Excellent video regarding "dumbing down" games

[Anubis]

Dumbing down games:

Is this not a better example?

that made me sad

also i never liked any of the megaman games. fing boring

 

[Veliko]

The only thing that makes it a non AAA title is its review score, which is like AA. Its budget, though, was AAAAAA. So why is RAGE not eligible to be compared?

Because, as I said, Super Metroid was critically acclaimed and RAGE got mixed reviews. You aren't comparing like for like.

True, but Megaman allowed me to equip different weapons, use them to explore the stage, and tackle the stages in any order I choose. And choose a stage based on A) whether I could beat the boss, B) what I would get from it. Thats a lot of depth for an 8 bit game.

Mega Man's different weapons worked on a scissors-paper-stone basis. It may have been deep for an 8-bit game but that doesn't mean it is a deep game.

But the multiplayer was deep. And the backstory just shows the thought that went into the game. It was more than just another title shovelled out according to the Grand Business Plan.

The story was fairly standard fare. You can't use the thickness of a manual as a guide for game depth when most of it is just a short novel.

What does that matter? I've played BF 1942 and BF2. Are you telling me BF3 is so different as to be a completely different game? It sounds like you are grasping at straws to try to prove that modern games are superior in every way.

Well considering you didn't mention you had played the previous BF games I don't see why you are surprised at me pointing out the contradiction when asking me if I have played Pokemon before.

I would think it would be easier for you to admit that BF3 isnt particularly deep but it has features that older games could not possibly hope to match, which is true. Older games could never have 64 x 64 multiplayer using different theatres of war on one map. Its impressive. The question is whether technology is enough to make a great game? I dont think it is, for me. Or rather, technology is not as important as some other factors to me.

This is getting absurd now. You say that older games had more depth and then try to use Mega Man as an example, yet here you are saying that BF3 doesn't have anything beyond point and shoot.

 

[Veliko]

Bullshit. I can think of innumerable examples to prove that is nonsense.

Then do so rather than just talking about it.

Your problem is you're stuck on graphics and genres that rely on them. FPS are a perfect example. But when you factor in games that don't need stellar graphics or sound to be masterpieces, it's not nearly as cut and dry as you think.

Not at all. I had great fun with Super Meat Boy recently yet don't like Crysis.

The best strategy games of years ago are still going to hold up to whats out there today, because they rely on tight coding and great AI.
The best platformers of yesteryear will never get old and always hold their own against today's offerings because of near-perfect gameplay and controls.
The best RPGs and adventure games that rely on great storytelling and character development still hold their own (and often CRUSH) their modern counterparts. Period.

Those best games will be entertaining for a short while but beyond that they don't hold up with the best games of today.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Well yes of course there is but games are immeasurably better now than they were in the past. The good old days didn't exist.

I don't see how that's the case for arena-style FPS, which is a genre that was killed off by consolization.

D&D RPG online was also pretty much killed off when Dragon Age was consolized by removing the online multiplayer and custom content elements.

 

[Zenoth]

Ok, I have to admit Veliko, and I think I'll stop and rest my case after this, is that I simply cannot understand you, and that you cannot understand me. I'll let you go on with the others from this point with this subject.

What I can come up with as a conclusion is that you and I view older games and the possibility to still appreciate them today as much as before completely differently, and we just cannot possibly agree on anything. It's fine anyway, it happens. Maybe if we spoke of cars we might agree on a few things, who knows.

I'm done with this thread specifically anyhow, I liked the video and I agree on 99% of what is mentioned in it concerning certain aspects of video gaming in the past that happened to apply on Megaman X as the example taken for the video. I have nothing else to add.

 

[Ancalagon44]

Those best games will be entertaining for a short while but beyond that they don't hold up with the best games of today.

Millions (*) of people all over the world prove you wrong everyday by playing older games. Why do they do it? Maybe you should go enlighten them as to how wrong they are.

In fact, lets stop development of MAME and destroy the source code. Clearly it has no place in the modern world with modern games. Lets also remove any and all older games from Steam, GOG.com, XBLA, PSN and WiiWare - why bother putting those there, no one will ever play them since old games are 100% better in every way that they could ever be better?

Lets also halt those forums where they talk about older games, like Sorcerers Place, gibberlings3, any emulation forum, um lots others.

