Modern Gaming/Classic Gaming..... where's the dividing line?

[Atari_Worshipper]

suit yourself

[Mord]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Video RAM on the DC is 8meg while the Video RAM on the PS2 is only 4meg..... granted, the total system memory is higher on the PS2 and over the past 3 1/2 yrs they've been able to work around that, but in the beginning, the games actually looked better on the Dreamcast...

 

You know, I was thinking about this lately while playing through the PS2 version of Grandia II. I find the PS2 hits a lot more slow-down playing the game than the Dreamcast ever did... Sillly ports.

 

 

--

Mord

[Atari_Worshipper]

I didn't so much notice the slowdown, but I noticed, on, say, Unreal Tournament that the resolution seemed a lot higher on the DC and/or the textures were just more detailed.

 

But I'd say around the time of the first PS2 installment of Metal Gear, the PS2 began to rise above the Dreamcast... but it's not night and day, hell the difference between the DC and the X-Box is not night and day.... Soul Caliber, a DC launch title looks almost as good (not quite) as DOA3, an X-Box launch title..

[Shannon]

I never actually compared the dreamcast version of unreal tourney directly to the ps2 version, but I do remember two things.

 

The levels on the dreamcast version were specifically tweaked to work well on the dreamcast.

 

The reviews said that the dreamcast version was better than the PS2 version.

 

Actually there is a third. I think the dreamcast version had 4 player support whereas the PS2 version didn't. But that may have more to do with the PS2 having only two controller slots than anything.

[Atari_Worshipper]

yeah, but there were less modes of play on the DC. It was Domination, or Capture the flag or both that were missing from the DC version.... but also, the DC had the online play option.

[davepesc]

My $0.02:

 

As far as generations go, If I can buy games for it at K-mart, it is current. If not, it is classic. For more detailed comparisons, I think you have to look at what systems were out at the same time.

 

One thing I never understood is bashing current systems for the number of "me too" games or rip-offs of a popular game.

 

You could take probably 45% of 2600 games and reduce them to pac-man clones. Another 45% would be space invaders remakes and you would be left with 10% of titles being innovative in some noteworthy way. Honestly, not a bad ratio for any system, given past performance.

 

Unfortunately, I think people like and more importantly, BUY, games based on a known formula. IMO, Sega consoles had the most "innovative" games, but failed before more mainstream systems.

 

Personally, I play different systems for different reasons

 

Atari 2600- for nostalga and short-term fun. A game rarely lasts more than 30 minutes, though I played for hours as a kid.

 

Sega Master System- In a box, don't play

 

Sega Genesis- Best console available for side-scrolling shooters and action titles.

 

Dreamcast- Quirky games and Soul Calibur.

 

GameCube- My zelda machine

 

PS1/PS2 The best for enthralling RPGs. I used to love RPGs on older systems, but now I won't touch one with a password save feature. Too many bad memories. Battery saves are beginning to become touch-and-go.

[gdement]

I read through the first page of posts, then skipped to the 4th page, so I hope I'm not being redundant. But I think video games have had 3 distinct eras up to this point. Each era represents a fundamentally different gaming paradigm:

 

 

1st Era (classic era): Simple games which have been reasonably described as "single room" games. The gameplay scenario is repeated (often infinitely) with little variation. Difficulty is created by making the game get faster and faster or increasing the number of obstacles. Achievement is measured with an emphasis on scoring points. This style of game was perfectly tailored for the arcade.

 

Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Joust, etc.

 

 

2nd Era (adventure era?): It could be argued that the gameplay in these games is still repetitive, but greater system resources are used to make the player feel that they are on a grand adventure. The game scenario evolves and has a feeling of complexity. Even if its just a linear side-scroller, the games still make the player feel like there is something else to explore up ahead. The NES brought us out of the crash not because they showed up, but because they introduced these new types of games to the market. Games like Super Mario Bros. and Zelda fascinated people because they felt like they were involved in an adventure. This was exciting and new. Scoring becomes irrelevant as players feel they have more significant reasons to play. Atari "Adventure" was way ahead of its time - I would place it as a 2nd era style game. These types of games were more tailored for the home but many worked well in the arcade.

 

Most 2-D scrolling games, beat-em-ups, RPG's, strategy war games, etc.

 

 

3rd Era (3D era): 3D graphics accelerators rapidly make it practical to present everything in 3D. Gameplay mechanics change due to the 3-D environment. Controller designs also need to change in order to handle issues like camera angles and 3D movement. The games feel fundamentally different to the player, and games from the 2nd era often don't translate well to 3D. Its hard for me to articulate exactly why this is. 2D is seen as old fasioned, and so games that play best in that paradigm lose their appeal. Massive storage space allows use of movies and human actors to create a dramatic Hollywood storyline. This is often irritating to people that enjoy gameplay. Spectacular 3-D visuals diminish the player's imagination which might actually reduce emotional involvement.

