It's probably easier to convince a brick wall to try out Atari's games than most modern gamer's

[JPF997]

Recently I created an account on the popular gaming forum gamefaqs, I have the same username and everything, one of the first topic's i made there  was asking the gamer's over there if they thought that modern Atari was now in a position where they could compete with Nintendo at least in terms of game quality, I explained to them more or less everything that has happened to Atari since Wade took over two years ago and why I was so optimistic about Atari's future, suffice to say It didn't go too well  (this was on the switch forum btw), first thing that happened was of course nearly everyone downplaying the importance of Atari's games and legacy, saying the usual nonsense like no Atari game compares to what Nintendo put out on the NES, no Atari game can evolve into a fully fledged franchise, no Atari game is even worth playing  today or is worthy of being modernized with remake's and sequel's bla,bla,bla...

I'd love to see someone like ledzep actually try to strike up a conversation with those types of  gamer's, maybe then he would finally understand just how tame and respectful some of my opinions actually are 😂.

[zzip]

Maybe I'm a brick wall, but as much as I like what Wade has done,  Atari would still have a long way to go to be able to take Nintendo on.   Nintendo has a multiple-decades long reputation for quality games while Atari has been an extremely bumpy ride.

 

I don't know if most recharged games will appeal to people who haven't played the originals (but maybe the new Haunted House could)

 

The big different between modern gamers and retrogamers is modern gamers expect games to last 30 hours or more, while retrogamers were brought up on arcade-style games that might last five minutes but has high-replay value.   Modern gamers don't seem to know what to do with those types of games.

[Giles N]

I’m not surprised.
 

If they already are generally interested in retro-gaming they could be interested in things like Atari 50th or Flashback.

 

But if we speak new games (recharged, re-imagined) to have any appeal to zoomers and onwards, they must be designed so well, they can stand on their own legs and all retro-factors come in as bonus.

 

Alternatively that they are very well-designed in modernized retro-style, in such a manner as to really stand out among the myriads of such titles.

 

I think that (unfortunately) many of the recharged and reimagined titles are way too generic or minimalistic to appeal to younger generations (30ies and younger).

[Giles N]

17 minutes ago, zzip said:

modern gamers expect games to last 30 hours or more,

It’s more than that.

More than just how long the game or game-session lasts.

 

You have modern type games that are almost a new type of infinite-gameplay: mobile or online where VS mode makes a finite set of levels/playing-fields become infinte like in sports.

 

But modern gamers do like more variation than one screen/setting or just one thing to do again and again, - just faster and faster.

 

Even I, when I was like 8-9 and we had only a Dragon 64, I felt it a turn-off that the games looked so blocky and played mostly awful and had so little to them compared to arcades.

 

Now, sure, there are plenty of 2600 games I’d love to have had back then, but when I got bored of the samey feeling and limited variation when I’m like 8-9, one cannot expect people who grew up with the NES to be ‘old’, to be hyper-enthusiastic about games where you see and experience very little, little variation in looks, sound, gameplay, game-objects.

 

Moving on to the C64 was like another world. Getting games with different levels each with different looks, music and tasks, giving a rewarding sense of progression and eventually completion, made a massive difference.

 

Very few today likes to pay $10 to only see one set of backdrop-visuals, with only one or two things to do, to complete the game, or game-session…

If its like just one type of environment where all you need to do is to get familiar with the gameplay and on repeat go through just faster, more intense or more precise, same graphics and sound all the time, it gives no sense progression. Where is the reward? A game need to have clear aims, tasks, etc, make them fun to accomplish and reward getting better, rewarding progression. 
 

And whether a session is long or short, the full game content massive or medium-sized or little, it must feel rewarding to achieve, to progress.

Edited October 17, 2023 by Giles N

[JPF997]

6 minutes ago, Giles N said:

It’s more than that.

 

You have modern type games that are almost a new type of infinite-gameplay: mobile or online where VS mode makes a finite set of levels/playing-fields become infinte like in sports.

 

But modern gamers do like more variation than one screen/setting or just one thing to do again and again, - just faster and faster.

