Main > Main Forum
I think I hate leaf switch sticks.....
ChrisK:
--- Quote from: Xiaou2 on February 06, 2012, 08:11:47 pm --- The thing is.... the fanboy here is actually you. You are young, and like most youngsters, you believe anything from the past isnt as good as the stuff made in YOUR chosen time period. You cant accept the reality of the situation... and so much so, that you cant even be bothered to research it.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: Xiaou2 on February 06, 2012, 08:11:47 pm --- Many of todays programmers have it easy. They barely have to make any gameplay at all... let alone balance it... let alone have it being split-second tight in 'skin-of-your-teeth' tolerances.
--- End quote ---
I don't want to walk into the middle of a pissing match, but you're calling someone out for (allegedly) thinking one era of video games are superior to others, and then immediately turning around to say the current era of video games are awful. That does not compute.
The first arcade game I remember as a kid was Galaxian. I spent a lot of time in arcades around the time of Spy Hunter, Rampage, and Street Fighter II, and continue to play new games today. There are great games from every era. I like them all. I still want a Discs of Tron or Race Drivin cab, but they are no better nor worse than Doom or System Shock 2 or Skyrim. They're just different. Gaming isn't about mastery over a machine, it's about having fun. If mastering a twitch game is your idea of fun, great. But you can't call World of Warcraft (ugh) a poor game just because it's not your style. Millions of people think these games are fun enough to spend hundreds of dollars on, so there's really no objective way to call them poor games.
And as an aside, contemporary video games aren't all giant open-world FPS's. Check out Geometry Wars or Super Crate Box for good examples of recent games that play much like the arcade games of the 80's.
Donkbaca:
Good points, ChrisK, a very fair asessment. That being said I reject your even keeled rationale approach. If more people like you were on this board then it wouldn't be any fun.
I am so sick of the denial of progress. Todays games are more fun, have way more thought put into them and are overall superior in every way. How was robotron developed? "Hey my hand is broken. You know what would be sweet? Two joysticks! Here's two atari joysticks! Rock on!" 6 months later there is a cab. You honestly want me to believe that careful care and consideration was put into the design of that thing? Please. You all act like video games was akin to art done by passionate people for the sake of producing something beautiful for the world. As if commercialism and consumerism is a recent plague that has ruined the soul of videogames. Right. The 1980's were the heart and SOUL of consumer commercialism, and the arcade games didn't have to be that great because there was nothing out there to compete with them, no good home consoles, the only competition was other arcade games, so companies pumped them out as fast as they could to maintain market share and used novel ideas like "hey lets use... TWO JOYSTICKS INSTEAD OF ONE!!!!" as simple, cheap ways to stand out. If anything the Early 90's arcade games were the best. The Street Fighter era games are the golden age because they had to compete for dollars and time with consoles that were pretty darn good. Todays videogames blow those ancient coin gobblers out of the water. Diablo III has been in production for like a decade, that game is truly an example where they cater to the gamer. They play test it for months and tweak it endlessly before they are going to roll out with it, and it will be epic. To put that game in the same class as something like marble madness is laughable
(that should ruffle some feathers...)
Xiaou2:
--- Quote ---I don't want to walk into the middle of a pissing match, but you're calling someone out for (allegedly) thinking one era of video games are superior to others, and then immediately turning around to say the current era of video games are awful. That does not compute.
--- End quote ---
Sure it does. I have an Opinion.
--- Quote ---The first arcade game I remember as a kid was Galaxian. I spent a lot of time in arcades around the time of Spy Hunter, Rampage, and Street Fighter II, and continue to play new games today. There are great games from every era. I like them all. I still want a Discs of Tron or Race Drivin cab, but they are no better nor worse than Doom or System Shock 2 or Skyrim. They're just different.
--- End quote ---
I appreciate your opinion... However, I dont share it. There are many games that are superior in some way shape or form, to others. Race Drivin's custom controllers alone, decimate any cabinets succeeding it.
Similarly, I could compare various versions of movie remakes, and or or even movies in the same series made by different people or different time periods. (Starwars orig -vs- Prequels)
Doom is different.. but sorry, it does not hold a candle to owning a Race Drivin. Not even close. And the simple fact, is that the gameplay in FPS games is far inferior to most any game. Even games that use less controllers. less complexity..etc. Most FPS games are on about the same level of gameplay as Dragons Lair, but far less artistic & unique.