 

DOOM, Zelda:Ocarina of Time, Mario64, Morrowind (though I haven't played it), Final Fantasy 8, etc.

 

 

 

Atari dominated the 1st era, but failed to make the transition into era #2. Even if they had released the 7800 in 1984, I'm not sure it would have sold very well. If they had picked up lots of licensees, then maybe they would have brought modern games to the system though. In 1983, I was too young to be conscious of the video game crash, but I speculate that among other things people had gotten bored. There were lots of good games but also lots of the same old thing.

 

I remember when my friends started getting Nintendos. I had been a happy 2600 kid, but my 7800 frustrated me because it didn't have the cool new games. Sega did well technology-wise but Nintendo dominated overall. Atari's brand image worked against them as they were associated with classic games nobody wanted anymore. They couldn't have given their machines away (at least that's how it was in my middle school world). I remember my friends and I thinking the Lynx looked pretty cool, if only it wasn't an Atari. Even at the time, people thought of NES games as being in a different category from anything that came before it.

 

The 3D transition wasn't a surprise to anybody, nevertheless Nintendo lost their dominance here. Sony has clearly dominated the 3D era in consoles, though a significant number of people opt to play the same games on their PC. There's room for more systems in the market now since the games are written using portable code.

 

I'm guessing the 4th era will center around internet based multiplayer gaming. That's already in existence of course but it isn't the core of the video game business as of yet. If this transition occurs, I think Microsoft will probably own it.

[liveinabin]

This is an argument that will not be solved. I don't think it's possible to make the distinction. Here's why.

 

As we all know, graphics and processing power do not necessarily make the game. We've had 2D and full (forced pespective, not real)3D pretty much from the start. AI in games is still relatively simple. So where do we draw the line? The actual gameplay?

 

I play Adventure on Atari. You move around, you pick up the bits, you take them to the right place avoiding the hazards. Game rewards your efforts. This description also goes for all text adventures of the day.

 

OK

 

Fast forward to modern day. I'm playing..say.. the new Resident Evil game. Or Wind Waker, whatever. Look at the description above. Ring any bells?

Truth is, gaming hasn't really changed a whole lot in all this time. You have..oh..maybe six to ten games that really break the mold, creating small genres of their own. Even these, over time, don't change that much. It's a case of very gradual evolution, not revolution. And you can't really gauge 'ages' without revolution.

Thinking in an evolutionary sense, I guess the only major upheaval that gaming has had was that crash in 84. So, you could maybe seperate the evolution of console games there.

 

Not computer games however. As a resident of the UK, where we all had home micros, not consoles, neither I nor any of my friends even noticed this crash. There was a small revolution there in late 84/ early 85 from home written programs to the market being controlled by larger companies. This was only an economic shift though. It didn't change the games (apart from perhaps a shift towards more licensed fare)

 

I think as long as we interact with games via the usual control methods, and the games exhibit the kind of very selective AI we've experenced thus far, we're still stuck in the first age of gaming.

 

So enjoy the classic age folks, we'll still be here for a while yet

[Saikyo]

yeah, but there were less modes of play on the DC. It was Domination, or Capture the flag or both that were missing from the DC version.... but also, the DC had the online play option.

 

Hmmm so why hasn't my copy got an online play option? Was it an American exclusive?

 

As for the state of whats classic and whats not are games that have been made in the 70's - 1995 very little classic games came out after that date!

 

I wasn't even born that early and did not see much of the 80's but nearly all the games

that come out these days dont seem to be very good, Atari Worshipper its

not just you its not because you cant relate to games these days it is truly because

they suck big time!

 

For example I may like games like Dancing Stage (DDR) and Tekken, but something

like Pac-Man, Galaxian, Space invaders and several classics seem to get more

of my time.

 

Why? because while Tekken is fun its too easy and completed quickly, and while Dancing Stage (DDR) keeps you fit while being fun not every one can play it

because of how you use the mat!

 

With classic game nearly everyone can be learned easily and there is a LOT

of fun to be had from them!

 

It doesn't matter if the game is 3D or 2D if the game is very good and the game

is still remembered and played its a classic, but this doesn't say apply to games that

totally suck that are still remembered and played like say, "Iznogoud" or "Army Men".

 

Only good games like "Medal Of Honour" and "Mr. Driller" will have a chance to become classics!

[Raijin Z]

As far as generations go, If I can buy games for it at K-mart, it is current.

