People would say the same thing about NES-era stuff or even 16-bit-era games, I don't buy that argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baloo
Printable View
People would say the same thing about NES-era stuff or even 16-bit-era games, I don't buy that argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baloo
Man, I adore the european demo scene, and thus love those cracktros. The demo scene is probably, to me at least, the coolest thing to ever come out of europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thenewguy
I've been filling my Amiga harddrive up with demos here lately.
I love demos too. I hate demos that get between me and the game I want to play, specially ones that set all the cheats ON by default and I need to set them all to OFF before playing.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheSonicRetard
.|. to all groups that did that.
I think it really depends on personal taste and what you grew up with. I've tried Atari, the games are just too basic. But I LOVE 80s arcade games like Centipede, Tron, Tempest, Star Wars, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by ApolloBoy
But for me, I feel that the technology just wasn't there to make a long-lasting game in the late 70s and early 80s. Atari is very rudimentary. But you're right, there are people who think that about the 8-bit and 16-bit generations, so really who knows at this point. It's a matter of personal preference.
I don't really have much love for pre-NES stuff, honestly. At least as far as home consoles are concerned; there were some great arcade titles. Ms. Pac-Man will forever be one of my favorite games.
But it goes the other way, too. I love everything 8, 16 & 32-bit. After that, though, I kind of lose interest. I have a Dreamcast and a PS2, and there are plenty of great games between those two, but for some reason the consoles themselves just aren't as fun to me. It's kinda hard to explain.
I discovered recently this great console, the vectrex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D--SVZ6pWWg
I saw some videos on youtube from the vectrex and for some reason I fell in love with it. It looks very different to any other home console from that generation. It's based on "arcade vector technology" from the era, I suposse.
Even when I dont try the real hardware yet, I think that I could enjoy to play a vectrex. I hope to buy a vectrex some day :D
Playing a real Vectrex is awesome although emulation of it is also really good nowadays. It even simulates the look of the original screen with its wavy flickering.
Did you play the vectrex on real hardware?Quote:
Playing a real Vectrex is awesome although emulation of it is also really good nowadays. It even simulates the look of the original screen with its wavy flickering.
Nice to know that emulation is so good. I will give a try. Which emulator do you recommend me?
Any way, nothing like the real thing all the way :D
Yeah, I own a Vectrex. I believe the emulator I used was ParaJVE but maybe there's a better one.
People who think the 8-bit and 16-bit generations are too simple haven't played enough games, and don't understand the concept of gameplay complexity. Games that are easy to pick up to play but rewarding to master are by far more complex than most of today's games. Pre-NES Arcade games had this quality as well, but a lot of 2600 games were basically what you see is what you get. If you don't like the first thirty seconds of gameplay of a 2600 game, don't expect to find out anything that will change the game for you. Conversely, the first thirty seconds of gameplay of most NES, Master System, TG16 and onward games is just a taste of the core gameplay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baloo
Interestingly enough though, most of the NES' 1985 test launch games fit the WYSIWIG format rather than the more complex Arcade style of the time. Considering Nintendo is the one who asserted that the market "crashed" because of Atari flooding the market with bad games, I find this interesting. If Nintendo really learned from Atari's "mistakes" and brought all of that research to bare on the NES US launch, why were the games more like Atari games than later NES titles up to and including 1986 Christmas? I think the answer is pretty simple, the "Crash" and Nintendo's triumphant entry is nothing but markeering.
The theory of bad games causing a crash has been debunked several times over. Every popular system has a high number of shitty games. Plus, I think many of the 2600's best games were in 1983-1984. The Atari crash didn't matter one bit to C64 owners. Only people that ignored computer and arcade games or have a Nintendo saviour complex make a big deal about it.
Nintendo did try the make the NES stand out from previous consoles but it wasn't just about quality games. It was also with gimmicky stuff like R.O.B.. The robot caught my eye but the games for it kind of sucked.
Kind of sucked? Man... they are horrid.Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater
Starfox would be nowhere without R.O.B.
And don't you forget it!!!
Yes, that's an awesome game . . . as is the homebrew Castle Crisis port on the A8.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
That's probably the (pre-NES era) game we've spent the most time on at the SF bay area Racket Boy meet-ups, as seen here:
http://www.racketboy.com/forum/viewt...st=0&sk=t&sd=a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuGpFySNNVg
4 player Asteroids on the A400 is pretty neat too, the main reason to have an A8 with 4 ports. (too bad more games didn't take advantage of that)
It was less of a problem of "too many bad games" as it was "too many games" in general. It seems the main issue was that the market was poorly managed (especially in distribution) which led to massive inflation beyond the nominal growth of the industry/market. (so overproduction of games -in number of individual titles and actual volume production . . . and a ton of clones/similar style games, regardless of the actual quality -and the relatively simplicity of the games meant that even proportionally significant modifications to look and/or feel or mechanics of a game could still end up being relatively minor differences overall -compared to later gen games where proportionally similar changes would mean much greater overall differences due to the inherently greater complexity)Quote:
Originally Posted by NeoZeedeater
There's other factors too (like lack of balanced competition -and the fact that most competition was also having similar problems, plus the computer price wars), but this is a separate topic in general. ;)
In recent years my appreciation for pre-NES titles has grown stronger than it was before, even finding myself admiring the Atari 2600, although I still prefer the arcade original for every port that was done on it.
Sure, many of these games were simple, repetitive, and score-based, but nonetheless there is a simple pleasure to be found in it, depending on how one looks at and approaches such games. To some it is like taking a stress test to reiterately clear each wave except at a progressively faster pace. The somewhat abstract and esoteric feeling of early games because of their limited graphics and often nonsensical objectives gives them an aura of mystery and magic.
So that being said, yes I do enjoy these games. I'm becoming more enamored with Space Invaders as of lately.