Kid's today on classic games

[JB]

Today's games arent about timing as much as in the past. I love classic games but they still only require good timing and blind luck. On the other hand todays consoles are more realistic so they require more skill than just luck and timing.

I disagree.

I actually think that, on average, classic games require more skill than modern games.

 

 

Personally, any time I hear someone complain that a new game is "too hard" I consider it a game I need to check to see if it offers me a challenge. I'm finding too many new games are just BORING. There's no real effort required to play. I may as well be reading a book for all the signifigance I have to the outcome of the game.

[2600Lives]

Well, I'd just like to say that I consider myself a GAMER. Not a classic gamer, not a modern gamer, but a complete gamer. I absolutely love the old stuff, as it always brings with it a twinge of nostalgia. Playing a game of Pac-Man, or hooking up my 2600 and playing a marathon of Yar's Revenge is great...BUT...I love the new stuff as well. Right now I'm going through Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance for the GameCube. I just finished going through Metroid Prime. Both of these games ROCK, and I loved every minute of playing them. But, I can just as easily fire up MAME and play Berzerk or Defender for a couple of hours. I love any and all video game stuff, and while I may have a slight preference for the classic stuff (look at my name for gawd's sake), that may be because I have much more of that stuff in my collection!

[The MilkMan]

I dabble in the realm of "cartoons". I'm currently trying to get my comic strip off the ground. Here's my take on the whole "kids of today VS. classic gaming"

[Inky]

I dabble in the realm of "cartoons". I'm currently trying to get my comic strip off the ground. Here's my take on the whole "kids of today VS. classic gaming"

LOL! That's classic!

 

Literally!

[candiru]

Eh, I think EGM just set up an environment that encouraged poking fun at the old games so they would have an entertaining article. Then the kids focused on seeing who could mock the games the best instead of actually playing them.

 

I like classic games, or I wouldn't visit this site. Except for the not understanding how to play and saying stupid stuff like, "Why would someone pay to play this when you can play it on a cell phone" It really doesn't sound terribly different from me and a couple buddies having a few beers and thouroughly enjoying some old games, but still laughing about how silly some of them seem now.

[maibock]

Milkman, that's good stuff! Do you have a website with more cartoons ?

[The MilkMan]

Milkman, that's good stuff! Do you have a website with more cartoons ?

 

Yea..it's been kinda of an on and off project. check it out.

www.anvilfilms.net/Fam/FamPages/TheFamMain.html

[MegaManFan]

It only has one button. ROFLMAO.

[bjk7382]

Today's games arent about timing as much as in the past. I love classic games but they still only require good timing and blind luck. On the other hand todays consoles are more realistic so they require more skill than just luck and timing.

I disagree.

I actually think that, on average, classic games require more skill than modern games.

 

 

Personally, any time I hear someone complain that a new game is "too hard" I consider it a game I need to check to see if it offers me a challenge. I'm finding too many new games are just BORING. There's no real effort required to play. I may as well be reading a book for all the signifigance I have to the outcome of the game.

 

I can gurantee that you haven't beat THPS 4. And ALL of the new games are far from "reading a book" boring. They ALL have stores that are played out in fron of you and not game stories that you need to read out of an instruction book. And what do you mean there is no real effor required to play???? The controllers have about 14 times as many buttons and there games are bigger and better. Don't get me wrong though, I still love classic games, but I think you are just saying this so you can disagree with people and start trying to prove people wrong. It is all up to personal preference and there is no way you can gennerally disclaim that all new games require no skill. YOU ARE WRONG.

[BassGuitari]

I find myself getting into very few modern games. GTA Vice City and Hitman 2 are the only ones I've really played in a looong time...and I really think they should be described more as "simulations" than "games." You really have to interact with the environment you're presented with, instead of being able to "just go at it" as with retro games.

 

I also think it's funny how one of the best-selling new GBA games is Super Mario Bros. 3. Some of my sister's friends (who are 9 years old) actually think SMB 3 is a brand-new game, and that the 1988 copyright date is a "typo" (these are also the same kids that refuse to believe there was an *original* Playstation, but only PS2 and the rereleased PsOne).

 

My sis is a good kid tho, she willing plays Star Ship and K.C.'s Krazy Chase with me when she gets bored with Kingdom Hearts.

[ZylonBane]

I can gurantee that you haven't beat THPS 4

"THPS"? What are you, Bill the Cat?

[JB]

I can gurantee that you haven't beat THPS 4.

And a game about riding around on a skateboard is one of the dumbest concepts I've seen, too. Your point?

I thought it was understood that open-ended games were excluded fromt hat statement.

 

And ALL of the new games are far from "reading a book" boring.

Did I SAY that reading a book was boring? I quite enjoy reading.

Howeverm, I sit down to a game to challenge my instincts, reflexes, and coordination. I have plenty of books if I'm in it for a story.

 

And what do you mean there is no real effor required to play???? The controllers have about 14 times as many buttons and there games are bigger and better.

Yup. More buttons, more moves ... and gameplay that's been lightened massively to overcompensate.

I happen to be one of the elite few that's coordinated enough to operate a PlayStation controller, or walk and chew gum at the same time. Honestly, of the 12 buttons(remember, the analog sticks press down), 4 analog axes, and 1 digital directional control present on a Playstation pad, how many are used regularly during a game? In my experience it's 2 analog axes(or the d-pad)and the 4 main face buttons.

 

 

And I'm not arguing the games are bigger. That's rather obvious. (though I have seen some where the extra size was spent on visuals instead of creating a game world larger Super Mario Brothers 1).

