Many older players remember games being better then they actually were, or refuse to acknowledge that games got deeper and more engaging later on.
Are you sure about that? Funny cause a lot of guys are still playin the same games, own entire basements full of them, and still enjoy playing them. And their younger kids, who havent yet gotten a chip on their shoulders? Are enjoying them too.
Have games really changed? Not always so. As we have so noted, the gameplay on Robotron is actually more engaging with superior AI than Smash TV. Spy Hunter? Ive yet to see a similar game that has as complex of an AI, with so many possible & shocking outcomes. Asteroids Deluxe? No asteroids clone/remake to date is as good. Super Mario? The formula for its success has pretty much stayed the same since its creation.
Most of s games success is due to a good mathematical formula... such as the superior jump formula in Super Mario World, -vs- some other generic Platformer. It has nothing to do with age.
We can make a game as pretty, complex, and long as hell, but that doesnt mean its going to be better. Sometimes, a simpler game can be more fun, and hit the spot perfectly.
Its also often that a simple game thats excellent, gets updated, lengthened, sometimes even improved.
I wouldn't equate 90's gamers to 8 year olds, considering street fighter 2 came out 19 years ago. Most of these gamers are in their 30's, they are smart people, run businesses, have families, they are more then capable of judging a video game on its merits.
Anyone can be a judge. But can you judge without being biased? Can you see past the look of a game, and see the genius, and fun, of the gameplay?
I find it sad that you immediately take Assumption that I was saying that you
couldnt be a good judge. I merely was saying that a vote from younger people generally tends to be lacking due to both lack of experience playing the older games, and lack of ability to judge properly, without bias. Quite simply, when you approach a game with a negative attitude, its rare you are going to give it a fair shot.
My "list" was a half assed approach of just listing 75 games in the hopes that people would add and subtract and make something completely different. I was just interested in what the collective result would be.
I dont know what to tell you. If you cant even take your own list seriously, how do you think you will get any decent results out of it? And what happens when people start listing games you dont even want to give a chance? Do you actually care... or is this really just about you getting some personal validation that Your chosen generation of games is better?
My point is, don't treat 90's gamers like they aren't adults capable of making objective decisions.
- What about 2010 gamers? Gamers who have never played an arcade machine in their entire lives. Should we give them equal say in what games are good? Just because a game is from a newer period of time, doesnt mean its superior.
Personally, I play all games, 70s, 80s,90s, 2000... I play any game thats good. I dont have a bias. I dont lay claim a period of time like its some sort of Sports team. To me, it speaks VOLUMES about a person who does speak loudly about a period of time... and its Obvious that such a person isnt going to be as Objective as someone who isnt tied to a generation. I also find it funny, cause most of the programmers and creators who MADE your generations games, are from a completely different generation altogether. Many who have been in the industry for Ages, and who still to this day, enjoy elder classics.
If these old games were so great, they still would be.
Umm.. newsflash...They are. Firstly, you are on a site in which thousands of people here build mame cabs dedicated to playing the older classics.
I realize you kids think you are the center of the universe.. and that there was nothin but dirt behind you... but where do you think all those kids and adults from ages 6 to 80 ...from before years 1970 to +1990, all over the fricken GLOBE went?!
Millions of game fans, from many generations, all over the world have started with classic games... and have been playing games ever since. Some have been playing and or Making games since before you were born.
A little bit of research will reveal, that Classic games have the most remakes/reprograms and sequels, to date. Starting out in the arcade, ported to home computers, to elder console systems, to modern console systems, modern computers, handheld systems, pocket pcs / ipads, and beyond. Many of these games have been sold countless times over, and will continue to be sold and resold for years to come. MK5? I dont think so. Crysis? Nope.
A good game design "IS" eternal. Period.
(many of the modern games designs are simply ripped copies from the pasts PROVEN gameplay of the past games.)
The games have not changed, if younger people don't like them as much, its because they expect more from games, and they have a lot more in terms of choice.