K-Mart's bankrupt, and all but totally dead.

[video game addict]

As far as generations go, If I can buy games for it at K-mart, it is current.

K-Mart's bankrupt, and all but totally dead.

 

I was about to quote the same line, LMAO, that makes All platforms Classics in my neck of the woods!

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

Atari Worshipper its  

not just you its not because you cant relate to games these days it is truly because  

they suck big time!

 

forgive me for not posting as the atari worshipper, I'm trying to phase that Identity out in favor of this one which is more in keeping with my tastes in video games, but it is me, the same person that is the atari worshipper..

 

 

that said, I disagree..... and I will largly be repeating myself as I think I laid out just about all I could already, but....

 

when determining whether newer or older is better, 99% of the equation is ones own opinion of the games and the other 1% are the games themselves. I will not presume to try and change your opinions of these games so I'm leaving the 99% alone and focusing on the 1%. The merits of the game itself. I'll leave fun out cause fun is subjective, what's fun for one is not fun for another. When you look at a game for it's technical merits, not just graphics and sound, mind you, but depth and immersive quality, or how technically impressive it is compared to other technological mediums (I.e. Hollywood special effects or even home computers) then the only thing one possibly can conclude is that newer is better. That's my point. I think newer games have a higher capacity for fun because of their immersive quality, but for those who like simple mindless fun like the older games provided, they may find this new stuff dull and drawn out. If the fun speaks the same language as your fun barometer understands than you'll prefer the new games, otherwise, you'll prefer the old. But from a purely numbers perspective, new wins, no way around it.

 

Also, try not to be so absolute in your assesment that new is garbage, 90+% of people under the age of 16 who are versed in both new and old prefer the new... and it's not cause they're just stupid (most of them aren't) it's cause it is their preference, it is because they can relate to the new better than the old whereas we relate better with the old...no more, no less. You can't be so black and white on an issue like this..

 

And actually, though I prefer the old in the single player games, when I have a group of friends over for games, I think we all have a lot more fun busting out the new multiplayer stuff than we do when we go for a classic. So on the multiplayer front I prefer the new. The reason that I still say I prefer the old is cause I still do more single player gaming than I do multiplayer, and while many modern single player games fail to grab me, those that do ensnare me much more tightly than any older game ever has (I.e. Metroid Prime or Ocarina of Time, or even as far back as Jumping Flash, remember that game?)

 

All I'm saying is don't try to turn a matter of opinion into a matter of fact by saying that new games are crap. That's all.

 

Back to the Modern vs. Classic thing, I may have said this already too. When I started this thread (as atari worshipper) I didn't really consider the fact that this would be subdivided into more than just two catagories, modern and classic, so lets start over. I'm going to ask that you take a couple of assumptions as granted when replying to this: 1) that "current gaming" or the current systems are considered modern gaming, but are not the end all and be all of modern gaming. 2) that there are no subdivisions or subcatagories, that there is only modern and classic.

 

With those assumptions in place, if anybody disagrees with me that the dividing line between classic and modern lies at the transition point between 2D dominated and 3D dominated, (or in other words, CD-i was the last classic system and 3DO was the first modern system) say so, but explain why and be prepared to defend your opinion, those who don't post disagreement I will assume agree.

[mechanized]

I'm in agreeance with most of these posts.. if you blend them all together, there's something pretty solid. I would, however, put the NES in as a Classic. It might not be as old as some of the other systems, but part of being a Classic is having a Following. The Odyssey 2 is certainly old, but ..where's the following? It's certainly Vintage, but Vintage, in my mind, is just an age indicator, unlike Classic, which also has an associated Quality. Age just isn't as solid a factor, but surely Is a factor, and it needs to be tempered with Quality and its level of Appreciation.

 

So the NES, a Quality System of Reasonable Age, with a great Following ... Classic.

 

The Odyssey 2? A fair system of decided Age, with a modest Following.... more appropriately a Vintage system.

 

SNES? Quality System, a Great following, but is still young in the scheme of retrogaming, being only a bit over ten years old. Look to at least 2010 or so for this one to be more on a Classic level.

 

Genesis? In much the same boat as the SNES, though of lesser Quality. Surely worthy of eventual Classic status, but not for a few years.

 

The Sega Master System, though? In comparison to its closest contemporaries, it was a fair system with not much of a following, but it is on its way to old age. But, as I said, in comparison to its closest contemporaries, it would not be a Classic system, being more snugly fit into the Vintage group.

 

GameBoy? Classic. GameBoy Color? Still too new, and likely never to have a 'Classic' feel since it is, essentially, a Classic GameBoy that has Color. Due to backwards compatibility, it'll be the Games that feel more Classic than the actual System... the Hardware will just be a matter of preference, and most people will simply prefer the later issues since they can play more libraries of software.