 

Even I, when I was like 8-9 and we had only a Dragon 64, I felt it a turn-off that the games looked so blocky and played mostly awful and had so little to them compared to arcades.

 

Now, sure, there are plenty of 2600 games I’d love to have had back then, but when I got bored of the samey feeling and limited variation when I’m like 8-9, one cannot expect people who grew up with the NES to be ‘old’, to be hyper-enthusiastic about games where you see and experience very little, little variation in looks, sound, gameplay, game-objects.

 

Moving on to the C64 was like another world. Getting games with different levels each with different looks, music and tasks, giving a rewarding sense of progression and eventually completion, made a massive difference.

 

You know what one of those guy's told me, for him Atari's games were inferior to the one's made by rival computer companies let alone Nintendo, I guess Wade still has some work to do in order to convince a lot of these Atari sceptics to finally give the brand a chance.

[Giles N]

9 minutes ago, JPF997 said:

Atari sceptics to finally give the brand a chance.

Everyone should stop thinking so much about ‘Atari’ and ‘brand’.

 

‘Brand’ and logos are meaningless to gamers without providing good quality gaming-experiences.

 

The brand and the Atari-name without good games or good hardware would be like collecting Ad-posters from the 50ies as collecting-hobby.

 

All this ‘brand’ & ‘logo’-focus is a complete dead-end (imho)

 

Atari need to make good games, maintain access to the best stuff they’ve provided of gaming-experiences from their beginning up til now.

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Giles N

[Flojomojo]

Talking won't convince anyone -- it takes lots and lots of fun, accessible, attractive games. "Show don't tell." That's harder to do than fighting on forums and trying to convince them how they should think. 

 

Quantum Recharged is 2 dollars off right now, maybe I'll grab it since it's one I don't have. 

[JPF997]

17 minutes ago, Giles N said:

Everyone should stop thinking so much about ‘Atari’ and ‘brand’.

 

‘Brand’ and logos are meaningless to gamers without providing good quality gaming-experiences.

 

The brand and the Atari-name without good games or good hardware would be like collecting Ad-posters from the 50ies as collecting-hobby.

 

All this ‘brand’ & ‘logo’-focus is a complete dead-end (imho)

 

Atari need to make good games, maintain access to the best stuff they’ve provided of gaming-experiences from their beginning up til now.

 

When I said give the brand a chance I'm talking about trying out the  games old and new, what did you think I was talking about?

[Giles N]

1 hour ago, JPF997 said:

I'm talking about trying out the  games old and new, what did you think I was talking about?

Sorry, perhaps I was talking out of my as_. 
Then shit may happen.

Anyway; sure perhaps some could get interested.

I usually gets interested by someone saying this or that individual game happens to be super-cool more than who made it or published it.

 

Guess the last thing there, was what I really wanted to as_-out in the open room.

 

Sorry ‘bout that.

 

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Giles N

[ledzep]

3 hours ago, JPF997 said:

I'd love to see someone like ledzep actually try to strike up a conversation with those types of  gamer's, maybe then he would finally understand just how tame and respectful some of my opinions actually are 😂.

 

Oh, I'm sure it would be a waste of time, like talking to people who love modern pop music and think AutoTuned vocals and quantized instruments is amazing to listen to rock bands that actually rely on their own talent to make music.  "It's so old!", like that matters.  But you know those guys wouldn't last long trying to play through a few levels of '80s arcade games with the original controls so what good are their opinions?

[Giles N]

7 hours ago, JPF997 said:

 

Recently I created an account on the popular gaming forum gamefaqs,

 

 

«It's probably easier to convince a brick wall to try out Atari's games than most modern gamer's»

---

 

Perhaps you asked the wrong brickwall?

 

 

[+Stephen Moss]

12 hours ago, zzip said:

I don't know if most recharged games will appeal to people who haven't played the originals (but maybe the new Haunted House could)

My thought exactly, leveraging old Atari IP to make new game is OK, but they are not in the style on modern games thus their appeal may be limited to modern gamer who are used to Third person/3D games with more life like graphics such as Tiger Woods, Madden, Call of Duty. I doubt there are many new games for PC/modern consoles that are coming out in a flat 2D 80's style any more even though they may look better/more details due to higher resolution graphics.

