Penny Arcade: Games aren't as good as they used to be...
Maximg
I read PA fairly regularily (as if you care), and lately they've been doing
a little bit on, well, games not being as good as they used to be.
I won't get really long winded on this (at least not yet), but I'll throw in
my piece. There was as much crap back in the day as there is now. And
there were just as many compelling titles back in the day as there are now.
My question... what does everybody else think? IMO, this whole "games
aren't as good these days" idea is just nostalgia clouding one's judgement,
but... are there people out there who don't think companies shoveled as much
crap as they do nowadays? Or that the rate of good games being released was
much higher years ago?
And while we're on the topic, what years in particular do you feel were the
best for gaming? Support it with the lineup that came out that year or
something...
Joe Ottoson
Maximg <gora...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:ti37bp3...@corp.supernews.com...
> Haven't started a thread in a while, so...
>
> I read PA fairly regularily (as if you care), and lately they've been
doing
> a little bit on, well, games not being as good as they used to be.
Someone has to do it apparently.
> I won't get really long winded on this (at least not yet), but I'll throw
in
> my piece. There was as much crap back in the day as there is now. And
> there were just as many compelling titles back in the day as there are
now.
I'm personally more partial to a lot of the stuff coming out now. Way back
when's bread and butter was platformers and shooters. (Yerk!) I'm much more
preferential to today's glut of fighters and RPG's.
> My question... what does everybody else think? IMO, this whole "games
> aren't as good these days" idea is just nostalgia clouding one's
judgement,
> but... are there people out there who don't think companies shoveled as
much
> crap as they do nowadays?
Some probably do, but they're insane.
> And while we're on the topic, what years in particular do you feel were
the
> best for gaming? Support it with the lineup that came out that year or
> something...
Best years for gaming were when Technos was actively producing games like
Super Dodgeball and River City Ransom etc IMO. That's mainly because I've
always been partial to Double Dragon.
Brian Deplae
wrote:
There were always a ton of crap games. The reason we don't tend to
remember them is because they were crap and we didn't pay them much
mind when they were new. Looking back at things we tend to only
remember that which we bothered to pay much attention to in the first
place. In this case that which we paid attention to were the good
games. Look up a listing of all 2600 or NES games and you'll find
that most of them were crap, but we only really remember and still
discuss the handful that were great.
I personally think many of today's games are too easy though, but
that's another issue.
__
Brian Deplae
"Volitar Prime" or a shorter variation in online games
Clan [WYD] for Q3 (both DC and PC)
www.wydclan.com
Derek Hutchinson
wrote:
>Haven't started a thread in a while, so...
Pong was the perfection of game design. Everything since has been
downhill.
-Derek
Maximg
<snip>
>I personally think many of today's games are too easy though, but
>that's another issue.
Or we're just getting better. ;)
Darien Allen
<gora...@tc.umn.edu> we were graced with this statement:
>My question... what does everybody else think? IMO, this whole "games
>aren't as good these days" idea is just nostalgia clouding one's judgement,
>but... are there people out there who don't think companies shoveled as much
>crap as they do nowadays? Or that the rate of good games being released was
>much higher years ago?
>
IMO there has ALWAYS been crap...not only that but there have been
certain third parties..LJN comes to mind that have lived off of crap,
and other third parties who rip off the GOOD company's titles.
------------------------
Darien Allen
ICQ-2927081/AOL-Dezign369
"There is no fear in this Dojo!"
Matt Greer
No, go grab an NES and a handful of games. You'll be swearing at your tv in
no time :) Games back then, generally, were significantly harder.
--
Matt
http://www.gbafan.net
Hyun Lim
side-scrollers(or 2D anything for that matter), then the quality of games
would be a lot worse than it was. If you are a fan of console RPG's and
sports games, then the quality of games have gotten better.
Personally, I miss good beat-em-ups. There hasn't been any progress on
gameplay since Streets of Rage 3; moreover, no one tried to even copy what
SOR3 did. What ever happened to Technos anyway?
Best years of games
1994
FF3, Super Metroid, Secret of Mana - this was when SNES was in its prime. I
don't quite remember other titles but I remember having the most fun with
SNES this year.
SOR3, Phantasy Star 4
late99-2000
Suikoden 2, Madden 2000, RE3, Grandia(PS), Front Mission 3, Soul Caliber,
Vagrant Story, Valkyrie Profile, Skies of Arcadia, Grandia2, Shenmue.
I probably left some games out but from late 99 to end of 2000, huge flood
of games, good and bad, came out at an unprecedented rate.
Hyun Lim
"Maximg" <gora...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:ti37bp3...@corp.supernews.com...
EZ
wrote:
It's really hard to say.. I tend to buy more games than I did when I
was younger, mainly for the reason that I now have $$ and don't have
to worry about my parents giving me money or saving up for the games.
I have played games all my life and have some great memories, and I
have a lot of games I enjoy today that are recent. Some of the series
though, just don't "do it" for me anymore (the FF series, for one),
but at the same time, I'm discovering games I'm getting hooked on
(Virtua Tennis, Soul Calibur, Guardian Heroes). Also, especially with
the purchase of the Dreamcast, I find myself to be a lot more open to
all different genres (still no sports, simulations, or FPS games). In
the beginning, I enjoyed most genres, then thinned down to mostly RPGs
and Treasure made games, but now I'm starting to branch out once
again, of course RPGs and Treasure made games are still my favorite :)
Last year, for Xmas, I got a tennis game (Virtua Tennis), 2 different
3-D platformers (Jet Grind Radio and Sonic Adventure), and of course 3
RPGs/adventures (Grandia 2, Skies of Arcadia, and Shenmue).
My favorite years for gaming were:
'91 - Ninja Gaiden 3, Dragon Warrior 3, Megaman 3, the year the my
favorite game system ever launched, Final Fantasy 2 US, Super Mario
World, Actraiser, Final Fantasy Adventure, Sonic the Hedgehog - some
of the last and best NES games came out around here, also the Genesis
finally started to go in full swing. Whether you owned a NES, Genesis,
or SNES, there was a LOT of good stuff to play.
'96 (if you were an importer) - The last year of the SFC also had some
of the greatest of its games - Star Ocean, Tales of Phantasia, Dark
Half, Treasure Hunter G, Saturn started coming into its own with games
like Dark Savior, and the PSX finally started getting its share of
soon to be classics like Suikoden. '96 is also the year I started
importing and got my PSX. I remember Xmas of '96 well, I got FF5,
Seiken Densetsu 3, DQ5, a PSX, Resident Evil (sucked), Contra
(sucked), and Tekken 2.. Though I sold the latter 3 to get Lunar:SSS
;)
'00 - This was the year of the US RPG boom. For the first time, it
didn't seem like we were getting the shaft as far as RPGs were
concerned, we got Valkyrie Profile, Skies of Arcadia, Grandia 2,
Chrono Cross, Lunar:EB, Eternal Punishment, FF9, Front Mission 3, PSO,
and many more. I'd say more grade A RPGs came out this year (for all
the major consoles except the N64) than the last few years combined.
