The betrayal of video games artistic legacy

Post Reply New Topic

I still repeat, in my case, it's not mere nostalgia. Part of the reason for this is my memory, which is all sorts of screwed up. I remember damn little about being a kid, and that includes about games that I owned then, and still own now. Every now and then I'll find one that I have, yet dont remember whatsoever. I dunno how it got there, I dunno where I mighta gotten it from, I dunno what it's like.... and so on. But I'll pop it in anyway. Either it's a good game.... or it isnt. It's age matters not. Never DID matter. This is how I approach ANY game.... wether it be old as dirt, or totally brand new and requiring the ultimate gaming PC to even run.

Even the style of the gameplay can vary all over the place. Games that I get into dont have to play like the old ones in order for me to like them. In many cases, this is what happens. Oh, if they DO play like the old ones, that's fine too. But it's never a requirement. Again, either it's a good game.... or it isnt. Simple. And I tend to think in simple terms like that. I'm not one to sit around analyzing the depth of the art or story or whatever. Oh, dont get me wrong.... I tend to prefer the aesthetics of older games instead of newer ones. They're bright and colorful. But even this isnt nostalgia.... it's because of things I consider to be bad art/graphics trends in many recent games. Gears of War, for example. I dont care how much technical excellence that game has: It is ugly as freaking dirt. All grey and brown and red. Like ALOT of games these days. Yet at the same time, there's games like Anno 2070, which is freaking gorgeous.... and very recent. I cant think of any older titles that can match THAT, even in my view. Planetside 2, and also the MMO called Rift are contenders for this position as well.

As for stuff like differences between DQ IV? The screenshots tell me nothing. Dont care about the graphics enough. Doesnt matter. Even if I dont like them, I'd put up with them.... so long as the gameplay is good. Too many times though, changes are made that deteriorate it, leaving the older version as being superior, purely in gameplay terms. For me, this means challenge and balance; if either falters, my interest is dead. If those actually get better? THEN it has my interest, graphical crap be damned. THAT, however, is so absurdly rare that I have zero memory of it happening at any point. "Dumbing down" is usually how it's done. And that, to me, is the core of the matter. Not nostalgia, not graphics, not what console/device it is or isnt on.... the moment something is dumbed down.... when it doesnt need to be (in rare cases, it DOES need it).... then at that point, I just stop caring entirely.

The PC proves this. That kind of thing typically doesnt happen on PC.... most PC gamers are used to complexity and difficulty. Dumbing down isnt needed there, and most of the time is met only with anger and hate. As such, I actually DONT need to rely on older games, when using the PC. I've some damn absurd number of games on THIS machine.... and very, very, very few of them are older titles. And since I'm an impulse buyer with no practical spending limit, I buy new ones FREQUENTLY. These are generally games using RECENT mechanics and trends.... or I shoiuld say, recent trends on PC. Again, they dont need to be "retro", or have elements of older games at all. These games, they merely need to be good, and also not braindead. As such, I've dumped the consoles almost entirely.... using the 360 only for my imports, and the PS3 as.... er..... something to rest my feet on (seriously, I dont know why I dont just sell the blasted thing), while the PC and also the iPad get used for all the gaming.

And you can bet that alot of this is the case for many others as well.... it aint just me. I know many who think in pretty much the same way.

What you say though about selling these is true however, particularly on the consoles/handhelds. Something that's pure retro simply wont do well. The masses generally want super anti-aliased HDR hyper-bloom to the 39657th degree.... heaven forbid there be some PIXELS showing.... that this all has NOTHING to do with gameplay doesnt matter. And they want easy games, at least in most cases. These things are what sell. Though again, these trends appear far more on consoles than on PC.


Oh, and yes, I have played the original OoT. Not my favorite game ever.... it's a little boring. A bit slow-paced at times. Let's just say though.... the water temple never gave me much trouble. I thought it was a rather neat dungeon, actually. It kinda makes me think of something like Dark Souls..... everyone and their grandma and their grandma's dog and the fleas on their grandma's dog finds it to be oh so hard, but.... I just dont see it, when I play it. But then, I've had an interest in hyper-challenging games for a long time, so things like that end up being bloody simple in comparison. And I like puzzles, too, for that matter.

I own the DS version and later found out that it was an old NES title. But from my understanding of looking around it was purely cosmetic differences, which impressed me as the game actually felt playable which I doubt I could have felt if I was watch the old 8-bit. I will say though that I did not get too far as I actually got a bit frustrated from slow pace.