 

They maybe recharging old IP but it is still mostly or entirely in that flat 2D style, modern gamers would probably prefer to be playing games like Berserk from a 1st person view point running around inside the maze as you do in Doom or AvP on the Jaguar, for playing Defender sitting in the cockpit rather than viewing it side on as that way it could appeal to both older and newer gamers, and for the latter they could probably fit squeeze the classic or classic style version as an option.

 

It is not necessary that the basic game concept would not appeal to modern gamers but how it is implement and if Atari want to survive making games in a style that appeals more to modern gamers is the way to go as old "classic" games will largely appear to old gamers who grew up playing them and be it through attrition or waning interest as they get older that is largely a limited and constantly dwindling market space.

[digdugnate]

a person could make this argument for virtually any creative work, but there's only a limited number of ways or times any company can capitalize on old stuff and turn it into something new.

 

shouting into the void is useless but some people seem to really get off on it.

[juansolo]

19 hours ago, JPF997 said:

Recently I created an account on the popular gaming forum gamefaqs, I have the same username and everything, one of the first topic's i made there  was asking the gamer's over there if they thought that modern Atari was now in a position where they could compete with Nintendo at least in terms of game quality

Not a chance in hell. Nintendo have built an empire based around how they do things since the Famicom. Atari's Empire building died with the 2600 and they never recovered.

20 hours ago, JPF997 said:

first thing that happened was of course nearly everyone downplaying the importance of Atari's games and legacy, saying the usual nonsense like no Atari game compares to what Nintendo put out on the NES, no Atari game can evolve into a fully fledged franchise, no Atari game is even worth playing  today or is worthy of being modernized with remake's and sequel's bla,bla,bla...

Atari WAS important to the birth the entire industry, they were also instrumental in nearly killing it (in the USA) before it got any further. The NES kickstarted the industry (in the USA) after that and a lot of younger people remember that. The NES/Famicom itself was massively ahead of anything that had gone before and any competition the likes of Atari had they fumbled allowing Nintendo to get a foothold.

 

Next there's an age thing. The over 50's who are still into gaming are really the majority of Atari's market and Atari can't see past the one thing that was popular over forty years ago. It's a VERY small market of people and endless regurgitated, cheap and flawed nostalgia boxes isn't exactly innovative. Nintendo, much as I dislike a lot of the way they go about things, can't be described as not being innovative. They consitently turn out new and interesting hardware, some of it hits like the Wii, some of it misses like the WiiU. But they're clever, the WiiU might have failed, but it's software library propped up the Switch for at least the first few years of it's production. This is of course another thing, Nintendo can consistently knock it out of the park in terms of their software.

 

I'm not sure how you think an entity wearing Atari's corpse can even come close to achieving what Nintendo has done in the near future. It's taken them years to become what they are. You've got what, another 10 years of Atari before most of their customers are in their 60's... Which is why ultimately it can't possibly compete. Kids are bought Switches to play the new Mario or Zelda game on. I can't see parents buying them a 2600+.

[jerseystyle]

20 hours ago, JPF997 said:

Recently I created an account on the popular gaming forum gamefaqs, I have the same username and everything, one of the first topic's i made there  was asking the gamer's over there if they thought that modern Atari was now in a position where they could compete with Nintendo at least in terms of game quality, I explained to them more or less everything that has happened to Atari since Wade took over two years ago and why I was so optimistic about Atari's future, suffice to say It didn't go too well  (this was on the switch forum btw), first thing that happened was of course nearly everyone downplaying the importance of Atari's games and legacy, saying the usual nonsense like no Atari game compares to what Nintendo put out on the NES, no Atari game can evolve into a fully fledged franchise, no Atari game is even worth playing  today or is worthy of being modernized with remake's and sequel's bla,bla,bla...

I'd love to see someone like ledzep actually try to strike up a conversation with those types of  gamer's, maybe then he would finally understand just how tame and respectful some of my opinions actually are 😂.