Dreamcast also had a stellar showing (Shenmue, JGR, Skies, Grandia 2,
Crazy Taxi) and did more this one year than many other consoles
(*cough*N64*cough*) take a lifetime to do. Games finally went online,
the graphic jump over previous years, was huge with games like Shenmue
and the release of the PS2.
I honestly think video games have started interesting me a bit less
ever since SEGA announced the discontinuation of the Dreamcast. After
that, there didn't really seem to be too much to look forward to, and
it's gonna take another 2 years before Nintendo and Microsoft get all
set up (PS2 is fast approaching that stage but not quite there,
yet..), and we have another boom. But in the meanwhile, I'm
discovering a great system I sadly missed out on the first time, after
a few ebay purchases: The Sega Saturn. And I'm also getting caught up
on all those PSX RPGs I bought in '00 ;)
I'm currently 10 hours into Skies of Arcadia (this was on the
backburner cause I was playing so many other games), it's really
really great.. This is classic RPGing at its finest, even though it
doesn't offer too much new, it does everything right and its flaws are
minor.. This game is still rather recent, and even though 2-D has
diminished, I'm coming through with more hope than ever now that
they're basically re-releasing my favorite console of all time as a
portable...
And finally, for nostalgia.. well that's definitely true. I have so
many fond memroies of FF1.. when I was in 4th grade, I can relate
everything that happened that one summer to that game, since my friend
Andy and I would always play the game, morning to night, building up
levels and trying to make it to Chaos. FF9 is the much better and much
more polished game, but it doesn't quite have that whole nostalgic and
memorable factor to it. I remember map designs, town names, monsters
and where you fight them, and boss HPs of FF1, but I'd be hard pressed
to remember the final town name in FF9, which I've beaten only about a
month ago. (OK it's Bran Bal, but that didn't come as instantaneous to
me as Onrac or Lefein or Portoga did). Games have, as a whole, gotten
better and more polished (there are lots of exceptions, some companies
[Acclame] still produce crap that have produced crap from day 1, and
there are some companies who used to be wonderful but now are kind of
mediocre [Square]), but there's always the memories that bring you
back.
And there are a lot of things, where the nostalgia just floats past
me. Bubble Bobble, for instance. I have friends who love the game, and
still play it and talk about it (interesting note, I actually found a
4x4 speed garage remix of the theme song to this game, has anybody
else heard it? sounds like something those fags Oxide and Neutrino
would do!!) But I think the game is rather mundane, repetitive, and
boring. On the same token, when I last played 2600, I didn't get all
teary eyed, I'm like "this sucks, the graphics are horrible and the
gameplay is soooo shallow" (my first video game was SMB in '87 and
haven't ever touched an Atari product before that) I could understand
some people love these classic Atari games, but I don't have the
memories, so I don't see them with rose colored glasses, I see them
for what they really are: old-fashioned games with simple play
mechanics and primitive graphics/music hardware. But, there are still
a select few games, that even if I've never played before, I can
actually start playing and fall in love with. Blazing Lazers is one
example - I've never owned a TG-16 so I missed out on a lot,e ven
though Magic Engine is helping me catch up.. I downloaded this game
after hearing it referenced a long time ago, and I absolutely love
it.. this is just one of those games that withstand the test of time.
And I haven't really played Gunstar Heroes too much when it first came
out (I borrowed it from a neighbor).. now after tracking down a cart
(but playing it on the emu mostly, my genesis is busted :( ), it's one
of my favorite games ever. People who have never played these games
before can suddenly play and go "that's really really cool" or "oh, so
THAT'S where that effect/story/scenario was first used!" and totally
get into it, even though the Genesis or the TG-16 are prehistoric
compared to what we have out today.
Wow, that's probably the longest I've ever wrote on this newsgroup :)
Great post, Maximg, though it still doesn't quite make up for when you
called the game company I practically worship 'overrated' ;)
- EZ -
MJ Cole / Todd Edwards / Sunship / Artful Dodger /
Wideboys / Bump and Flex / K-Warren / DJ Zinc /
Zed Bias / TJ Cases / Sticky / Wookie / Y-Tribe /
Pay As You Go Kartel / MC's: CKP / Godsgift / Creed /
Melody / Neat / PSG / Megaman / Sparks / Kie / B-Live
"Uhhh, doin it again and again,
get up get up get down tell your friend"
<3<3<3 JS <3<3<3
EZ
wrote:
For a while, I actually thought that it was because I developed much
better coordination and memorization skills than I had when I was 7 or
8 years old.. but then I went back and played Ninja Gaiden, and got my
ass kicked! Games (especially RPGs.. I can't recall one RPG where you
didn't have to level build back in those days) were much more
difficult then..
Hyun Lim
"Matt Greer" <torto...@SPAMgbafan.net> wrote in message
news:9fsb0j$c9q$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
RPGs, yes, they were harder.
Platformers, no, they are harder than ever now.
Shooters, not much different. They keep adding extra degree of complexity
to the shooter that makes the game both harder and easier.
Fighters, depends whether it's 2D or 3D.
2D fighters keeps getting more complex in terms of gameplay, yet the game it
self doesn't seem much more difficult.
3D fighters have always been easy. Did anyone notice that skill gap between
a beginner and a veteran in 3D fighting game is smaller than that of 2D?
It just seems that the games were harder back then because you saw the "Game
Over" screen much more. Now a days, getting stuck on a puzzle is more of a
common occurance than dying. Either way a game stoppage occurs. So I think
games are not any harder or easier than before.
Hyun Lim
Andrew Ryan Chang
>I read PA fairly regularily (as if you care), and lately they've been doing
>a little bit on, well, games not being as good as they used to be.
Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed with this current story arc. I
wasn't sure where they were going with it at the start; the first strip
could be read as a sort-of threat against those tiresome nostalgia freaks
who'll rant about the good ol' days at the drop of a hat.
--
"Don't do what Donny Don't does"...[sighs] They could have made this
clearer.
-- Bart reads a knife safety book, "Boy Scoutz 'N the Hood"
Matt Greer
"Hyun Lim" <hy...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:9fscum$oc1$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
> > No, go grab an NES and a handful of games. You'll be swearing at your tv
> in
> > no time :) Games back then, generally, were significantly harder.
>
> RPGs, yes, they were harder.
> Platformers, no, they are harder than ever now.
Heh heh. Go play any of the NES megamans, Castlevania 1, Ninja Gaiden, Ghost
N Goblins, Gradius, Golgo 13, etc etc. Hell, even Super Mario Bros is harder
than most games today. Super Mario Bros 2 (as in the true SMB2, not Doki
Doki Panic) is surprisingly hard. And I'm not speaking from nostalgia
either, I've played almost all of these games rather extensively within the
year.
How are platformers "harder than ever now"? They're a total sleepwalk. What
current platformer is even remotely hard? I can't think of any.
