The Classics Versus Today

Charicific

PkMn Trainer
    • 505
    Posts
    13
    Years
    Right on the day I came into existence, I bonded with Computer Games instantly, heck, I was born with a PC. From the days back when I was a kid, I remember playing the most primitive and classic games ever. I come to remember them now....and man where they amazing. I don't know if it's nostalgia causing this but I doubt. Games back then needed to compensate with their lack of graphics with rigid gameplay.

    As for now, gaming industries are all about money making, ruining many gameplay elements. In fact, many games tend to focus on graphics rather than gameplay nowadays. *OPINION* (Yes I am talking about EA here <_< )

    I believe that's the reason that makes games such as Pokemon epic for me.

    So anyway, what do you guys think about classic games back then? How would you compare them to today's games? Do you have a special game in that era, and is it better than modern games?

    In 3...2...1... DISCUSS!
     


    EDIT: Sufficient argument against my points. Well done, Triforce89.

    My old post:
    Spoiler:
     
    Last edited:
    NatureKeeper said:
    Older games were harder and actually a challenge to complete.

    Compare Super Mario 3D Land (Normal Worlds) to Super Mario Bros. (Pre-Saving Peach Worlds). Super Mario 3D Land was super easy. Very easy. I just lose six lives and invincible tanooki my way throughout the level. I wasn't able to complete Super Mario. Bros. without the Save States on the 3DS.

    Compare The Legend of Zelda: Minish Cap to the original. I still cannot beat the original, guide or no guide, while I only used a walkthrough for those rare moments in Minish Cap where something really puzzled me.

    Thus, it does not puzzle me that older gamers can deal with newer video games without hassle, and as you go younger you're worse. So, yeah. That's my verdict. Classics are more challenging.
    Click to expand...
    Ah, well there's your problem - the invincible tanooki! Lately, Nintendo has been doing this "Super Guide" thing. If you find something to hard, you can bypass a level or have it play through it on its own or make it easier. That's what the invincible tanooki is. You're not obligated to use it and if you actually want to play the game the normal way, you're kind of not supposed to. Plus, if you died enough to get the suit... then clearly you found the game to be difficult?

    The original Super Mario Bros. probably has the best difficulty balance of all his sidescrolling adventures. Nothing to do with being a classic though. Super Mario World on the SuperNES is a classic, but it is easier.

    With advancements in technology, things... kind of become easier. Original Super Mario Bros., you can run, jump, turn super, fire, or invincible. How do you make a sequel? Well, add more items (now Mario can fly. And Yoshi. And Yoshi has his own powers. All of this makes the game easier in the process). So, that's the trade off.

    Now, with Zelda, as much as I love the old game... it is a broken game. There is no guidance at all. You don't know where you're going. Sure the modern games overdue the guidance a lot. But in that game, you're dropped in the middle of a field. Now.. where the heck do I go? There's no one to talk to. Nothing to read. Everything kind of looks the same. I think at one point Nintendo actually shipped the game with a Tips & Tricks guide included in order to aid the player.

    Aonuma, who is in charge of the franchise right now doesn't even like the old game. He found it too hard. Needlessly hard. He never finished it. The first game in the series to actually perfect the formula as Link's Awakening in my opinion. (And The Minish Cap is actually regarded as one of the best entries in the franchise by fans)

    I find that a lot of the old games were hard just by bad design. Especially in the 8-bit era. Lots of games where you couldn't save. Limitations of the technology prevent guidance, really. Graphics that made this difficult to distinguish. Broken physics and hit boxes. Developers improved and so did technology. Games are also no long as niche as they used to be, they appeal to a wider audience.
     
    Whatch out guys, Final Fantsy nerd coming through.

    Oldies

    Super awesome imagination power. You get to use your imaginations for facial exressions, voices, details, etc etc. FF was at its prime in the Snes era, because the games were fun, had good strories, and you had imagination for graphics

    Newgensies

    Super awesome graphics power. For me, the new graphics take away from the game a bit. Sure, they look better than 8 bit, but it seems most people are focusing on graphics now. In FF, the stories grow weaker (IMO) as the graphics get stronger. There are some exceptions, like 1 an d 3 not really having a story, and 10 having a fantastic one. But overall, the older games stack up pound for pound as better.
     