I mean, short answer is “no, of course not.” What has Atari done that is comparable to, say, Breath of The Wild or Super Mario Wonder?  They can’t possibly compete at that level. If they tried it’d bankrupt them. Their audience is aging and they haven’t figured out how to bring in new people. That isn’t a fault of the customer, it’s on them for relying on nostalgia for 30 years. 
 

You know what they should try? Remake Adventure on Roblox. See if they can get kiddos invested that way. The Recharged games may be great but they won’t pump millions into the company.   

[zzip]

6 hours ago, Stephen Moss said:

I doubt there are many new games for PC/modern consoles that are coming out in a flat 2D 80's style any more even though they may look better/more details due to higher resolution graphics.

 

Actually there's quite a few games that come out with retro-80s pixel art styling, and some are quite popular, especially with younger people.   Off the top of my head-  Delta Rune, Escapists series, Stardew Valley, but there are many others.

 

It's not the graphics that put them off.   Gamers today expect some kind of story, or sandbox, or simulator that will keep them busy for awhile.   A lot of younger people don't know what to do with the arcade style of short-gameplay, impossible to progress until you "git gud".   They expect you go back to a checkpoint and not "game over" if you fail.

 

If you think about it, the only reason arcade-style exists is because games first appeared in arcades and needed to keep the coins flowing in.   A game where you fail frequently but have strong urge to replay is the most profitable for an arcade.

So it's probably not the most natural gameplay style,  but it feels natural to Gen-Xers because that was our first videogame experiences.

 

[Zoyous]

3 minutes ago, zzip said:

Actually there's quite a few games that come out with retro-80s pixel art styling, and some are quite popular, especially with younger people.   Off the top of my head-  Delta Rune, Escapists series, Stardew Valley, but there are many others.

 

It's not the graphics that put them off.   Gamers today expect some kind of story, or sandbox, or simulator that will keep them busy for awhile.   A lot of younger people don't know what to do with the arcade style of short-gameplay, impossible to progress until you "git gud".   They expect you go back to a checkpoint and not "game over" if you fail.

 

If you think about it, the only reason arcade-style exists is because games first appeared in arcades and needed to keep the coins flowing in.   A game where you fail frequently but have strong urge to replay is the most profitable for an arcade.

So it's probably not the most natural gameplay style,  but it feels natural to Gen-Xers because that was our first videogame experiences.

 

Agreed, there's actually no shortage of popular pixel art and retro-influenced games these days. Spelunky, Hotline Miami, Broforce, Superbrothers: Sword and Sworcery, A Short Hike, Hyper Light Drifter, Undertale, Enter the Gungeon, Celeste. Some of them are chill, some are as hard as anything from back in the day.

 

Another good example of a modern take on arcade gaming is something like Vampire Survivors. The actual moment-to-moment gameplay couldn't be any simpler... you just move your character. It's all about risk vs. reward as you maneuver around getting close to enemies while your auto-attacks fire off. But it's got great depth as it periodically gives you choices for how you power up, and this is also reflected in long-term progress as you can return to the game later with your characters who you've developed through many hours of playing. Void Scrappers is another one I like in this genre, actually I prefer it to Vampire Survivors - but there are now many games in this genre.

 

In any case, the point is that simple-to-learn, hard-to-master arcade-style games can still be popular, but they benefit from including newer gameplay and progression mechanics, roguelike aspects, dynamic soundtracks, and at least the option for a more chill experience than something that's going to try and kill you in two minutes. In fact I'd say this neo-retro style of game is uniquely suited to the classic Atari 2600 approach of having lots of game variations to choose from.

[ledzep]

8 hours ago, jerseystyle said:

You know what they should try? Remake Adventure on Roblox. See if they can get kiddos invested that way. The Recharged games may be great but they won’t pump millions into the company.

 

I was thinking more Minecraft but that's not a bad idea.  Except I can't stand the mixing together of different resolutions, some stuff looks like giant 8-bit recreations in 3D, others look like modern buildings and cars, too detailed.  Keep everything blocky and it might work.  I watched a trailer for Roblox and it seems the point is that you need to fight something somewhere, but it's not here, so you have to run or drive/fly a lot.