--- Quote ---Gaming isn't about mastery over a machine, it's about having fun. If mastering a twitch game is your idea of fun, great. But you can't call World of Warcraft (ugh) a poor game just because it's not your style. Millions of people think these games are fun enough to spend hundreds of dollars on, so there's really no objective way to call them poor games.
--- End quote ---
Actually, I CAN call make the determination between a walking movie (baby toy), and an actual game of skill. In fact, it was the "Continue" quarter munchers that pretty much sealed the doors on arcades forever.
Once a game loses all its skill, it loses almost all need to really play it. Its almost like playing Tic Tac Toe. If your over 6yrs old, its a complete waste of time. It pretty much ceases to be a game at that point. No fun, no challenge, no reason to play.
As for Geometry Wars, it doesnt have gameplay anywhere near as balanced as the older vector games... and worse yet, its a clustered mess. Theres so much blurr and particles all over the place, that you cant even see half of the screen. The concept is good.. but the execution, is not. Tempest, Asteroids Deluxe, Starwars... now those are well designed vector games.
--- Quote ---And as an aside, contemporary video games aren't all giant open-world FPS's. Check out Geometry Wars or Super Crate Box for good examples of recent games that play much like the arcade games of the 80's.
--- End quote ---
Never said that All newer games are bad. In fact, there are a lot of awful games from the past. And, on Rare occasion, there are some great new games. But the thing is... Is that the percentage of good games is very low these days, in comparison to the past games.
The reasons for this are many. Many of which have already been listed.
Which brings me to the final point.. is that your argument isnt really about the real point of the argument. My argument with him, was about the fact that games of the past were made vastly different... which is again, the reason why many of these games are still fun to play today... but more modern games wont even get a 2nd play... let alone be remembered in 20yrs from now.
Xiaou2:
--- Quote ---I am so sick of the denial of progress.
--- End quote ---
Nobody is denying progress. We are arguing points on the foundation of gameplay, Challenge, and balance.
No matter how much you try to Dress up checkers... its still checkers. You can re-make Pac Man with 3d cut scenes and 3d rendered FPS graphics... but again.. its STILL Pacman. The game plays a certain way. Thats its foundation. The rest is just glitter.
There are games still made today, like the Mario 2d series, that Still remain fun and challenging. There are Timeless. As are all games which have excellent gameplay, challenge, and balance.
--- Quote --- Todays games are more fun, have way more thought put into them and are overall superior in every way.
--- End quote ---
A new Mario maybe... but an FPS? Its easy. All you have to do is copy a game engine. Then drop some bad guys into the mix that are not all that intelligent. (And you can even skip much of that, cause multiplayer humans will solve the difficulty of good Artificial Intelligence programming). Add some action stopping cutscenes with faces that unintentionally scare you due to creep factor of unrealistic rendering.. and then Drop some 3d models in.. and finally, click "Exe". Theres very little more than that... and certainly not anything as tight of tolerances of the older games... or a game like 2d super mario.. where everything has a specific placement and speed, a puzzle, a trap, exacting timings, exacting distances ..ect. In an FPS, all you have to do is roam and fire. Its slow, its not challenging, its a sleeper fest that even young kids have little trouble doing.
--- Quote --- How was robotron developed? "Hey my hand is broken. You know what would be sweet? Two joysticks! Here's two atari joysticks! Rock on!"
--- End quote ---
Robotron was developed like most games of the 80s. Lets try this idea... and see how it plays. Ohh.. it plays good, so lets see how far we can push it and develop it. OR... Ohh, this plays like crap... and the system board cant handle all the action, we dont have enough memory to do this, etc... so lets modify it this way...
According to documemts from actual designers who worked for Atari... they just told you to start making games. A lot of them had never done it before, and were not even sure where to start. Eventually, with a lot of trial and error, they brute forced the systems to do their bidding. They were given pretty much free reign to create whatever they wanted to create. After making a prototype game, they would submit if for review. So long as the thing played decently... it was all green lights. If it didnt play well, it was sent back to be tweaked or scrapped.
They couldnt just drop a bunch of characters on the screen like in an FPS. Robotron for example, has some incredible Artificial Intelligence. The flying enemies will not simply aim for you.. but will aim in the direction you are running in - ahead of you. They also detect when they are in danger, and will fly away faster than lightning at such a point. Some will quickly go hide in a corner trying to pick you off at a distance, while the others are all over your butt.
