Holy Chocobo

Member 22205

Level 32.07

Apr 2007

|
Dec 23, 2008, 05:20 PM
Local time: Dec 23, 2008, 03:20 PM
|
#1 of 9
|
Depending on what you want to call "retro gaming", I guess determines your standards. I can't say I think Europe's old age platforming holds up worth a shit, so whatever. That entire history of development seemed to try and ape Mario for all it was worth, but I don't think anyone in their right mind seriously thinks back on James Pond without laughing in good humor.
Given this guy clearly calls retro gaming as opening up an old cartridge, I'd say I agree with Shin on most of those titles. Mostly because a lot of those ideas have been updated, as said. Still, on the other hand you have games that set precedents or still hold up. Street Fighter II Hyper Fighting still holds up in comparison to a lot of fighting games, as did Super Turbo. A game like Maken X hasn't seen a game produced quite like it (call the reason for that what you will, it's unique and solid as a title). I don't think it's as easy as looking for a singular experience or genre or age to define that standard, but I guess it's nice to have a personal one.
I think it's always nice to go back to a game you played when you were younger and actually be able to have that new found perception. Sometimes the game really is better for it, sometimes it's worse. I know that playing Mega Man X makes me realize how dead on that game was and how you can pretty much see its predecessors deteriorate in quality. It's gotta be more than "Better or worse than" if you are gonna pay attention to the stuff.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
|