/sarcasm over

(*) numbers not actually known but assumed to be high otherwise there wouldnt be so many proponents of classic gaming.

Come on dude, I admit some modern games are good, cant you admit some classic games are better than their newer counterparts?

 

[Veliko]

I don't see how that's the case for arena-style FPS, which is a genre that was killed off by consolization.

D&D RPG online was also pretty much killed off when Dragon Age was consolized by removing the online multiplayer and custom content elements.

If by arena-style FPS you mean the likes of Quake 3 and Unreal Tournament, they existed on consoles as well. It was also something of a fad with many complaints being aired about these multiplayer-only games being of less value than a game with a solid singleplayer mode and a good multiplayer mode.

 

[Veliko]

Millions (*) of people all over the world prove you wrong everyday by playing older games. Why do they do it? Maybe you should go enlighten them as to how wrong they are.

In fact, lets stop development of MAME and destroy the source code. Clearly it has no place in the modern world with modern games. Lets also remove any and all older games from Steam, GOG.com, XBLA, PSN and WiiWare - why bother putting those there, no one will ever play them since old games are 100% better in every way that they could ever be better?

Lets also halt those forums where they talk about older games, like Sorcerers Place, gibberlings3, any emulation forum, um lots others.

/sarcasm over

I didn't say no-one played those old games at all. They are played but the market is limited for them. They are either pirated (as with MAME) or are sold cheaply and with updated graphics (as per XBL).

I have bought some of them myself but their appeal doesn't last that long.

(*) numbers not actually known but assumed to be high otherwise there wouldnt be so many proponents of classic gaming.

The numbers are low but the voices are loud.

Come on dude, I admit some modern games are good, cant you admit some classic games are better than their newer counterparts?

There may well be some individual cases but I am struggling to think of any. The occasional example here and there doesn't prove anything though.

 

[tedrodai]

It's kinda funny how this thread has turned into an argument between everyone and Veliko lol.

I'm not here to help you, but you seem to be holding off everyone just fine . I just wanted to answer your earlier question:

So given a choice to play an AAA game of yesteryear and an AAA game of today which would choose to play?

I'll answer it from 2 perspectives though.

(1) I've played both the yesteryear title and the current title.
I hope you don't mind me comparing Super Metroid (it's been brought up a lot) and Batman: Arkham Asylum. They're pretty similar to me: you explore levels, take out respawning enemies, open new paths by tackling puzzles/bosses, seek out weapon upgrades along the way, etc. Given the choice to sit down and play one of the 2, I would choose...the one that seems most fresh at the time (i.e. "how long has it been since I played each last?" and "would I get bored because I still remember it well?")

(2) I've never played either title
Well, in this case I'm gonna choose the newer game because it's flashier and has better overall potential due to newer technologies.


Yeah...not so hard.

 

[gothamhunter]

So yeah that video was cool.

 

[VashHT]

AAA is a stupid term for games, practically every game that comes out now is a "AAA" game, and they remind me of summer blockbusters. They are totally forgettable and good for killing a few hours maybe but something I won't ever remember fondly. I played Gears of War 3 recently and the campaign was ridiculous, the action was fun but the dialogue and story were laughably bad.

On a side note here is a video that I think pertains to this thread somewhat:
http://kotaku.com/5855750/if-quake-was-made-today-this-is-how-annoying-it-would-be

 

[shortylickens]

Triple A is indeed a silly term, but to be fair there is a huge difference in big budget productions versus small independent titles.

 

[Sulaco]

Then do so rather than just talking about it.

Sure. Off the top of my head:

-Widely considered the BEST Zelda game is a toss-up between Link to the Past (SNES) and Ocarina of Time (N64)

-The best Mario game is widely considered either Mario 64 or Super Mario World. I recently played through both Mario Galaxies...twice..and they excellent, but SMW is just infinitely replayable.

-Final Fantasy IV, VI, and VII are widely considered BY FAR the greatest in the series, blowing anything after VIII miles out of the water. FF4 and FF6 especially are considered pinnacles of the genre.

-The ORIGINAL Ghost Recon games are vastly deeper, more realistic, and enjoyable than the GRAW series.

-The ORIGINAL Rainbow Six series....see above.