> Shooters, not much different. They keep adding extra degree of complexity
> to the shooter that makes the game both harder and easier.
I think shooters are probably the only genre that generally have not become
easier over the years.
> Fighters, depends whether it's 2D or 3D.
Fighters are 2 player games. The ai is irrelevant. Even still, KOF94, KOF95,
SS2 and SSF2T have /much/ more difficult ai than any fighter out now.
> It just seems that the games were harder back then because you saw the
"Game
> Over" screen much more.
No, games really were harder. Go play any of the games I've mentioned.
> Now a days, getting stuck on a puzzle is more of a
> common occurance than dying. Either way a game stoppage occurs. So I
think
> games are not any harder or easier than before.
I've not played any game recently where I've been stuck for any real length
of time on a puzzle. Stuff like Metal Gear Solid, Oracle of Seasons, Final
Fantasy 7, Symphony of the Night, etc etc I never got stuck in. It's very
common to just move right through a modern game with little challenge. Which
isn't surprising, games now have to cater to much wider audiences.
--
Matt
http://www.gbafan.net
Andrew Ryan Chang
>3D fighters have always been easy. Did anyone notice that skill gap between
>a beginner and a veteran in 3D fighting game is smaller than that of 2D?
*thinks about the only 3D fighting game that matters*
No, I haven't noticed that.
Joe Ottoson
> 3D fighters have always been easy. Did anyone notice that skill gap
between
> a beginner and a veteran in 3D fighting game is smaller than that of 2D?
That's never been true.
Hyun Lim
"Matt Greer" <torto...@SPAMgbafan.net> wrote in message
>
> "Hyun Lim" <hy...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> news:9fscum$oc1$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
>
> > > No, go grab an NES and a handful of games. You'll be swearing at your
tv
> > in
> > > no time :) Games back then, generally, were significantly harder.
> >
> > RPGs, yes, they were harder.
> > Platformers, no, they are harder than ever now.
>
> Heh heh. Go play any of the NES megamans, Castlevania 1, Ninja Gaiden,
Ghost
> N Goblins, Gradius, Golgo 13, etc etc. Hell, even Super Mario Bros is
harder
> than most games today. Super Mario Bros 2 (as in the true SMB2, not Doki
> Doki Panic) is surprisingly hard. And I'm not speaking from nostalgia
> either, I've played almost all of these games rather extensively within
the
> year.
All those games required mostly memorization and timing.
I haven't beat a single tomb raider game or any of the N64 platformers. I
keep getting stuck on certain puzzles. Maybe if the platformers today
focused more on button pressing skill rather than thinking skills, it
wouldn't be any harder. Or maybe I lost interest on platformer since I
can't stand playing them anymore.
>
> How are platformers "harder than ever now"? They're a total sleepwalk.
What
> current platformer is even remotely hard? I can't think of any.
>
try any N64 platformers.
> > Shooters, not much different. They keep adding extra degree of
complexity
> > to the shooter that makes the game both harder and easier.
>
> I think shooters are probably the only genre that generally have not
become
> easier over the years.
>
> > Fighters, depends whether it's 2D or 3D.
>
> Fighters are 2 player games. The ai is irrelevant. Even still, KOF94,
KOF95,
> SS2 and SSF2T have /much/ more difficult ai than any fighter out now.
KOF94 95 was much easier because of less complexity.
M.Bison(Vega) was much easier to beat than Gill.
And you're right about the AI.
>
> > It just seems that the games were harder back then because you saw the
> "Game
> > Over" screen much more.
>
> No, games really were harder. Go play any of the games I've mentioned.
I have and I've beaten the ones I did play on your list(megamans except 5,6
and Ninja Gaiden except 3, Castlevania 2, Super Mario1,3). What I remember
the most of those games were that I had to memorize the levels, the ways the
enemies were placed(much of the enemies back then were scripted, not
randomly generated), and get the timing down.
>
> > Now a days, getting stuck on a puzzle is more of a
> > common occurance than dying. Either way a game stoppage occurs. So I
> think
> > games are not any harder or easier than before.
>
> I've not played any game recently where I've been stuck for any real
length
> of time on a puzzle. Stuff like Metal Gear Solid, Oracle of Seasons, Final
> Fantasy 7, Symphony of the Night, etc etc I never got stuck in. It's very
> common to just move right through a modern game with little challenge.
Which
> isn't surprising, games now have to cater to much wider audiences.
I haven't gotten stuck on any of those games either in terms of puzzle.
Also, I think you have to think about the fact that there are more games
that can be "saved". Just imaging how much easier Blaster Master would be
with some sort of password or save. Imagine trying to play through any
Resident Evil games without saving(I've actually done this with the first
one. It's really stressing when you die near the end).
Hyun Lim
>
> --
> Matt
> http://www.gbafan.net
>
>
>
Billy Bissette
> Personally, I miss good beat-em-ups. There hasn't been any progress on
> gameplay since Streets of Rage 3; moreover, no one tried to even copy what
> SOR3 did. What ever happened to Technos anyway?
Technos went under some time during the first half of the 90s.
'93?
A great tragedy, because if they had survived, we might still have
good and different beat-em-ups... Super Smash Bros reminds me of
the old Super Deformed Technos fighting. There isn't really anything
today that matches the non-SD Kunio games though. And if they had
managed to successfully move into the 3D area....
Atlus managed to somehow get the rights to create a Super Dodgeball
sequel, but the reviews I've seen say that it has inexplicable pauses
in gameplay in two-player mode. And is to the old GB standard of
requiring both players to have the cart. (haven't seen the game, myself)
Hyun Lim
Did anyone notice that a beginner can come up to you, use only about 2 or 3
patterns of attack, and beat you?
and I guess it doesn't have to be 3D. Think of Marvel vs. Capcom 2.
Hyun Lim
"Joe Ottoson" <jaot...@fortlewis.edu> wrote in message
news:9fsfbb$5tq83$1...@ID-80475.news.dfncis.de...
Hyun Lim
"popular" games of the past. This is probably because of the fact that game
industry is trying to be like hollywood; make much money as possible by
pleasing the crowd. In terms of games, make it easier so less skilled
people can play it. It's not a wonder why some people prefer indies.
Hyun Lim
Ethan Hammond
Of course what most people don't know is that most "independent" films
are funded by the major studios all along, it just makes people like
the more to say they are independent.
--
All Purpose Cultural Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
Andrew Ryan Chang
>pleasing the crowd. In terms of games, make it easier so less skilled
>people can play it.
Well, what is the point of a game? We make games so that people
can enjoy playing 'em, but it turns out that most people enjoy winning them
(at some point). If I was partially responsible for a company full of
people paying rent, buying groceries, and raising kids, you'd be sure I'd
make games easy enough for the average consumer too.
It's not all that hard to make an unwinnable game, of course. The
game controls the gameworld and all that happens within. The trick is to
adjust difficulty so that people of different skill levels can enjoy
playing it, can feel challenged, but not frustrate them with extreme
difficulty or obvious game cheating to keep things close.