 

7 hours ago, zzip said:

It's not the graphics that put them off.   Gamers today expect some kind of story, or sandbox, or simulator that will keep them busy for awhile.   A lot of younger people don't know what to do with the arcade style of short-gameplay, impossible to progress until you "git gud".   They expect you go back to a checkpoint and not "game over" if you fail.

 

Boo hoo, so what does these wannabe adventurers do with something like checkers or Battleship?  Where's my story?  It would be a good learning tool for them, sometimes (many times) you just lose in life, you don't always get your way.  I always loved that 'keep going until you get fragged' aspect of arcade games, though I did like the games like Tempest that rewarded you for getting far by allowing you to start a new game at a higher level than the last time.

 

7 hours ago, zzip said:

If you think about it, the only reason arcade-style exists is because games first appeared in arcades and needed to keep the coins flowing in.   A game where you fail frequently but have strong urge to replay is the most profitable for an arcade.

So it's probably not the most natural gameplay style,  but it feels natural to Gen-Xers because that was our first videogame experiences.

 

True, but other games have a similar gameplay style or set of rules.  Early board games like Snakes & Ladders or tic-tac-toe don't lend themselves to long gameplay or stories, it's just get to the end first and win.  I remember when those "story" type PC and console games started becoming popular, a common thing that my friends would talk about (I never got into those games) was how they got that new game that everybody is playing, spent 6-8 hours playing it... and completed it.  They rarely ever played that particular game again because what for?  They would just move on to the next "story" game and beat that one.  I don't see an advantage there, that's like reading a book.  You're not going to start reading the book again right after you finish reading it.

 

On the other hand, arcade style games are more like sports, you play a basketball game, there are various options and moves and outcomes, one side wins, game over.  Want to play again?  Ok, go ahead, this game won't be a carbon copy of the last one with the same moves at the same time.  But it still ends, there's no "story" or environment to explore.  Maybe that's why most Gen-X/Zers suck at sports or aren't interested in playing them?  Original Doom is basically a 1st-person Berzerk or Gauntlet, just kill everything you see while running around in different rooms.  Seemed pretty popular back then.

Edited October 18, 2023 by ledzep

[Emehr]

8 hours ago, jerseystyle said:

You know what they should try? Remake Adventure on Roblox. See if they can get kiddos invested that way. The Recharged games may be great but they won’t pump millions into the company.   

I was going to jump on this thread specifically to suggest an Atari-branded Roblox game. Adventure would be a great start. They should probably drop 9 games (just to keep with tradition) to explore various genres. Even better (maybe?), make one Roblox game that touches on all of the classic Atari gameplay mechanics. Maybe you start out playing Adventure. Get the chalice and now you've got robots and Evil Otto chasing you in a haunted house while you try to find the pieces of the urn or something. Savvy players who get the easter egg will transport them into something more cerebral like a Swordquest or Raiders-like game where they need to find clues. Something fun to drawn in new players and get them enjoying content with the Atari fuji.

 

If Atari wants to grab the attention of younger people they're going to need a gateway and Roblox might be a good way in.

[MrTrust]

Modern gamers...

 

You mean the kind of people who are into stuff like this?

 

 

 

Somehow, I believe we'll be okay without modern gamers.

[jerseystyle]

4 hours ago, MrTrust said:

Modern gamers...

 

You mean the kind of people who are into stuff like this?

 

 

 

Somehow, I believe we'll be okay without modern gamers.

You think that’s a new thing? You ever check out The Dream of the Fisherman’s Wife (1814)?  No worries, I’ll wait.

 

…

 

…

 

point being, humans have always been weird.

[+GoldLeader]

 

So I went over to the modern gamers and said "Let's play some Atari!"

 

"Nope!"  They said haughtily...

 

 

So I approached a good ol' brick wall...

 

"Brick wall,  my friend!" I schmoozed...

 

"Whaddya want?"  Said this (oddly) talking brick wall.