 

But better's a rather relative term.

And, to take 2 games from the same series, I usually find Castlevania: Rondo of Blood a far more enjoyable game than Castlevania: Symphony of the Night because Rondo offers a challenge that Symphony doesn't.

 

 

Don't get me wrong though, I still love classic games, but I think you are just saying this so you can disagree with people and start trying to prove people wrong.

I like modern games too. I hope so anyways, or I have way too many PlayStation disks.

But I really do think that the art of making games that challenge people has been lost in recent years.

 

 

It is all up to personal preference and there is no way you can gennerally disclaim that all new games require no skill. YOU ARE WRONG.

I didn't say new games required no skill. I said they required LESS skill. Big diffrence there.

 

And you're the one that said that classic games only required timing and blind luck. Why you can make broad generalizations but I can't is beyond me.

[Numan]

JB,

 

The Atari 2600 had a skateboarding game called Skateboarding.

 

Zylon,

 

THPS = Tony Hawk's Pro Skater

 

I've never played it myself but it's popular enough to have four (4) installments on multiple platforms.

[Godzilla]

I can gurantee that you haven't beat THPS 4

"THPS"? What are you, Bill the Cat?

 

LOL

 

ACK PFFT!

[madblownaway]

One of my good friends' is 18 now. When he was 16 i'd say I got him hooked on atari specially centipede. Another friend of mine has a stand up centipede machine so when we go over there those two will go at it all night on that machine trying to kick the crap out of each other. Hell when I showed him kaboom he was like at first oh please this game is too easy then the bombs come down and he was like what the fuck oh shit. the problem with today's games all they care about is graphics well most games i'd say nothing about gameplay.

[ZylonBane]

THPS = Tony Hawk's Pro Skater

Not if I can help it.

[JB]

JB,  

 

The Atari 2600 had a skateboarding game called Skateboarding.

Very unimaginative title.

[Video]

Today's games arent about timing as much as in the past. I love classic games but they still only require good timing and blind luck. On the other hand todays consoles are more realistic so they require more skill than just luck and timing.

I disagree.

I actually think that, on average, classic games require more skill than modern games.

 

 

Personally, any time I hear someone complain that a new game is "too hard" I consider it a game I need to check to see if it offers me a challenge. I'm finding too many new games are just BORING. There's no real effort required to play. I may as well be reading a book for all the signifigance I have to the outcome of the game.

 

I can gurantee that you haven't beat THPS 4. And ALL of the new games are far from "reading a book" boring. They ALL have stores that are played out in fron of you and not game stories that you need to read out of an instruction book. And what do you mean there is no real effor required to play???? The controllers have about 14 times as many buttons and there games are bigger and better. Don't get me wrong though, I still love classic games, but I think you are just saying this so you can disagree with people and start trying to prove people wrong. It is all up to personal preference and there is no way you can gennerally disclaim that all new games require no skill. YOU ARE WRONG.

 

I figure what he means is how fast or easily a game can be beaten.

 

How many Atari 2600 games have you rolled the score on (as most have no ending, most count that as the ending) Me, only a handfull.

 

How long did it take you to beat Super Mario Bros? I don't mean now, I mean the first time you played it. For me, now it takes 30 minutes or so (because I don't use the warp zones, though it's like 5 if you do use them) But the first time I played it, it took years to beat it that first time.

 

How long did it take you to beat HALO, or GTA3? For me on Halo, it took 4 days. Now it takes like 8 hours on legendary. For GTA#, a weekend, and there's no replay value so I don't play it anymore.

 

What does buttons have to do with it? Do you realize that more buttons = much more precise controll?

Atari, 1 button, 1 digital 8 direction stick. No variable speed, any extras were combos.

Playstation/X-Box, 12 buttons, 1 directional 8 position stick, 2 double axis analog sticks. Haven't found a game that uses combos (with the exception of a few fighters and many of those are getting away from combos)

 

Classic games require skill. Luck won't cary you far. New games...well...don't. Most games are about graphics now, or stories (Final Fantasy X anybody?) And all honesty, I don't play games to get a great story, or for the graphics. I play it as an amusing escape from reality. Not to see 'the latest games hours of videos' or 'best graphics ever'. If you want video, watch a movie. If you want graphics for that matter, watch a movie. If you like games, get something with substenance under the shiney exterior and gemmies.

[mos6507]

When I had 5 arcade machines in my apartment (now liquidated by my ex, for pennies on the dollar, don't ask) we had two kids in the complex who used to come over fascinated by them.

 

I think you are going to get a more positive reaction from old arcade games than old computer or console games because of the entire experience of the cabinet et. al.

 

Because arcades themselves are dying, seeing an old arcade machine, especially outside of its original context, is pretty unusual.

 

The flipside of how today's kids are so spoiled is the monotony that can eventually kick in from the sameness of today's games. You take the flashy graphics for granted so much that games that are extremely abstract and minimalist can really stand out.

 

It's specifically because games like these simply could not be published today (outside of a retro emu pack) that gives them a kind of mystique.

 

Imagine if nobody manufactured board games anymore. No chess, checkers, monopoly, Risk, etc... An entire form of entertainment that could only be played with used boards. That's pretty much what classic games are all about. It's about an industry that has commoditized the process of making game designs and tied them irrevocably to technological evolution so that as technology makes evolutionary shifts, genres of game are permanently retired. Single-screen 2D games were retired in favor of scrollers in the mid 80s, and 2D was retired in all but the portable market by the late 90s.