Andrew Ryan Chang
[on fighting games]
>let me restate that.
>
>Did anyone notice that a beginner can come up to you, use only about 2 or 3
>patterns of attack, and beat you?
That's a situation where the veteran isn't nearly as good as he or
she might think. If you're losing like that, then I don't think you're a
"veteran", except in the sense of having spent a lot of quarters on the
game. (comments only apply to VF2/3)
Joe Ottoson
Andrew Ryan Chang <arc...@sfu.ca> wrote in message
news:9fskgo$t6s$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca...
> Hyun Lim <hy...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> [on fighting games]
> >let me restate that.
> >
> >Did anyone notice that a beginner can come up to you, use only about 2 or
3
> >patterns of attack, and beat you?
>
> That's a situation where the veteran isn't nearly as good as he or
> she might think. If you're losing like that, then I don't think you're a
> "veteran", except in the sense of having spent a lot of quarters on the
> game. (comments only apply to VF2/3)
That holds true for any 3d fighter that's worth anything. (Yet another flaw
with DOA2.)
Jetbolt
for hours to beat many older games, like Sonic 1.
--
"And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have - from the nations
that are around you, from them you may buy male and females slaves."
- Leviticus 25:44
Raymond McKeithen II
> Haven't started a thread in a while, so...
>
> I read PA fairly regularily (as if you care), and lately they've been
doing
> a little bit on, well, games not being as good as they used to be.
>
> I won't get really long winded on this (at least not yet), but I'll throw
in
> my piece. There was as much crap back in the day as there is now. And
> there were just as many compelling titles back in the day as there are
now.
I couldn't possibly disagree with the last sentence more. Once the Saturn
era ended so did the "golden era of gaming."
> My question... what does everybody else think? IMO, this whole "games
> aren't as good these days" idea is just nostalgia clouding one's
judgement,
> but... are there people out there who don't think companies shoveled as
much
> crap as they do nowadays? Or that the rate of good games being released
was
> much higher years ago?
Don't know or care about rates of good to bad as how many bad games is
irrelevant, only the good ones matter.
The number of games I have any interest in is getting to be less and less;
it seems to be rapidly approaching zero. I look at what's scheduled to come
out the rest of this year and it depresses me.
- Entire categories of games, such as the 2D shooter, are all but dead, and
the few that are made now are for the expert/shooter-god only. The scrolling
beat-em-up (i.e. Streets of Rage) is gone. 2D platformers have been all but
replaced by inferior 3D versions with hordes of playability problems and an
emphasis on "collecting" crap rather than solid gameplay.
- No more real Langrisser games will ever be made.
- Much of gaming in general is being dumbed down to have mass appeal.
I could go on but it's far too depressing. :(
> And while we're on the topic, what years in particular do you feel were
the
> best for gaming? Support it with the lineup that came out that year or
> something...
The Genesis/SNES through Saturn era, with an emphasis on the latter (and a
handful of PSX games too). What I explained above should be more than
sufficient explanation as to why.
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email
Hyun Lim
"Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
news:61mU6.3$ad....@newshog.newsread.com...
>
> "Maximg" <gora...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:ti37bp3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Haven't started a thread in a while, so...
> >
> > I read PA fairly regularily (as if you care), and lately they've been
> doing
> > a little bit on, well, games not being as good as they used to be.
> >
> > I won't get really long winded on this (at least not yet), but I'll
throw
> in
> > my piece. There was as much crap back in the day as there is now. And
> > there were just as many compelling titles back in the day as there are
> now.
>
> I couldn't possibly disagree with the last sentence more. Once the Saturn
> era ended so did the "golden era of gaming."
you must be a die hard Sega Saturn fan.
>
> > My question... what does everybody else think? IMO, this whole "games
> > aren't as good these days" idea is just nostalgia clouding one's
> judgement,
> > but... are there people out there who don't think companies shoveled as
> much
> > crap as they do nowadays? Or that the rate of good games being released
> was
> > much higher years ago?
>
> Don't know or care about rates of good to bad as how many bad games is
> irrelevant, only the good ones matter.
"good" games are relative. I found Wild Arms 2 fun to play while many
hated. I hated Chrono Cross and Xenogears for various reasons while many
others loved it.
>
> The number of games I have any interest in is getting to be less and less;
> it seems to be rapidly approaching zero. I look at what's scheduled to
come
> out the rest of this year and it depresses me.
I agree with you on this one. I really enjoyed my DC for the past year and
ever since the annoucement that DC was being canned, I haven't seen a single
good game released. I really thought that DC was going to be a bit more
successful than the Saturn.
>
> - Entire categories of games, such as the 2D shooter, are all but dead,
and
> the few that are made now are for the expert/shooter-god only.
not always true. Try playing Giga Wing 2, Thunder Force 5, Ray Crisis, and
Einhander. If you have played shooters before then all you need is time and
perseverance to beat them.
The scrolling
> beat-em-up (i.e. Streets of Rage) is gone. 2D platformers have been all
but
> replaced by inferior 3D versions with hordes of playability problems and
an
> emphasis on "collecting" crap rather than solid gameplay.
when has a platformer not been about collecting crap?
>
> - No more real Langrisser games will ever be made.
>
> - Much of gaming in general is being dumbed down to have mass appeal.
I think I mentioned this before.
>
> I could go on but it's far too depressing. :(
>
> > And while we're on the topic, what years in particular do you feel were
> the
> > best for gaming? Support it with the lineup that came out that year or
> > something...
>
> The Genesis/SNES through Saturn era, with an emphasis on the latter (and a
> handful of PSX games too). What I explained above should be more than
> sufficient explanation as to why.
If I remember correctly, the Saturn died around mid 97. Around then most
PSX games were crap. Although the Saturn had few good games(Panzer Dragoon
saga and Dragon Force comes to mind) it just didn't have enough variety of
games. Also, the marketing and pricing of Saturn was weaker than PSX and
N64. At the end, it's about business.
Hyun Lim
Hyun Lim
"Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3B21CF...@worldnet.att.net...
> Hyun Lim wrote:
> >
> > hmm, on second thought, "popular" games nowadays is much easier than
> > "popular" games of the past. This is probably because of the fact that
game
> > industry is trying to be like hollywood; make much money as possible by
> > pleasing the crowd. In terms of games, make it easier so less skilled
> > people can play it. It's not a wonder why some people prefer indies.
>
> Of course what most people don't know is that most "independent" films
> are funded by the major studios all along, it just makes people like
> the more to say they are independent.
of course. Major studios fund bunch of indies, take the ones that are
popular, and mass release it across the country with an "indie" appeal.
Just look at Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. It made Sony a lot of money.
Look at Blair Witch project. They made this for around 4 grand, took it to
Miramax, and made lot of money with it. But the thing is that they were
allowed more freedom to create rather than meeting "blockbuster"
requirements.
Hyun Lim
Brian Deplae
wrote:
No, I can still go back and play many of those older games (I still
have them) and can see the difference in difficulty.