I can go along with some complaints about things being dumbed down. Going back to OoT, I felt it rather annoying that they decided to add in "hint stones" that would tell you how and where to do everything. At the same time I do remember some frustration in the original in getting stuck, even with Navi reminding me.

There is a fine line that is effecting difficulty in games now compared to now. In the past there was not a hell of a lot of games out there, so they all tended to have a rather high difficulty so that they would get a lot of play, there was no choice really but to keep trying. I would not say this is negative thing, it was how games were. But now there are so much so that game developers have two way to keep popularity with their games, put in multiplayer (which I think is totally annoying), and make games easier to get through so that people won't get too frustrated and stop playing so they can play something they can beat. It is generally why you are seeing campaign times decreasing so much lately, which I agree is totally horses**t. I was watching a video yesterday which was talking about a demo and footage of an Alien game coming out later this year, it is going to be a survival horror with only one Alien out there so it will be like the original movie. The guy was told that it was going to be about 10 hours long to play, and he starts saying that he believed that it should only be 4 hours long so it would be better.

Someone put actual effort into that remake though. It wasn't hastily thrown together as a cheap cash grab. It was a full retail release, so I agree that a simple re-release wouldn't have worked, unless it was part of some kind of compilation. However, the fact remains that someone put time and effort into it, and treated the game with respect when they did. I get the sense that SE doesn't really care about FF. When Square and Enix merged, Enix somehow came out on top, for reasons unknown. Since they can't be trusted with modern FF entries, they clearly can't be trusted with a proper remake. Quite a few of the bigger Japanese companies have been the biggest sell outs in the past gen, and they've done nothing but anger their fanbase.

It's not a case of fans claiming ownership of an ip. I mean, yes, fans have lived FFVI more than Enix most likely has. What fans want is for their favorite ips to be treated with respect. If a game is to be remade, the company behind the remake should consider that the game means something to someone. If they can't do that, then they should just release new ips like Bravely Default. That's a modern throwback to FFIII and V with the job class system, but with better graphics, and simplified for the masses. Yet, it doesn't feel hastily thrown together, and it is a new ip, so even if it was terrible, its existence wouldn't anger FF fans.

Maybe I see things differently than you, but I prefer a company who treats their fanbase with respect. They can branch out and try to gain new fans, without stepping on the toes of those who supported them all these years. They can also change things up with their long standing series while still keeping a few familiar elements that people come to expect from said titles. That's why I think Ninty is a better company than SE. Sure, they've done some things I'm not fond of, and I often think they can learn a thing or two from Sony, but there's a reason why their main ips are still well regarded today.

I think Zelda is the best example, because I think it's still to action/adventure/puzzle games what FF used to be to rpgs. Ninty continues to push the envelope with that series, while still maintaining that classic Zelda charm through familiar elements. In doing so, they're able to create new games that look different, have a different story and variation on the setting, or sometimes a different setting altogether, and often include unique puzzles and game mechanics. That ip is great for newcomers, but also great for it's existing fanbase. Compare Skyward Sword to FFXIII, or Ocarina of Time 3D to that awful cell phone remake of FFVI, and you'll see where I'm coming from. One company at least pretends to care about its fanbase, while the other clearly doesn't give a furry rat. Remakes in particular require great respect, and clearly SE doesn't care enough.

Not really that there wasnt alot of games.... because there was. If anything, there may have been more: they didnt have totally insane production costs back then (and they also didnt have the same game releasing for multiple consoles at once, as a rule) It was easy for any developer to make one, unless you were dealing with Nintendo and their screwball rules, but even then devs found ways around that idiocy. The reason the games were hard was in many cases that they'd just be too short otherwise. The original Metroid for instance.... bloody easy game. The moment you have a single energy tank and the Varia, you win. You're totally invincible, with only the actual Metroids themselves able to really hurt you anymore. So that game, good as it was, was really damn short (and really damn glitchy). Can be beaten in like 2 hours or less. Yet it was totally stuffed with.... stuff. At the time, they couldnt really get much else into that one game. Games like Kid Icarus solved this problem by being absurdly murderous. THAT game took most players ages to beat, as it got nasty starting with the second level of the underworld.... and you still had so very far to go from there.





Aye, Square hasnt given a crap in years. Really, it's been so long.... I used to like them alot, but it occurs to me now that that was such a long time ago that I cant remember when it was. Now it's totally changed, and if I see their name on a game, I dont touch it, because I know it's probably gonna be absolutely horrible. As for Nintendo.... I'll keep from talking about them for now. Better for everyone that way.