 

TurboGrafx16? This is going to be one of those systems that feel like the Atari5200.... they're that great little system (well, 5200 was big, but.. anyway) that most people missed, and they'll generate some curiousity.

 

So perhaps some of this makes some sense? Heh.

[DracIsBack]

SNES? Quality System, a Great following, but is still young in the scheme of retrogaming, being only a bit over ten years old. Look to at least 2010 or so for this one to be more on a Classic level.  

 

Genesis? In much the same boat as the SNES, though of lesser Quality. Surely worthy of eventual Classic status, but not for a few years.

 

There's some subjective opinions being tossed around as "fact"!

 

The "qualtiy" of games can be argued, based upon taste. The "quality" of hardware can also be argued ... even though the SNES has some technical superiorities, it's also two years newer. In my book, the hardware "advancements" were pretty laughable, given the amount of time Nintendo had to answer the Genesis. While I like the SNES and a lot of the games, I still think "two years and that's the best Nintendo could do?" whenever people brag about the hardware. And there are enough killer apps on the Genesis that it holds its own, IMO.

 

The Sega Master System, though? In comparison to its closest contemporaries, it was a fair system with not much of a following,

 

Assuming you think the world starts and stops in North America ...

[+5-11under]

Truth is, gaming hasn't really changed a whole lot in all this time.  You have..oh..maybe six to ten games that really break the mold, creating small genres of their own.  Even these, over time, don't change that much.  It's a case of very gradual evolution, not revolution.  

 

I think this is why many of us are old-schoolers. If the new systems and games provided revolutionary improvements, we'd jump on board. As it stands, we don't really need the new systems.

5-11under

[liveinabin]

Yeah, I'm sure I'm not alone in saying "That's just _______ with flash graphics" whenever I see a 'new' game. You know, Resident Evil being 'Adventure' with zombies - that kind of thing

[AlexKIDD]

for me i'd say that everything 8 and 16 bit are classic or old school and that the 32 bit systems were the start of modern gaming,the first being the saturn and 3DO

[mechanized]

for me i'd say that everything 8 and 16 bit are classic or old school and that the 32 bit systems were the start of modern gaming,the first being the saturn and 3DO

 

And that, right there, is probably the most fair, and by fair, I mean that an optimal definition of "Classic" in gaming would be an Inclusive definiton, because, simply, it's just too difficult to choose what to exclude and what to keep.

 

That would encompass everything truly old and what many cited as "Golden Era" gaming, while clearly (and probably rightly) excluding things from 3DO, N64, PlayStation, XBox, Saturn and so on.

[Mr_8bit_16bit]

for me i'd say that everything 8 and 16 bit are classic or old school and that the 32 bit systems were the start of modern gaming,the first being the saturn and 3DO

 

And that, right there, is probably the most fair, and by fair, I mean that an optimal definition of "Classic" in gaming would be an Inclusive definiton, because, simply, it's just too difficult to choose what to exclude and what to keep.

 

That would encompass everything truly old and what many cited as "Golden Era" gaming, while clearly (and probably rightly) excluding things from 3DO, N64, PlayStation, XBox, Saturn and so on.

 

 

 

I think he's spot on in his chronology, but the mathematical change from 16 bit to 32 bit in and of itself is not of much significance to gamers, what is significant though, is what that extra processing power was capable of doing. It took a medium (video games) where 2D was the norm and 3D (basic 3D) was the rare exception and flipflopped it. Now, suddenly, with 32bit, 3D was the norm and 2D the exception.

 

So, while I think AlexKidd's chronology is flawless, I think his reasoning for choosing that time would be better if he based it not on the hardware, but on the software. So, here we are, back to 2D/3D as the dividing line. Of course now we're just debating semantics. I have just succeeded in disagreeing with the guy who just agreed with me. I could be the democratic presidential hopeful!

 

Of course, if you follow my line of reasoning, then you would come to the roadblock of, GBA is 2D dominant (so was NGP which lived and died about the same time as the DC) yet it's a new system. How does that compute? Well, I've thought about this, and this is what I've come to: PS2, GC, & XBox are current systems that play modern style games, when they're no longer current, they will become modern. GBA is a current system that plays classic style games (often direct ports of classic games) so when it's no longer current, then dispite the age of the thing, I'm gonna step out on a limb and call it classic. Cause we aren't concerned with age, and we aren't concerned with power, all we're concerned about is what kind of software it pumps out, and baby, it pumps out a lot more 2D than 3D. The PSP and even Nokia NGage when they cease to be current will be modern.