Matt Greer
"Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
news:61mU6.3$ad....@newshog.newsread.com...
> - Entire categories of games, such as the 2D shooter, are all but dead,
and
> the few that are made now are for the expert/shooter-god only. The
scrolling
> beat-em-up (i.e. Streets of Rage) is gone. 2D platformers have been all
but
> replaced by inferior 3D versions with hordes of playability problems and
an
> emphasis on "collecting" crap rather than solid gameplay.
That's where the GBA steps in. Which is likely to be a very nice 2D refuge.
--
Matt
http://www.gbafan.net
Robert Maxon
Maximg wrote:
>
This is more of a cultural trend. Look at the popularity of classic rock
stations around the country. Nostalgia is fine, but a person shouldn't
let it rule the present.
ManicButt
the
> >best for gaming? Support it with the lineup that came out that year or
> >something...
A lot of this is very subjective, because it depends where you are in your
life. 1980-1984 kicked butt for me, because I was 10-14 years old, a prime
candidate for this stuff. I lived in the arcades, and after the "crash" of
the home systems, I grabbed up everything I could for pennies. Mmmmmmmm ...
Asteroids, Pole Position, Galaga, Star Wars (arcade), Spy Hunter, Crystal
Castles, Gravitar, Stargate, Defender, Joust, Moon Patrol, Gyruss, Donkey
Kong, Frogger, Jungle King, Mr. Do, Robotron, Tempest ...... good times.
The Nintendo haters won't like this, but my favorite time in recent memory
for gaming was Q4 1998, when 3 absolutely terrific games came out
back-to-back: F-Zero X, Star Wars Rogue Squadron, and Zelda Ocarina of Time.
What a terrific fusion of past and present that was! I still play F-Zero X
way more than anyone should.
In recent times, I'm starting to think the PS2 isn't as bad as "everyone"
makes it out to be. Given time, this'll be remembered as a keeper system
just like the SNES, and not just for lack of competition.
Current obsession: finding a Samsung N501 NUON-compatible DVD player to
enjoy Tempest 3000. Really.
Maximg
>>>I personally think many of today's games are too easy though, but
>>>that's another issue.
>>
>>Or we're just getting better. ;)
>
>No, I can still go back and play many of those older games (I still
>have them) and can see the difference in difficulty.
>
Maybe it's just me, but I don't find old-school platformers or RPGs or any
genre to be any harder than the ones today. Mega Man 8 was just as hard as
the others (X has always been easier, but the PS versions are no easier than
the SNES ones), FF9 is just as difficult as previous installments, etc...
I *remember* having a difficult time with many of these games back in the
day, but playing them now... I zoom through 'em just as quick as newer
games.
Maximg
>No, go grab an NES and a handful of games. You'll be swearing at your tv in
>no time :) Games back then, generally, were significantly harder.
>
I have. I do all the time. ;)
What series, in particular, have gotten much easier?
Maximg
>Heh heh. Go play any of the NES megamans,
MM8 was just as hard...
> Castlevania 1,
The series has taken a different direction, so it's hard to compare...
>Ninja Gaiden,
No next gen sequals...
>Ghost N Goblins,
Same...
>Gradius,
Try Mars Matrix. Or even R Type Delta or Thunder Force 5
>Hell, even Super Mario Bros is harder
>than most games today.
I don't have a problem with it... did back in the day, but it's not too
difficult now.
>Fighters are 2 player games. The ai is irrelevant. Even still, KOF94,
KOF95,
>SS2 and SSF2T have /much/ more difficult ai than any fighter out now.
>
Disagree - I don't think the difficulty within these series has changed at
all... I can go through KOF 94 just as easily as 99.
>Oracle of Seasons,
Played Zelda 1 through for the first time 2 years ago (criminal, I know) and
had no problems with it. Not any harder.
Final
>Fantasy 7,
The NES and SNES FF's were no easier, IMO. I go through 'em just as
easily...
>Symphony of the Night,
Different than previous Castlevanias, so it's difficult to compare...
Maximg
>Best years of games
>1994
>FF3, Super Metroid, Secret of Mana - this was when SNES was in its prime.
I
>don't quite remember other titles but I remember having the most fun with
>SNES this year.
>SOR3, Phantasy Star 4
>
Didn't Lufia and some others come out that year, too? I remember playing
Mana for hours on end... what a game...
Maximg
> Frankly, I'm pretty disappointed with this current story arc. I
>wasn't sure where they were going with it at the start; the first strip
>could be read as a sort-of threat against those tiresome nostalgia freaks
>who'll rant about the good ol' days at the drop of a hat.
>
That's *exactly* what I thought. It looked as if it would be more of a
satire than anything else... Guess not. ;)
Matt Greer
>
>
> >Heh heh. Go play any of the NES megamans,
>
> MM8 was just as hard...
Comparing an old game to its direct new counterpart is not the point. The
point is back then games like Megaman, which were quite difficult, were
quite common and made up a lot of what gaming was back then. Now adays a
game like MM8 or MMX5 barely makes a splash at all. They don't represent the
norm of what gaming has become in the slightest. Compare the norm of back
then to now, and games were harder then.
> > Castlevania 1,
>
> The series has taken a different direction, so it's hard to compare...
>
Even though that's not a very viable point, it still shows something.
There's no denying Castlevania 1 is much harder than SOTN, regardless of
direction. How does "direction" factor in at all?
> Try Mars Matrix. Or even R Type Delta or Thunder Force 5
I said in this thread shooters is probably the only genre that hasn't gotten
easier.
> >Hell, even Super Mario Bros is harder
> >than most games today.
>
> I don't have a problem with it... did back in the day, but it's not too
> difficult now.
That's my point. SMB is not a hard game and yet is still harder than most
stuff put out today. Nintendo even dummied down Super Mario Bros 2 for Super
Mario Advance. And SMB2 was not a hard game to begin with.
--
Matt
http://www.gbafan.net
V. Equinox
(since gaming as an industry is much bigger), but it's my feeling that the
number of quality releases is about the same as it was back then, but there's
much more crap. So the percentage of quality games is lower than it was
before, but I think if you look at the number of good games per year, the game
industry is putting out as much good stuff as it ever was.
In article <ti37bp3...@corp.supernews.com>, "Maximg" <gora...@tc.umn.edu>
wrote:
>Haven't started a thread in a while, so...
>
>I read PA fairly regularily (as if you care), and lately they've been doing
>a little bit on, well, games not being as good as they used to be.
>
>I won't get really long winded on this (at least not yet), but I'll throw in
>my piece. There was as much crap back in the day as there is now. And
>there were just as many compelling titles back in the day as there are now.
>
>My question... what does everybody else think? IMO, this whole "games
>aren't as good these days" idea is just nostalgia clouding one's judgement,
>but... are there people out there who don't think companies shoveled as much
>crap as they do nowadays? Or that the rate of good games being released was
>much higher years ago?