That's because Square is dead. As I mentioned, Enix is running the show now. If you're wondering why Dragon Quest has gotten slightly better treatment, that's why. Still, I don't think they care as much as one would expect about their existing ips, prior to the merger. Scoring the rights to FF must have been like a windfall for them, but they somehow managed to mess that up. What a joke.

Oh, I know Ninty isn't without their quirks. For me, their good points outweigh their bad, but they really grind my gears at times. Be prepared for a long list. Why don't they release all the 3DS GBA Ambassador games as paid purchases for everyone? Why don't they drop the prices for their first party games more often? Super Mario 64 is almost 10 years old now. Why is its regular price still $40? Why can't Ninty release a normal console? If they don't think they're capable of being on the cutting edge of technology, that's one thing, but what's with all the gimmicky bs? Why did it take them so long to even re-release Earthbound as a digital download, and why do they constantly ignore the pleas of fans to localize other entries in the Mother series? Why do they region lock all their systems now? Before, their handhelds were region free, but now the 3ds isn't, so it's like they took a big step back. Why don't they properly promote their new ips? Why don't they re-release as much of their first party stuff as possible for digital download? Why do we have to re-buy digital content if our Ninty systems break, or are misplaced? Why is the 3DS eShop such a mess to navigate? That's all I can think of off the top of my head, but there's probably more stuff they've done, or will do that I don't like.

I agree that retro games were hard to compensate for them being short, but it worked. The experience of playing those games didn't feel shallow. It actually felt rewarding to see a new stage, because I earned the right to see it. With retro games that I play for the first time, I refuse to watch footage of the game online, because I like to earn the right to see the later stages. I enjoy a lot of modern games too though. I guess I just enjoy all kinds of games for all kinds of reasons. That said, the classics should be treated with respect IMHO.

It's not really recent, I can think of a game that got a graphical remake back in...probably '88 or '89, when they released Maniac Mansion Enhanced for IBM PC.

Or we have a famous example with Super Mario All-Stars in 1993. Definitely just a quick cash-grab, but it worked...heck, it pushed my dad into finally buying an SNES.



I wish they would include the original games as unlockables with the remakes...that used to be a very common thing back in the GBA/PS2/XBox/GameCube era, but not so much anymore.



It might have something to do with the fact that Enix purchased Square But it's kind of a matter of opinion. Some might not think Enix came out on top, and they certainly didn't come out unscathed...I haven't played too many of their recent games, but Dragon Quest IX sure has a lot of Square-isms in it. Lots of unskippable cutscenes =(



I can't find the article where it was mentioned, but it's because they don't think it's fair to consumers who paid full price when the games were originally released.

Silly, I know.



http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/07/03/ ... on-locking

I recall reading that, or something like it when it was announced that the 3ds would be region locked. If different rating systems was a reason to region lock systems, Sony and MS would have done it, so I don't accept that answer.

The more likely explanation is that Ninty's dabbling more and more into digital marketplaces across all their systems, and they're still figuring things out on their end. They probably don't know how to support a region free online marketplace. They're also still figuring out other things that Sony and MS figured out a long time ago, like how to tie digital content to one's account. It's clear that Ninty didn't so much choose to enter the digital age as the digital age snuck up on them, and they had no choice but to bite. I love my 3ds, and want a wiiu, but that's an area Ninty definitely needs to work on. Maybe they will eventually figure out how to get with the times, but until then, I'm thankful for the company's good points.

....what.

But that's.... just.... arrrrgh.

I swear, every time I think Nintendo has hit bottom, somebody hands them a nuclear jackhammer.

Here I thought my hatred for them couldnt possibly get any stronger. Turns out I was wrong.

I'm really, REALLY glad I dont do consoles anymore.

Nintendo just don't drop the price of Mario games, somewhat frustrating as I tend to not feel like going full price on Mario, so I have not managed to play a heap of recent of their titles. They expect that the mascon Mario should be able to sell the titles without having to do price cuts, which really is not a bad idea, in some ways making the games more elitist.

The Mario franchise pretty much run against what this thread is about as in general gameplay and presentation rarely changes dramatically. One of the only things I bought from the E-shop is Super Mario Bros., and it looks just like it does on the NES, Start is still used to start the game at the beginning, and enemies occasionally have their graphics glitch like the original, and still just as punishing (still can't get very far).

You act as if this is something new =)

They do end up re-releasing certain titles at discount prices, though, like the "Player's Choice" line, or "Nintendo Selects". Or games like Donkey Kong Country Returns and Super Mario Galaxy 2, which dropped without any new packaging, as far as I know.

Bradleigh is gay!
I hate seeing these stupid things being made it's 2014 people...
the colour on that isn't even tight. IMO