[Classic] Old games are great, don't forget

The old ideas from even the first great games still hold strong today. I know I throw the name around randomly at times, but there's a reason Geometry Wars Evolved was such a big seller for the 360 (even if it was out during a time of game drought). On a fundamental level, when you give players an objective, an enjoyable means of trying to reach that objective, and a decent enough coat of paint, you're going to have a game you can enjoy. Whether it lasts for 2 hours or 20 hours.

Looking back further, past even the NES, there are great ideas that can still be applied to new titles these days. Competing with a friend in Pac-Man Championship Edition for the top spot on the scoreboard is one of the most memorable moments I've had with video games this year. Old games are great, it's good to be able to still appreciate them. Whether we're going directly back to them, or dusting them off and making them like new.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I've always been fascinated in what we'll see when players list their favorite games of old, Deni. It'd be stating the obvious to say you're a fan of RPGs, but I just did it so we have that out of the way. I'm interested in what you'd say, if you had to say something in response to someone with something like a more PC oriented list of games. Or someone who did a majority of their playing in an arcade.

The things we value as players are vastly different. I see that people such as yourself value experiences crafted by scripted games with gripping stories. I grew up playing RPGs and Fighting games, and eventually I came to appreciate more of the raw game aspects. Whether the competition was going to be worth engaging, balance vs. variety, and level design.

I don't find story to be much of a factor, especially with games like Ninja Gaiden or Street Fighter. I do enjoy being engaged as a player in a variety of ways, and I think that is the greatest part of being able to look back at such a large history of games with the ability to play them to boot. While sometimes our judgment might be swayed by things we've learned to expect or have grown to dislike, it's nice to know that we can share things that other players might not have touched before. To help others understand just where it is we're coming from when we talk about games the way we do.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

RPGs are my first love, no doubt at all about that. But as for someone who had a more PC based list? My list of favourite games period would include Full Throttle, Monkey Island I, II, III, and maybe even IV, Day of the Tentacle, LOOM, X-Com series, Planescape: Torment, KotOR...

And as for Arcade, I love me some fighting games, sir. I'm terrible at them. But I am mad addicted to Soul Calibur, Tekken and Street Fighter. Also if they made a new Streets of Rage, I'd probably have an orgasm on principle alone. You're right, we do value different things, but I'm willing to bet most gamers have some cross over love in there somewhere.

There are cross over interests in games, no doubt about it. Just funny that what you mention on your PC list was about what I'd expected, no to sound pretentious. When I said PC, I was wondering if I'd see games like Starsiege Tribes or X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter along with the other games you've listed already is what I mean by that.

There are a lot of things we draw the line on as players. "I don't really care about story." or "I'm terrible at fighting games." just to contrast us. Have you ever thought to yourself, "I don't want to be terrible at fighting games. I want to win."?

I remember picking up Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter in a time where I harbored a great deal of resentment toward RPGs. The one thing I remember clearly was that the story and gameplay were so intertwined that you couldn't do one thing without being reminded of either element. You can't waste your time grinding traditionally, the D-Gauge is there to remind you that you have manage your time. I didn't think there was anything RPGs could do differently and the game made me want to start playing them again.

But I fell in love with everything about that game. Have you had any moments upon picking up older games that you hadn't played in the past?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Denicalis

I liked a few games of that type, but I wouldn't put them on my favourite of all time list. However, I'm not sure if I take your meaning on that question. Have there been older games I've picked up and had them make me take a second look at a genre? Not really. Though Bioshock made me take a look at that genre anew. I'd hated it up until I played that. And then Gears of War and Bioshock made me find something fun about it. But an older game that made me rethink an entire genre? No, not really.

Yeah, that's exactly what I was wondering. I appreciate your time, anyway, heh.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

So what would a next generation game be to you then, Q? ((QUESTIONS, AGAIN)) I think a lot of those "old conventions" we reference can't go away so easily, because they're fundamental to video games. But I'm curious, again.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Megavolt

I've always been curious myself as to why people like what they like. As fate would have it, my first big RPG was Secret of Mana, which is a game that puts gameplay above story. Anyways, I've always been more of a gameplay-oriented kind of guy as well. Maybe it's because I've always been a logical, strategically-minded kind of person. I love Chess and in my youth I ran into what might be considered key titles in the development of my tastes, like Sim City 2000, Lode Runner: TLR, Magic Carpet, Ogre Battle, and Syndicate Wars. I don't know if it's because of that experience that I have a greater tolerance for games that aren't totally focused on cinematic storytelling, but there you go. I think that the journey IS the story. How you interact with a game world yields its own reward. So I don't need a Xenosaga-like approach at all, and if anything, I sometimes get impatient with games that guide me on a linear path and inundate me with force-fed dialog and/or cutscenes.