>
>And while we're on the topic, what years in particular do you feel were the
>best for gaming? Support it with the lineup that came out that year or
>something...
>
>
>
>
>
>
-----------------
Nothing's crazier than spelling crazy with a "k".
Oracle
>
> Now at the time of Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:54:30 -0500, "Maximg"
> <gora...@tc.umn.edu> we were graced with this statement:
>
> >My question... what does everybody else think? IMO, this whole "games
> >aren't as good these days" idea is just nostalgia clouding one's judgement,
> >but... are there people out there who don't think companies shoveled as much
> >crap as they do nowadays? Or that the rate of good games being released was
> >much higher years ago?
> >
>
> certain third parties..LJN comes to mind that have lived off of crap,
> and other third parties who rip off the GOOD company's titles.
Not only has there ALWAYS been crap, but the stuff that we call crap today
has nothing on the crap of the old days. The worst game of all time
was easily "E.T., The Extra-Terrestrial" on the Atari 2600. Games just do
not get worse than that. And who can forget the gawdawful conversion of
Pac-Man on the 2600? Square dots! And the ghosts were all the same
color! Suck city.
How about the crappiest pack-in ever? That's probably R.O.B., the NES
Robotic Operating Buddy. Nothing else has matched that for sheer badness.
It was AWFUL in the old days! Nintendo was the company that instituted
the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" as a way to build consumer confidence, because
in the days leading up to the big crash, the only confidence that consumers
had was that the new games on the shelves were going to suck ass.
We're spoiled rotten these days. Look at how badly WSB2K1 was bashed for
sucking. You want sucking? Put "Activision Classics for Intellivision"
in the PSX and try THAT baseball game. Hope you have 2 players, and don't
let player 2 see that you have WSB2K1 because he ain't gonna want to play
that weak INTV game if he knows Sega's latest is in the house. Actually,
I'd say WSBII on Saturn is better than them all. The point is, the crap
games of today are much better quality crap than the crap games of old.
It's still crap, of course, but much better crap.
--
This message sent with the spirit of the Nine Muses,
Calliope, Clio, Polyhymnia, Euterpe, Terpsichore,
Erato, Melpomene, Thalia and Urania.
V. Equinox
>I personally think many of today's games are too easy though, but
>that's another issue.
>
people playing it on the demo unit at work) about how hard the game is. When
SMB2 was originally released on the NES, it was only a moderately difficult
game, but by today's standards it's hard.
Hyun Lim
> Comparing an old game to its direct new counterpart is not the point. The
> point is back then games like Megaman, which were quite difficult, were
> quite common and made up a lot of what gaming was back then. Now adays a
> game like MM8 or MMX5 barely makes a splash at all. They don't represent
the
> norm of what gaming has become in the slightest. Compare the norm of back
> then to now, and games were harder then.
well if you put it that way, then I agree with that. I'm guessing you are
saying that norms back then were mostly platformers while today's norm is
cinematic type of games which lets player progress without much frustration.
Hyun Lim
V. Equinox
>On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 04:29:09 GMT, nos...@home.com (Brian Deplae)
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 22:54:30 -0500, "Maximg" <gora...@tc.umn.edu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Haven't started a thread in a while, so...
>>>
>>>I read PA fairly regularily (as if you care), and lately they've been doing
>>>a little bit on, well, games not being as good as they used to be.
>>>
>>>I won't get really long winded on this (at least not yet), but I'll throw in
>>>my piece. There was as much crap back in the day as there is now. And
>>>there were just as many compelling titles back in the day as there are now.
>>>
>>>aren't as good these days" idea is just nostalgia clouding one's judgement,
>>>but... are there people out there who don't think companies shoveled as much
>>>crap as they do nowadays? Or that the rate of good games being released was
>>>much higher years ago?
>>>
>>>best for gaming? Support it with the lineup that came out that year or
>>>something...
>>
>>remember them is because they were crap and we didn't pay them much
>>mind when they were new. Looking back at things we tend to only
>>remember that which we bothered to pay much attention to in the first
>>place. In this case that which we paid attention to were the good
>>games. Look up a listing of all 2600 or NES games and you'll find
>>that most of them were crap, but we only really remember and still
>>discuss the handful that were great.
>>
>>I personally think many of today's games are too easy though, but
>>that's another issue.
>
>better coordination and memorization skills than I had when I was 7 or
>8 years old.. but then I went back and played Ninja Gaiden, and got my
>ass kicked! Games (especially RPGs.. I can't recall one RPG where you
>didn't have to level build back in those days) were much more
>difficult then..
>
No kidding. Personally, I don't see how anybody can say that any of the
PlayStation Final Fantasy games were just as hard as Final Fantasy 1. It took
a lot of level building, a gamer who knew what they were doing, and a good bit
of luck to beat FF1.
Matt Greer
"V. Equinox" <vequ...@mail.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:K2uU6.5160$c37.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> In article <3b21a6fa.51246269@news>, nos...@home.com wrote:
> >I personally think many of today's games are too easy though, but
> >that's another issue.
> >
> No kidding. I've heard all kinds of comments about Super Mario Advance
(from
> people playing it on the demo unit at work) about how hard the game is.
When
> SMB2 was originally released on the NES, it was only a moderately
difficult
> game, but by today's standards it's hard.
>
game giving out hearts almost constantly. You never really have to worry
about your life.
--
Matt
http://www.gbafan.net
(dedicated to the game boy advance)
Hyun Lim
> Maybe it's just me, but I don't find old-school platformers or RPGs or any
> genre to be any harder than the ones today. Mega Man 8 was just as hard
as
> the others (X has always been easier, but the PS versions are no easier
than
> the SNES ones), FF9 is just as difficult as previous installments, etc...
>
> I *remember* having a difficult time with many of these games back in the
> day, but playing them now... I zoom through 'em just as quick as newer
> games.
try playing Ultima 3:Exodus for either PC or NES. That game is HARD.
Ultima 4: Quest of the Avatar was easier than 3 but still takes more
perseverance than today's RPGs. I recommend the NES version for both since
FCI did a great job porting it over. The PC versions are harder only
because you had to write a lot of stuff down on a piece of paper trying to
think of words you can type in to ask questions. Too bad the SNES versions
of Ultima 6 and 7 sucked though.
Destiny of an Emperor was pretty hard as well.
Crystalis was no joke.
Ditto with Dragon Warrior games.
FF was hard also.
Haven't played FF9 much but FF4-8 was cake compared to FF1. I haven't
finished FF8 because I got too bored with it though, but I haven't had any
problem "romping" through the game.
These are some of the factors that I think makes the RPG's easier today:
It seems like bosses in today's RPG do not require the player to spend time
leveling up so the player can go and beat the crap out of the bosses. Look
at Chrono Cross for example. They won't even let you level up in a
traditional sense. Also, there are more spell/special attacks/etc that does
mass destruction than before which renders some rpg's normal attacks
useless; thus, making the battles a bit easier. Think of Grandia; one spell
and it's over. These are some of the factors that I think makes the RPG's
easier today.