 

"Whoa!  You can Talk!"

 

"Ummm I mean,  I was hoping to convince you to play some video games!"

 

"Yup!   OK"  He said and asked about Space Invaders...He looked right at my avatar,  and well,  This brick wall wanted to play arcade Space Invaders!

 

Maybe it's not Atari,

 

But it's still video games!   Yay!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I know,   I know, 

 

 

 

 

Pics

 

 

 

 

or  it

 

 

 

didn't happen...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MrTrust]

4 hours ago, jerseystyle said:

You think that’s a new thing?

 

Do I think it's new to have someone's DeviantArt fetish fanfic inserted into a highly-anticipated entry release new game for the most mainstream RPG series ever?  Yes.  Yes, I do.  Or did you find some secret easter egg in The Legend of Zelda, where link turns into an Moblin and gets banged by an Octorok, that everyone else happened to miss for the last 40 years?

[zzip]

16 hours ago, ledzep said:

I was thinking more Minecraft but that's not a bad idea.  Except I can't stand the mixing together of different resolutions, some stuff looks like giant 8-bit recreations in 3D, others look like modern buildings and cars, too detailed.  Keep everything blocky and it might work.  I watched a trailer for Roblox and it seems the point is that you need to fight something somewhere, but it's not here, so you have to run or drive/fly a lot.

Someone tried making Adventure in Dreams on Playstation 4, and the results are kind of odd, like you describe:

 

16 hours ago, ledzep said:

Boo hoo, so what does these wannabe adventurers do with something like checkers or Battleship?  Where's my story? 

16 hours ago, ledzep said:

True, but other games have a similar gameplay style or set of rules.  Early board games like Snakes & Ladders or tic-tac-toe don't lend themselves to long gameplay or stories, it's just get to the end first and win.

There's been a board game renaissance, and there was a debate in another thread about how modern board games are "amazing" and old board games have "terrible" design.   I wonder how many of the younger people still play the old board games and which ones?

 

16 hours ago, ledzep said:

I remember when those "story" type PC and console games started becoming popular, a common thing that my friends would talk about (I never got into those games) was how they got that new game that everybody is playing, spent 6-8 hours playing it... and completed it.  They rarely ever played that particular game again because what for?  They would just move on to the next "story" game and beat that one.  I don't see an advantage there, that's like reading a book.  You're not going to start reading the book again right after you finish reading it.

That's still how it is today, except gamers will act like they got ripped off if the game is 'only' 6-8 hours (unless it's cheap).   I've seen it suggested by gamers that a game should cost no more than $1 per hour of gameplay it provides.   If you want something with replayability, you'd get a "sandbox" game like Minecraft or a City builder or something.

 

I've seen people get confused by sandbox games because there's no storyline telling them what to do.    The idea of "make your own story" is alien to them.   That's weird to me because as kids we'd have Lego or Star Wars action figures we'd improvise our own adventures and stories and have fun doing it.   One reason Adventure was so fun is we'd create our own quests and challenges.   "Ok this time let's get all the dragon carcasses in the secret room",  "The bat is frozen in place, can we keep him that way the entire game?"

 

16 hours ago, ledzep said:

Original Doom is basically a 1st-person Berzerk or Gauntlet, just kill everything you see while running around in different rooms.  Seemed pretty popular back then.

But Doom also had an objective and ending that was achievable, you die, and respawn on the same level without your inventory (or just reload your last save)

 

I have no idea if there's an ending in Berzerk or Gauntlet, it would take too many quarters to get that far

 

[CapitanClassic]

5 hours ago, GoldLeader said:

Brick wall,  my friend!" I schmoozed...

"Whaddya want?"  Said this (oddly) talking brick wall.

 

"Whoa!  You can Talk!"

"Ummm I mean,  I was hoping to convince you to play some video games!"

 

"Yup!   OK"  He said and asked about Space Invaders...He looked right at my avatar,  and well,  This brick wall wanted to play arcade Space Invaders!

Just don’t suggest Breakout. Walls tend to think it is culturally insensitive.