But even that, is nothing compared to the masterpiece of AI, "Spy Hunter". That game is Viciously Brilliant! The cars are not simply sent out at random. In fact, you can see the intelligence as they start to form specific teams of cars that work together to try to kill you. Putting Armored cars in the rear, making it a nightmare if you slow down... and a switchblade car in the lead, so your constantly pressed to go fast. Then dropping a combination of puddles that make you steer into other cars / trouble.. or the helicopter, which drops bombs in the only road area you felt was safe. The combinations of these elements are finely balanced and orchestrated like a symphony. Its like a constantly changing rube-goldberg machine in action, and it always ends up taking you out, in the end.
But yeah, even simply Robotron, was an exercise in perfection of game balance. There are a zillion Robotron-Esc games out there... and NONE of them are as good as the Original. The specific elements, types of enemies, combinations of attacks, speed of the players, speed of the bullets, AI, and much more... all are tuned up to make an ever challenging, yet incredibly fun and addictive experience.
Years later, they made Smash TV. Changing Robotron into a continue quarter muncher. Effectively, ruining the gameplay. Its still an ok game. Its fun, its funny, and the graphics are cool.. BUT... it becomes meaningless after a few rounds. Basically, you dont even care if you finish the game or not. You dont even care if you win a level or not, because its programmed to make the game too 'cheap', so that you drop more money into it.
But the real Robotron always gives you a chance... even though it may seem impossible, you Can get out of it by the skin of your teeth... and nearly every second, is a skin-of-your-teeth moment. Theres nothing but adrenalin flow. And if you lose all your lives, you still want to try again, to get to a higher level.
An FPS doent get your blood pumping like that. Its not challenging. Its point and click, and thats it. A simple point and click adventure book. A slow moving fairy tale. Or a done to death shoot-out war/gun fest. Theres no skill in Snipeing in a game, just as theres barely any skill in real sniping... esp at closer ranges.
--- Quote --- You honestly want me to believe that careful care and consideration was put into the design of that thing?
--- End quote ---
Try programming a Robotron clone. See if you can convince all the Robotron hardcore players that your version is better.
--- Quote ---Please. You all act like video games was akin to art done by passionate people for the
sake of producing something beautiful for the world.
--- End quote ---
I guess because you are soul-less, and dont give a crap about the work and things you produce.. that you feel everyone thinks the same way as you right? (you must be a typical "COG" right?)
People back then actually cared about how well a game played. In fact, they had to... because there was no pretty graphics to cover up the visual losses... nor any cd quality sound systems, help aid. It was all about how well a game played... and yes, it WAS a passion... as well as a constant battle. Creating games that not only did the office workers enjoy.. but that tested well with the higher-ups, and in actual arcade locations, making money. Fail to any of those parties happy... and the game was shot down and scrapped. All that work, for nothing.
--- Quote --- As if commercialism and consumerism is a recent plague that has ruined the soul of videogames. Right.
--- End quote ---
Nothing to do with either of those. It was when game companies started to cater to the gamers who didnt want to put any effort into games... that games fell. Continue games. Cheat codes. Buy-In's. Low difficulty / challenge... Etc. When gameplay became 2nd to graphical look. When corporations got too corporate, zapped all the creativity and originality away. Forever changing games for the worse on a whole.
--- Quote ---the arcade games didn't have to be that great because there was nothing out there to compete with them, no good home consoles, the only competition was other arcade games, so companies pumped them out as fast as they could to maintain market share
--- End quote ---
Simply not true. Poor games didnt earn well, and when they didnt earn, they didnt sell. On the other hand, great classics that made very good earnings, were sold in massive quantities all over the world.
Companies that made crap games, eventually went belly up. The more accomplished companies, like Atari and Sega, stood rock solid for many years, with astronomical sales figures.
People didnt just play crap games, because supposedly, there was nothing else. There was plenty of other things to do, rather than to play a game that wasnt even fun. Just the same as today, you decide long and hard about what you want to waste money on, and if something sucked, you dont buy it/do it again. Human nature hasnt changed.
--- Quote ---and used novel ideas like "hey lets use... TWO JOYSTICKS INSTEAD OF ONE!!!!" as simple, cheap ways to stand out.
--- End quote ---
Your argument falls flat, when you tally up the cost of designing, testing, and assembling a custom Star Wars controller. They could have used a simple analog joystick, like the modern craptasic Starwars Arcade game.