Any other comments on why RPG's seem easier?
Hyun Lim
Hyun Lim
> sucking. You want sucking? Put "Activision Classics for Intellivision"
> in the PSX and try THAT baseball game. Hope you have 2 players, and don't
> let player 2 see that you have WSB2K1 because he ain't gonna want to play
> that weak INTV game if he knows Sega's latest is in the house. Actually,
> I'd say WSBII on Saturn is better than them all. The point is, the crap
> games of today are much better quality crap than the crap games of old.
> It's still crap, of course, but much better crap.
There hasn't been a good baseball game since Front Page Sport Baseball.
Does anyone know why Front Page Sport Football/Baseball series died? I
heard the latest versions(I believe they were 99s) were very buggy but were
the gameplay bad as well? I played FPS Football 95 and FPS Baseball from
94-96 endlessly. couldn't play the latest one's since I only had a 386
until 98....
Hyun Lim
Matt Greer
"Hyun Lim" <hy...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
news:9ftrki$kua$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
> Destiny of an Emperor was pretty hard as well.
> Crystalis was no joke.
> Ditto with Dragon Warrior games.
I wouldn't say Dragon Warrior (I only played the first one) was hard. It was
just grueling. The game really tested your patience and perseverance, but
never really got hard.
Darien Allen
vequ...@mail.earthlink.net (V. Equinox) we were graced with this
statement:
>Well, there are definitely more games being released now than in the old days
>(since gaming as an industry is much bigger), but it's my feeling that the
>number of quality releases is about the same as it was back then, but there's
>much more crap. So the percentage of quality games is lower than it was
>before, but I think if you look at the number of good games per year, the game
>industry is putting out as much good stuff as it ever was.
I challenge you to find a local store possibly a mom and pop video
store that has a large selection of 8 and 16bit titles....I think
looking through you'd be quite surprised at the amount of crap. Sure
there are some great memories and quality titles but the garbage is
there too.
------------------------
Darien Allen
ICQ-2927081/AOL-Dezign369
"There is no fear in this Dojo!"
Hyun Lim
> I wouldn't say Dragon Warrior (I only played the first one) was hard. It
was
> just grueling. The game really tested your patience and perseverance, but
> never really got hard.
what makes an RPG hard then? the hardest of the hard bosses can be beaten
as long as the players can level up to the standards that is required to
beat them. Only exception I can think of is an experience point/level cap
that was put on Ultima3 and Destiny of an Emperor.
Hyun Lim
Joe Ottoson
> Well, there are definitely more games being released now than in the old
days
> (since gaming as an industry is much bigger), but it's my feeling that the
> number of quality releases is about the same as it was back then, but
there's
> much more crap.
I don't beleive that. The PSx library took about the exact same amount of
time to hit 600 games that the NES did. Where is the avalance of new titles?
Nothing's changed.
Joe Ottoson
> Crystalis was no joke.
> Ditto with Dragon Warrior games.
> FF was hard also.
None of them were actually hard. They were just more tedious. Level, level,
level, level, then go to the next town. Repeat after you leave.
Matt Greer
"Joe Ottoson" <jaot...@fortlewis.edu> wrote in message
news:9ftsn7$64i8c$1...@ID-80475.news.dfncis.de...
out, so were Saturn and N64 games.
Joe Ottoson
>
> > I wouldn't say Dragon Warrior (I only played the first one) was hard. It
> was
> > just grueling. The game really tested your patience and perseverance,
but
> > never really got hard.
>
> what makes an RPG hard then?
Ideally, a RPG should make player think, and in fights, actually work as a
team and use strategy to take down enemies and bosses. Leveling's just a
crutch for a complete and total lack of actual challenge.
Joe Ottoson
Matt Greer <torto...@SPAMgbafan.net> wrote in message
news:9ftstm$99p$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
There were 80 SMS games all largely produced by Sega in the same timespan.
Not to mention the PC, the Amiga, the C64, the Apple 2e/2gs, the Atari 2600,
the Atari Falcon, the Atari 7800, and an active arcade market (which
currently is about done).
Show me an actual disparity first. ;)
Matt Greer
> > The NES was pretty much by itself. While all those PSX games were coming
> > out, so were Saturn and N64 games.
>
> There were 80 SMS games all largely produced by Sega in the same timespan.
80 huh? That doesn't compare well to the 400+ games between the Saturn and
N64.
> Not to mention the PC, the Amiga, the C64, the Apple 2e/2gs, the Atari
2600,
> the Atari Falcon, the Atari 7800, and an active arcade market (which
> currently is about done).
>
Let's see here. Practically none of that is even in the same market. I'd
have a hard time believing the Amiga or C64 directly competed with the NES;
just like I don't consider PC games of today to directly compete with
consoles.
Ok, in the time of the PSX there were Mac games, Windows, Linux/Unix,
Wonderswan, Gameboy Color, Neo Geo, Neo Geo CD, Neo Geo Pocket, Palm Pilot,
those Windows CE things, PC-FX, arcade, Jaguar, Lynx, game.com, 3DO and
probably a few others I'm forgetting.
Billy Bissette
> Hyun Lim <hy...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> >pleasing the crowd. In terms of games, make it easier so less skilled
> >people can play it.
>
> It's not all that hard to make an unwinnable game, of course. The
> game controls the gameworld and all that happens within. The trick is to
> adjust difficulty so that people of different skill levels can enjoy
> playing it, can feel challenged, but not frustrate them with extreme
> difficulty or obvious game cheating to keep things close.
Honestly, that can be as bad or worse than simply making the game
easy. Even in the unlikely event the coders manage to make a game
that can properly adjust its difficulty on the fly.
Feeling challenged does not mean you are actually challenged. When
you are actually challenged, you sometimes fail and are eventually
forced to improve (unless the game has unlimited continues and no
real set-back for death) to proceed. You can 'feel challenged'
without ever having a real drive to improve.
Auto-regulated difficulties aren't the final answer either, as the
game simply dumbs itself down when you fail, and probably slowly
rises again until your next failure. Not only that, having the
CPU adjust the difficulty on its own can make a game even more
frustrating than a present difficultly level/curve, as you may never
find yourself 'good enough'. The difficulty adjustment can become
a penalty for success instead of simply trying to increase the
play experience, as the game simply smacks you back down whenever
you improve.
In the end, games are being marketed to crowds who want entirely
different things, things which can contradict on even the most
basic level. Some people want to see the ending regardless of how
they get there, others want the challenge of the game and the
ending is only a final reward that may or may not ever be reached.
And some want to 'feel challenged' even if they never really are,
but want to also reach the end successfully within a [person-
specific] given amount of time or they become frustrated and
angry. Some want infinite continues because they don't want to have
to learn how to play the game, others because it lets them play
for fun' without killing their desire to better themselves, and
still others feel (rightly so IMO) that infinite continues 'weaken'
the game on a design and presentation level. Some want to save
anywhere not for the convenience, but to step their way through
the game never really losing from death and never learning to
really avoid it. I don't know if you can truely account for all
of the above in a single game, and thus you end up with even the
best games being seen as either 'too hard' or 'too easy' by
decent numbers.