    Lt. Col. Fantastic said:
    Whatch out guys, Final Fantsy nerd coming through.

    Oldies

    Super awesome imagination power. You get to use your imaginations for facial exressions, voices, details, etc etc. FF was at its prime in the Snes era, because the games were fun, had good strories, and you had imagination for graphics

    Newgensies

    Super awesome graphics power. For me, the new graphics take away from the game a bit. Sure, they look better than 8 bit, but it seems most people are focusing on graphics now. In FF, the stories grow weaker (IMO) as the graphics get stronger. There are some exceptions, like 1 an d 3 not really having a story, and 10 having a fantastic one. But overall, the older games stack up pound for pound as better.
    Click to expand...

    I disagree, I don't think it was a strong story that carried over early final fantasies. I've found 1, 2, 3 (5 as well really) to be very confused and scattered when it came to both gameplay and story - truth in the matter is that early games tend to test boundaries and ideas.

    Are the later games lacking in story? FF13 is my least favourite game, but I will admit that it has a very detailed story - especially with the addition of 13-2.

    I think you might also be over-rating the power of imagination, after all imagining details seems to totally contradict your need for a detailed story.


    I think most 'classics' are seen as good as a bit of nostalgia, especially if they were what you played as kids. I know the games I had first (Red, Crash Bandicoot, Spyro) were always considered amazing.
     
    I can't seem to get into today's game like I did with the older games. I remember spending hours and hours on just one game. Nowadays I can only play for a few minutes before I get bored or distracted. I grew up playing video games and I still have the old systems hooked up and ready to play at any moment. The games today do have much better graphics and they have gotten more complex. For example, in the classic Mario games you can press a to jump and b to run. The Mario games today have so many more buttons and actions you can do. The thing I miss most about the classics is how simple they were. Sure they were hard but the games itself was for the most part simple. Today's games seem too easy to me. I prefer to be challenged and the classics did just that. Today's games don't challenge me like the classics. In summary, I prefer the classic games to today's games even though the graphics have improved greatly. I still will play today's games but I won't go out of my way to get them or pay a ridiculous price for them.
     
    I feel that it strongly depends on when you got into video games. If you start with classic games and become used to the higher difficulty and more simplistic gameplay, then the more complicated yet easier modern games just wouldn't appeal to you. Since you already enjoyed games with 8-bit graphics, the graphics seem superfluous to you and unnecessary time spent when they could be focusing on the gameplay.

    On the other side, if you start with more modern games, you become used to the easier difficulty, pretty graphics, and many features. When you go back to a difficult game with bad graphics from an earlier era, it doesn't really make sense to you as to why people would like it. In addition, there's a certain skillset required for classic games, and if you don't train yourself in it, it's even harder and unenjoyable.

    Even though I've had old systems and had classics, I never enjoyed playing them until I was in middle school so I never really hit the classic generation. Although one thing I would wonder: if the classics were made originally on a modern system, with all the capabilities it has, would they have the same options as modern games, or would they still have the classic feel to them?
     
    SwiftSign said:


    I disagree, I don't think it was a strong story that carried over early final fantasies. I've found 1, 2, 3 (5 as well really) to be very confused and scattered when it came to both gameplay and story - truth in the matter is that early games tend to test boundaries and ideas.

    Are the later games lacking in story? FF13 is my least favourite game, but I will admit that it has a very detailed story - especially with the addition of 13-2.

    I think you might also be over-rating the power of imagination, after all imagining details seems to totally contradict your need for a detailed story.


    .
    Click to expand...

    Whaaaat? Man,2 and 5 had good stories! :P I do agree about 1 and 3 though.

    Overrating imagination? Imagination is way more fun. When I was little, I used to think about how many different ways Cecil and Zeromus could battle each other. Now, whe I try to do that with 13, its just "Well, I already know how Lightning and co stormed coccoon"


    Yeah, 13 had a complex, deep story, but it wasn't good. I didn't feel any of the characters at all (except Sazh at his ediolon thing)
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.
    Back
    Top