-The earlier Civilization games blow Civ 5 out of the water.

-Alpha Centauri...see above.

-Super Castlevania IV and Symphony of the Night are HANDS DOWN considered the best of the series by fans. It's not even close.

-Thief: The Dark Age and Thief II: The Metal Age were superior in all ways except graphics to the third game, and in the case of Thief 2, superior to most ALL story-driven stealth games.

-Deus Ex still embarrasses its sequels, despite the third game being so good, and few games in ANY genre can rival its mix of gameplay, atmosphere and storytelling

-Donkey Kong Country and Donkey Kong Country 2 are far better and more replayable than DKC Returns for the WII (which I am currently playing through now)

- The original Resident Evil games are far scarier, deeper, and more atmospheric than the latest offerings, by far.

-Super Metroid (SNES) is widely considered the best in the series.

-The Combat Mission games have yet to be rivaled by any RTS in realism, depth, or actual strategy.

-Master of Orion 2 is widely considered THE definitive 4x space strategy game, by far.

-The original Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast is largely superior to any of its sequels.

-Planescape Tormet and Baldur's Gate II absolutely ANNIHILATE most all current RPGs in everything except graphics and sound. It's not even close.

-System Shock II is still widely considered one of the scariest games ever made, despite the horribly dated graphics.

-Dark Forces II: Jedi Knight was superior in virtually every way to the sequels, outside of better lightsaber control and graphics. But the massive worlds, branching story arc

...should I continue? This is just my own personal list I happen to agree with, looking over my shelf.
The "nostalgia" argument is also groundless and incorrect. MANY of the games I have listed there, I only recently played. Deus Ex, Final Fantasy 6, Planescape Torment, Baldur's Gate II, and Symphony of the Night I only played in the last 3-5 years. PST and BGII I just started a few months back, and already I can appreciate and enjoy them more than most of what's out there now.
Other titles like Donkey Kong Country Returns or Super Mario Galaxy I'm playing through now (or just finished), but (especially in the case of DKCR) I find myself wanting to play through the originals on the SNES, and noting the superiority of the gameplay, and tightness of the controls.

Sorry, but it's not just "one or two games here or there" like you portray, and clearly, the number of folks in this thread disagreeing with you should make that clear. There are plenty of AAA titles of yesteryear that hold up every inch to the AAA titles of today, albeit for different reasons and with different strengths. If that doesn't matter to YOU, oh well, but it doesn't help your argument much.

 

[Veliko]

You seem to have missed what I meant.

In the case of Soul Calibur, interest in beat-em-ups has waned and no-one really makes them any more.

With things like the Zelda, Castlevania and Final Fantasy games they may be the best in their respective series but there are modern games that are better than them.

With regards to games like Baldurs Gate II, Planescape and System Shock 2 you have a point but they have aged badly. I bought BG1 from GoG recently and despite installing various widescreen mods it was horrible to play. The writing was good and witty but everything else just isn't up to scratch.


If you are going to try and bring numbers and popularity into the equation, why is it that these old games only generate an interest when they are made available for a pittance and recieve a graphical update?

And to save you the trouble of moaning that I am only interested in games with good graphics, I have had great fun with Super Meat Boy and Defense Grid.

 

[Sulaco]

You seem to have missed what I meant.

In the case of Soul Calibur, interest in beat-em-ups has waned and no-one really makes them any more.

Uh, no. They're on like SC 6 now, Street Fighter 4 (and it's various iterations), Tekken 6, MVC3, etc...all came out in the last year or two.

With things like the Zelda, Castlevania and Final Fantasy games they may be the best in their respective series but there are modern games that are better than them.

See, that's crap. "Better than them" is a cheap cop-out for not having an argument that holds water. Define "better than them". You can't. I'm at least trying to compare games within their respective genres. The Zelda, Mario, Castlevania series are still very much alive and as popular as ever. If Ocarina of Time and Super Mario World are still considered the best in the series of games that are easily two of the most popular game series on the planet, that are alive and kicking, that says all that needs to be said. Period.

With regards to games like Baldurs Gate II, Planescape and System Shock 2 you have a point but they have aged badly. I bought BG1 from GoG recently and despite installing various widescreen mods it was horrible to play. The writing was good and witty but everything else just isn't up to scratch.