It also falls flat when you consider that marble madness needs two $120 trackball units, special metal punches to cut the trackball holes, extra assembly time...etc. And, it was also almost going to have force feedback.
It falls flat on a game like Race Drivin, with about $1400 worth of custom built controllers, totaling about 250lbs in controllers alone.
The plain fact is that Robotron doesnt play well with a single controller. Anyone can easily test this in mame, by mapping the two together. Being able to fire in a different direction than you move, gives more advanced gameplay, and its utilized to the fullest in that game.
Cheffo has told you, that the original design was a scolling one. Why change that? As stated... it didnt play well. The game, like all the rest, were changed constantly, until they played excellently, and were very balanced.
--- Quote --- If anything the Early 90's arcade games were the best. The Street Fighter era games are the golden age because they had to compete for dollars and time with consoles that were pretty darn good.
--- End quote ---
There were some good 90s games. And in fact, I like fighters too. However, its was the worst era of games. It was when all originality DIED. Almost every game was a fighter that came out. No more unique controllers. No more original gameplay. It was all the same exact game, repeated over and over, in different graphics.
While fighters did make money... they also were to blame for losing a lot of it too. Because not everyone wanted to play on a machine which when a skilled player was on, would take them out in seconds. Fighters complexities became off-putting to a lot of players... who simply didnt have the time or money to invest in them. And finally, there were times when you just wanted to play something different... but sadly, there was nothing else.
And because the Ops were no longer pushing the boundarys of originality, and no longer different and challenge... finally, consoles stepped in to take the last byte.
In fact, games in the arcades SHOULD have been getting better earnings geometrically.. due to population growth. The corporate 'copy formula', eventually failed, and it took out an entire section of history with it: "The Arcade"
This Copy-Formula attitude followed into the pc and console markets... and then we got the same repeat game model all again. It also spread to the music industry... which is why many bands have the same exact sounds. Same samples, same tempo, same chords, same use of vocal enhancement to cover the fact that they dont hire real singing talent anymore.
The 80s were completely different. It was a time when Anything was possible. When artists still had the freedom to create amazing things. When stars were born... not manufactured by a formula.
90s were a Dying star... when all creativity was almost dead. When all industries were controlled to the point where there was no freedoms at all.
By 2000, there pretty much nothing but puppets on strings, yes men, and the zombies who eat it all up.
--- Quote --- Todays videogames blow those ancient coin gobblers out of the water.
--- End quote ---
Name 3 games that are so fast. intense, and challenging, that they make you sweat.. (made in 2010 or later).
Tell me how long it took to master and beat them.
Then, go fire up Mr.Do. See if you can get 15 levels in, and how long it takes you to do it.
Then, go fire up Robotron, see if you can get to level 35 on the default settings.
Then, go fire up Spy Hunter, and see if you maintain your game for 30 min.
--- Quote ---Diablo III has been in production for like a decade, that game is truly an example where they cater to the gamer. They play test it for months and tweak it endlessly before they are going to roll out with it, and it will be epic. To put that game in the same class as something like marble madness is laughable
--- End quote ---
Diablo III will be like all the other Diablo's. Its a point and click game. You are not a tenth of a second away from death at every moment. You do not have full and accurate control of the player. Its slow, clumsy, and frankly... boring. The only thing it has going for it.. .is very nice graphics. Thats it. Its the same exact game engine, with some slight mods and changes. But its the same slow moving game.
In fact, Marble Madness done with todays hardware, and done well, would blow the pants off of the slow gameplay of DiabLOW.
MMs biggest drawback was lack of speed. That was due to hardware limitations of the day.
It made up for it by making extremely tight time limits... so you really had to work hard physically to get to the end in time. A modern version with greater speed and longer levels, would dominate.
The problem is, your lack of perspective and objectivity. You just cant see past the fluff, and into the heart of a games engine. All you see are graphics and hear sounds. You simply dont get the whole 'gameplay' thing.
For all the hard work they put into Diablow... nobody will care about it in a year, and nobody will remember it in 10... and who is going to replay it repeatedly over the years? Thats right... Nobody.
Id rather play a game of Guitar Hero, or some 20+ yr old classic...
The problem isnt in the age.
Good creations are Ageless.
You simply make it about age, because thats what your obsessed about.
DaveMMR:
Xiaou, any chance of getting that summed up in a way that won't wear out my mouse scroll button?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version