I always like a balance, integrating gameplay and story so that one doesn't over power the other is usually ideal. I mean, it's a no-duh there. There are things about RPGs that just aren't that transparent to me, especially when I started trying to find out how one "breaks a game." When a piece of equipment removes all the challenge from a game, when is it acceptable to grind for hours on end, when completionism heavy players are being exploited.

For example, Dragon Quarter spoiled me on Side Quests. Specifically because forward progression in the main game was required to progress the ant colony side quest. It was very apparent that was needed. Progressing in the main game of FFXII usually reveals more hunts, but a lot of times you have to grind your ass off to be ready, and sometimes I just don't find that enjoyable. Don't even get me started on characters and parties.

Quote:

Of course, Metal Gear Solid was amazing when it came out, and I loved it as much as anyone else. It was something fresh for me the first time and later on it just seems like none of the sequels have been able to achieve the same consistent intrigue and gameplay variety. So there are a few titles which perhaps might be considered to be exceptions to the rule among my favorites, but for the most part I think that my preference for engaging gameplay shows through. I could give a damn about how 'deep' a story is if the gameplay is not up to par.

Sometimes I think a lot of developers hit paydirt on the first installment of a game, and the things they end up adding end up robbing the game of what the first installment had going for it. I know I enjoy Halo 1 a lot more because it's just a very simple game, and that pretty much allowed for what was good in the game to be unimpeded by things such as overly long cutscenes or frustrating scripting/enemy placement. In regard to Metal Gear Solid, I really think the story ended up getting in the way. But, the series is by no means horrible, but it certainly feels a bit packed at the seams these days.

I found it interesting to contrast the Bioshock making of DVD and the Halo 3 making of DVD. Halo 3 just ended up looking so very uninspired, because you can see the ideas and goals that each team had were very different. A bit off point, but I noticed I was ignored by Qwarky (I wonder why). Again, I ask, what is a next-generation game? That term is a gigantic misnomer. It's a pretentious and, quite frankly, completely ridiculous term.

What's a next generation RPG to you? What's a next generation RPG to me? Who decides these universal terms? What if I wanted to make next generation Pac-Man? Or next generation Pong? Perhaps there's something I don't get, but since no effort was made, consider yourself called out.

Quote:

BoFV was my favorite PS2 RPG to be sure. I played it because it was recommended by a guy I knew who had greater experience with RPGs past and present than most. It is definitely one of those games that makes a 'safe' game like Final Fantasy X seem uninspired. At this point I find it hard to enjoy even a polished game like Suikoden V. I need to have something unique and engaging within the gameplay and world. Something that makes the game standout from its predacessors if it's part of a series or something that makes it standout out from other RPGs period. The game can't just have a good stand-alone story. The gameplay has to be there.

Now that you point it out, that really was Breath of Fire V's strongest quality. It had balls. I could watch the intro to that game over and over, because I've come to love everything about the game. The music, the characters, the gameplay.

And it's all because of the gameplay elements. You're absolutely right about that. Frankly, I see complaints about story, but I just have to say, what if you run into a game that is fine and has a shitty story. The story that's awful, while unfortunate, can be ignored, a game that is just horrible is generally just going to end up as a frustrating waste of money.

Quote:

I felt very impressed by Castlevania III, which I didn't play until maybe 2005 or 2006. The challenge level was high, but not unfair, which gave it an addictive quality. The music was great, the branching levels were great, and being able to swing between one character and another was great too. It's just too bad that the game gets overshadowed by the popularity of SOTN the same as the other Castlevania games do.

Symphony of the Night just really sucker punched that series, didn't it? Homogenizing every game that followed it, I really don't understand how people can buy the same game over and over. If it ain't broke, don't fix it... but we can only play the same game over and over so many times.

I wonder when Castlevania's "Dragon Quarter"-esque title will emerge, personally.

Quote:

Some games just exude a certain quality regardless of when you play them. The good ones amount to something special when you add everything up regardless of how shiny they may or may not be on the surface.

Damn straight.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Critically, IIRC, New Super Mario Bros. was shunned for not really establishing anything new with the series. But what I do recall quite vividly was it selling a shitload of DS handhelds. Kind of a gray area to talk about, since it was basically a game that took the safe route as far as development and content go. I think I'd enjoy platformers more if I weren't constantly being sent on "collect X out of X number of items" type quests.

FELIPE NO