"Horrible to play"...again, more subjective opinion passed off as fact. Yeah, the menus are frumpy, the script isn't voice-acted for you, and the graphics are meager, but "horrible to play" means absolutely nothing when you're engrossed and immersed in the fantastic story, setting, and charcters, as most everyone who plays these games are. You can cry about your widescreen mod not making the game pretty enough, but I'll take the dialogue and character interaction that blows today's RPGs out of the water, thanks.
And again, that ain't even nostalgia talking. None of those listed RPGs I played before 2007. They're still that good.

If you are going to try and bring numbers and popularity into the equation, why is it that these old games only generate an interest when they are made available for a pittance and recieve a graphical update?

Maybe because a large number of people interested in that game or genre already played it in the last 20 years when it was new(er)? How is that even an argument? "It's not as popular now as it was then!"...uh...yeah...because maybe a good chunk of people (read:adults) already played it?

And when did I say anything about numbers and popularity? I said the majority of people in this thread disagree with you (which they do, apparently), and that the fans/gamers who have played the games I've listed generally concede them to be the best.
Whether or not that translates to Xbox Arcade or Wii downloads, I could care less, any more than whatever the hottest iTunes song right now shows it's superior to any other music.

And to save you the trouble of moaning that I am only interested in games with good graphics, I have had great fun with Super Meat Boy and Defense Grid.

Yeah, I'm the one moaning, says the guys arguing with half a dozen people in a thread.
Anyway, I'm happy you're enjoying those games. But you asked for examples, and I gave them to you, in spades.

 

[Ancalagon44]

With things like the Zelda, Castlevania and Final Fantasy games they may be the best in their respective series but there are modern games that are better than them.

Says who?

With regards to games like Baldurs Gate II, Planescape and System Shock 2 you have a point but they have aged badly. I bought BG1 from GoG recently and despite installing various widescreen mods it was horrible to play. The writing was good and witty but everything else just isn't up to scratch.

Only from a graphical point of view. If graphics is all you play games for, then yes they are terrible. However, in terms of storyline and the freedom offered to the player, and the setting, they really cannot be beat. There is a reason they still have such a large following today. I have played Baldurs Gate 2 this year, and it still rocks.

If you are going to try and bring numbers and popularity into the equation, why is it that these old games only generate an interest when they are made available for a pittance and recieve a graphical update?

You obviously dont read or follow any classic gaming communities. Popularity there is largely independent of anything else except for mods maybe.

And to save you the trouble of moaning that I am only interested in games with good graphics, I have had great fun with Super Meat Boy and Defense Grid.

But why do you bring up graphics when talking about Baldurs Gate 2? I thought they didnt matter?

 

[Veliko]

Uh, no. They're on like SC 6 now, Street Fighter 4 (and it's various iterations), Tekken 6, MVC3, etc...all came out in the last year or two.

Interest in the games has waned considerably. They used to be big news, flagship games. Not any more.

See, that's crap. "Better than them" is a cheap cop-out for not having an argument that holds water. Define "better than them". You can't. I'm at least trying to compare games within their respective genres. The Zelda, Mario, Castlevania series are still very much alive and as popular as ever. If Ocarina of Time and Super Mario World are still considered the best in the series of games that are easily two of the most popular game series on the planet, that are alive and kicking, that says all that needs to be said. Period.

I define 'better than them' to be 'games I would rather play than them'. If Symphony of Night really was that good then other, similar games would still be made. As it stands it was relegated to XBLA for a few quid.

"Horrible to play"...again, more subjective opinion passed off as fact. Yeah, the menus are frumpy, the script isn't voice-acted for you, and the graphics are meager, but "horrible to play" means absolutely nothing when you're engrossed and immersed in the fantastic story, setting, and charcters, as most everyone who plays these games are. You can cry about your widescreen mod not making the game pretty enough, but I'll take the dialogue and character interaction that blows today's RPGs out of the water, thanks.
And again, that ain't even nostalgia talking. None of those listed RPGs I played before 2007. They're still that good.

It is because of the fact that the menus are fumpy, the graphics are meager and a lack of voice-acting that means I can't get engrossed and immersed in the story. It all detracts from the overall experience.

