems, but I still stand my point that they share too many similarities, and it is worse when you look at more games which, might not be as good as the ones listed (I mean, all those who share a ridiculous amount of sidequests some rewarding, some absolutely not, DLCs which adds up more “filler” and skill threes, because every damn game has to have you read countless of stats and such to improve the MC).
I recently started playing Zelda The Minish Cap (GBA) on my PS Vita, and for me the appeal - especially with old handheld games - is the simplicity in terms of game mechanics.
The game only has like a dozen of equippable items, dialog with NPCs is very simple, there’s a lot of puzzles cleverly integrated into the map, a small trading system (forgot what it’s called, these round things where you match your half with an NPCs half), a few different collectibles (heart containers for example) and they pretty much made a very enjoyable game out of that.
Today, a lot of games come with a crafting system, some sort of hunger/food mechanic, complex character progression systems etc. And while I enjoy this a lot of the time, playing a well crafted game based on much simpler (and fewer) mechanics is a welcome change from time to time.
That is why I will always miss these “lesser” versions of the games, AKA as handheld games, and the Switch, or the industry, might have killed that already.
The biggest perk of handheld gaming nowadays is doing the “videogame chores” (like sidequests) more comfortably for your adult life, and not like a quick burst gaming style… Perhaps indies might be the only experience of it that is left.
I’ve been on a bit of a retro gaming bender recently and downloaded a bunch of Nintendo emulators and ROMs, but I found that unless I have specific memories around a certain game, it was a little difficult to enjoy them. Also, perhaps I’m spoiled by all those modern PC games I’ve played.
Then I tried some Switch games, and I gotta say, they honestly struck a great balance between visual effects and gameplay. Lots of games there that are basically just remakes of decades old classics, but with high res 3D graphics and modern effects. Seriously considering buying one now.
I’d say it highly depends on the title. Not all games age well, maybe most didn’t. Nostalgia is definitely a factor when it comes to enjoyment of some of these games. I never played Zelda The Minish Cap before and I still enjoy it now, but maybe part of it is generic nostalgia for GameBoy type games. I’d also say GBA games are often more accessible than even older (say NES) games.
And graphically, sure, newer games look quite a lot better. This game didn’t get the remake treatment (yet) though. I disagree that there has to be a “balance” between visual effects and gameplay though (aside from prioritizing development resources). A game can have both amazing graphics and great gameplay mechanics. I also think great graphics and visual design can enhance the gameplay experience.
But I don’t know, I still enjoy the odd “retro” game every now and then.
A game can have both amazing graphics and great gameplay mechanics.
Yes, that’s what I was saying, that I enjoyed playing those games on Switch that are remakes of older games because they generally have both the gameplay mechanics that made the old games great and the graphics to please the modern sense of aesthetics.