I myself know thats not true, just as Ive stated that me, myself, have ignored some games from the past due to ignorance and judgment based on looks alone. Upon giving them a FAIR shake (not a 5 min toe-dip), Ive found more enjoyment in them than many of the more complex or graphically superior modern games.
As Ive said, take away all the pretty graphics, and see whats left. Most games are empty lifeless shells. And once you have beat them, you dont care if you ever play them again.
Take a game like "pitfall" loved that game when I was a kid. Now? Come on, its not that good. Some of them are, a lot of them aren't.
- I never cared for much Pitfall when I was a kid. Marios yes, Pitfall Nope. Maybe you liked it more merely cause all your buddies were bragging about having it, and raving about it?
Its memorable and special for what it was, because it pushed the 2600. But thats about it. Super Mario was on NES, and its still fun to play today.
The most basic arcade hardware was pretty much far superior to the NES (compare Pole Position to any console, and see how long it takes before they can replicate it anywhere near accurately) , so theres no use in comparing them to the 2600 games. Your simply reaching for the sake of reaching. Provide some REAL examples if you are going to argue a point.
And while some games have simple graphics.. such as MrDo, the level of gameplay in that game is pretty much hard to find in most games both old and new. Its one of those timeless games thats always fun and challenging.
Sure, you could add new graphics to it, put a hoppin new sound track to it, give him some more powerups, bosses, 100 levels, etc... but its still the same formula. Strip away all the extras, and you still have the same exact great playing game.
Same with 90's games. A lot of the games people like so much are just the one's that happened to be around when they were kids. Everyone knows a big (probably biggest) part of this hobby is the nostalgia the games bring. If game x was at the corner 7-11, chances are I played it, and I liked it a lot, mostly because it was all I had to play. A lot of these games really aren't that good on their own merits.
Actually, if you have never eaten steak, then you never will understand why everyone keeps telling you hotdogs suck comparatively. But as far as Nostolgia goes, your wrong.
When I grew up playing games in the arcade... if I didnt like it, I didnt play it. If I played it back then, it was cause I liked it, and Im still playing it today. I dont play games that I dont really care about.
Maybe you were unfortunate, being that there were few machines around to play... giving you little choice. Be I grew up in arcade heaven, where all the popular classics were bountiful.
And while I played many games on my crappy 2600 back in the day, I dont think there are more than 2 games that Id ever play on that system to this date. Nostalgia to me, and Im sure to many... is about reliving the good stuff.
Is Karate Champ a chump compared to MK3? In many ways yes. But, I could still pick up dual sticks and have great fun playing it. Its still a fun game, even as quirky as it is. Its a classic, not by nostalgia, but by the experience and fun you get out of it.. (as well as the historical significance of its time) Many Youth simply cant see past the quirks, graphics and limited depth to actually have fun with it and experience (& judge it) properly.
If you like a game just because you like it, that's fine and valid, but if I don't like, that is also fine and valid. Chances are the reasons we differ in opinion have more to do with nostalgia then with gameplay.
Well, I know some guys who cant stand Spy Hunter. Mostly because they suck at it, and dont want to put in the effort of getting enough skills to have fun playing it.
Then again, there are many modern gamers who simply hate difficulty or challenge of any kind. So the appeal of traditional classics, is pretty much out the window for them... as many classics are built upon a steep level of challenge.
Does a person who hates Spy Hunter because they feel its too hard, really deserve to rate that game? Personally I dont think so. And likewise, I dont think a guy whos never played a game like SFII should judge a fighter either.
What about those ppl who like Bullet-Hell shooters? Personally I cant stand them... but somehow, theres a huge fanbase of them.
In the end, Your list if Your own. Theres no way to accurately quantify a universally loved list. And your list can be as deep or shallow as you decide. Much of the time, limited by your own decisions, inflexibility, adaptability, desires... ego..etc. Much like how a fussy eater will only ever have a limited taste experience in their lives.
But its also about personal preference and the type of gamer you are.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: THe Definitive List of required games on your MAME cab (Read 15541 times)