Maybe because a large number of people interested in that game or genre already played it in the last 20 years when it was new(er)? How is that even an argument? "It's not as popular now as it was then!"...uh...yeah...because maybe a good chunk of people (read:adults) already played it?

Those 'adults' were kids when they came out. There are more kids now playing games than there ever where.

And when did I say anything about numbers and popularity? I said the majority of people in this thread disagree with you (which they do, apparently), and that the fans/gamers who have played the games I've listed generally concede them to be the best.
Whether or not that translates to Xbox Arcade or Wii downloads, I could care less, any more than whatever the hottest iTunes song right now shows it's superior to any other music.

That's because those fans are nearly always looking at past games through rose-tinted glasses. It happens in every single field of entertainment whether it is games, music or films - the 'best' stuff was always released a few years ago. It's human nature to do that.

 

[Veliko]

Says who?

So you cannot think of any games that are better than those three?

Only from a graphical point of view. If graphics is all you play games for, then yes they are terrible. However, in terms of storyline and the freedom offered to the player, and the setting, they really cannot be beat. There is a reason they still have such a large following today. I have played Baldurs Gate 2 this year, and it still rocks.

No, from an overall point of view and they don't have large followings either. If you have played BG2 in the past you aren't looking at it through unbiased eyes.

You obviously dont read or follow any classic gaming communities. Popularity there is largely independent of anything else except for mods maybe.

Those communities are tiny.

But why do you bring up graphics when talking about Baldurs Gate 2? I thought they didnt matter?

Anyone who says that graphics don't matter is a liar. When BG2 first came out the graphics were praised for their detail, they were quite a big deal at the time. Excellent graphics add to the overall experience and horrendous graphics detract from it.

 

[shortylickens]

Wow!
Thats freaky. Sulaco loves the EXACT same games I do.

Coincidence?

 

[Veliko]

Wow!
Thats freaky. Sulaco loves the EXACT same games I do.

Coincidence?

It's a conspiracy, I don't believe in coincidences.

 

[Sulaco]

Wow!
Thats freaky. Sulaco loves the EXACT same games I do.

Coincidence?

Any coincidence that proves Veliko wrong is a conspiracy.

Now hush, they may be listening!

 

[Veliko]

Any coincidence that proves Veliko wrong is a conspiracy.

Now hush, they may be listening!

I have been drinking so anything is possible now.

Justin Bieber’s mother discovers rash on son’s penis

.

 

[CZroe]

There's no reason to excuse it: It's perfectly relevant to PC gaming on its own merits. I owned Megaman (DOS), Megaman X, Megaman X3 (Win), and Megaman X4 (Win) on PC. Modern PC games are also guilty of holding your hand all the way through.

 

[HeXen]

Megaman also functioned from a 4 way Dpad and 2 buttons as you progressed in 2d fashion. gameplay is very obvious. 2d and 3d games is apples and oranges.
But many old games have tooltips. Super mario 4 comming to mind.

Theres tons of flash games that have great oldschool mechanics and could be considered just as good as Metroid or Megaman. I really enjoyed the flash version of portal.

and if COD was somehow released in all its glory on some fantasy machine back when Metroid came out...guess which one us kids would be drooling over. I think the debate of modern vs yesteryear games is moot.

 

[CZroe]

Megaman also functioned from a 4 way Dpad and 2 buttons as you progressed in 2d fashion. gameplay is very obvious. 2d and 3d games is apples and oranges.

It was eight-way and many MM games ADDED complexity with double-tap and hold to dash/run. Also, it used more buttons for special abilities and still required charging and cycling to assign all functions. Jumping, shooting, charging, dashing, using special abilities, switching special abilities, etc all were done in real-time with more than two buttons.

But many old games have tooltips. Super Mario World coming to mind.

Is that what you mean? For what it's worth, I have an imported Super Famicom and the official hard carrying case has "Super Mario Bros. 4" on it with Super Mario World in Japanese and SMW art all over it. The tips given to you in SMW were entirely optional speaker boxes that would only blab when you hit them. You could complete the game 100% without ever touching one and being interrupted. You could resort to them if you HAD to. He was specifically complaining about forced interuptions that hand-hold the unwilling gamer for the sake of the casual/mainstream audiences also playing the same game.