Billy Bissette
> "good" games are relative. I found Wild Arms 2 fun to play while many
> hated. I hated Chrono Cross and Xenogears for various reasons while many
> others loved it.
Hrm... Sure about people loving Chrono Cross? :p
I honestly don't know anyone who loved it after actually playing
through the majority of it... And actually know quite a few people
who played it. :p
Billy Bissette
says...
> Maybe it's just me, but I don't find old-school platformers or RPGs or any
> genre to be any harder than the ones today. Mega Man 8 was just as hard as
> the others (X has always been easier, but the PS versions are no easier than
> the SNES ones), FF9 is just as difficult as previous installments, etc...
>
> I *remember* having a difficult time with many of these games back in the
> day, but playing them now... I zoom through 'em just as quick as newer
> games.
I go back and play my various Mega Man games every now and then. Mega
Man 8 is either the easiest or the second easiest Mega Man game ever.
The only game which compared to 8 is 'Normal' (actually the 'easy' mode
added to the non-Japanese version) mode in Mega Man 2.
Mega Man 8 and Mega Man 2 are the games you give people who just can't
manage to beat any of the other Mega Man games.
Though the Mega Man lines have other problems larger than varying
difficulty levels....
Hyun Lim
> Ideally, a RPG should make player think, and in fights, actually work as a
> team and use strategy to take down enemies and bosses. Leveling's just a
> crutch for a complete and total lack of actual challenge.
actually, there's other genres like turn-based or real-time strategies for
that. Adventure games makes player think. RPG is about taking a role of
someone and literally building that character, which is done by leveling up.
Building the character helps progress through story. Without leveling, it's
just another adventure game.
Hyun Lim
Joe Ottoson
Matt Greer <torto...@SPAMgbafan.net> wrote in message
>
> "Joe Ottoson" <jaot...@fortlewis.edu> wrote in message
> news:9fttbv$64nub$1...@ID-80475.news.dfncis.de...
>
> > > The NES was pretty much by itself. While all those PSX games were
coming
> > > out, so were Saturn and N64 games.
> >
> > There were 80 SMS games all largely produced by Sega in the same
timespan.
>
> 80 huh? That doesn't compare well to the 400+ games between the Saturn and
> N64.
Yes, nitpicking one system proves that there were less games.
> > Not to mention the PC, the Amiga, the C64, the Apple 2e/2gs, the Atari
> 2600,
> > the Atari Falcon, the Atari 7800, and an active arcade market (which
> > currently is about done).
> >
> Let's see here. Practically none of that is even in the same market.
At the time, the Amiga was tapped firmly into the console market actually.
For that matter, the C64, had a huge library of games. (It kinda stepped in
once the market crashed as the solitary gaming platform so the markets
totally merged for for years.) Street Fighter, Contra, Bad Dudes etc *all*
appeared on the C64. It had a library of games that'd probably shame the PSx
in fact.
> Ok, in the time of the PSX there were Mac games, Windows, Linux/Unix,
> Wonderswan, Gameboy Color, Neo Geo, Neo Geo CD, Neo Geo Pocket, Palm
Pilot,
> those Windows CE things, PC-FX, arcade, Jaguar, Lynx, game.com, 3DO and
> probably a few others I'm forgetting.
You can play the pissing contest all you like. There have been hundreds upon
hundreds of games released per year every year since the first console
appeared. It's not suddenly a new phenom.
And for all that, you're really just giving multi platform releases equal
weight as different titles. Doesn't really make much sense.
Matt Greer
>
> > 80 huh? That doesn't compare well to the 400+ games between the Saturn
and
> > N64.
>
> Yes, nitpicking one system proves that there were less games.
>
Oook, so why did you bring it up then?
> At the time, the Amiga was tapped firmly into the console market actually.
heh.
> For that matter, the C64, had a huge library of games. (It kinda stepped
in
> once the market crashed as the solitary gaming platform so the markets
> totally merged for for years.) Street Fighter, Contra, Bad Dudes etc *all*
> appeared on the C64. It had a library of games that'd probably shame the
PSx
> in fact.
Which is all irrelevant and has nothing to do with whether the C64 was
directly competing with the NES.
> You can play the pissing contest all you like.
You're the one who started whizzin all over the place first. Or was that
someone elses long, drawn out list of old 80's computers?
> There have been hundreds upon
> hundreds of games released per year every year since the first console
> appeared. It's not suddenly a new phenom.
>
Um, ok. No one ever said it wasn't.
> And for all that, you're really just giving multi platform releases equal
> weight as different titles. Doesn't really make much sense.
I'm not surprised there, Joe.
Omarichu
>It seems like bosses in today's RPG do not require the player to spend time
>leveling up so the player can go and beat the crap out of the bosses.
Leveling up is the prattle of the dead. Relegate that shit to the past and
leave it there.
__
Am I or am I not? That is the question. ... Well, that is a question...
Oracle
Wha-wha-what??? Levelling is a reward for doing well. It's not a crutch.
Games have very few ways with which to reward a player, after all it's just
a little box trying hard to make people happy. All it has for rewards are
things like special endings, in-game upgrades (like levelling) and added
features to the game upon completion. The games are very limited in how they
can reward a player. It used to be that you could put your name on a high
score table for doing well, and claim your fame that way, but not many games
even have scores anymore.
A bad player is not going to be able to level up if he can't actually beat
anything for those all-important Experience Points. If there's no levelling,
then why even bother with Experience Points? 99.9995% of RPG's start out
with you knowing full well whose ass you need to kick to beat the game, but
you can't just walk over to the evil guy in the funny hat and lay down the
smackage on him because then it would only be a 10 minute game.
The player needs to work his way up to boss fights, and one method to do
that, tried and true, is levelling. Without levelling, the only reward for
winning would be that your character gets to live to fight another thankless
battle in a few minutes all over again. That's okay for an arcade fighting
game which is only going to last a half hour to get to the boss anyway, but
if you're going to put 40 hours into an RPG there has to be some rewards
along the way.
Nils Tanner
Equinox) said: Howlgarglegarglegarglehowl. But behold, for I say:
>>(since gaming as an industry is much bigger),
Don't think that's true. The industry is bigger in money term,
certainly, but the games are a lot more expensive to create, too. In
the old days, one person alone could create a game and publish it (at
least on the computers :-) ), this is no longer possible nowadays (or
at least very rarely, and BTW, I'm just looking at the "standard" SW
sold in stores and not stuff like Shareware aso).
Therefore, I assume that the number of games released didn't rise.
Andrew Ryan Chang
> Feeling challenged does not mean you are actually challenged. When
Yes, I know. My assertion is precisely that a substantially larger
number of consumers would prefer the former to the latter... though
conscious knowledge that they weren't actually challenged destroys the
point, though.
> Auto-regulated difficulties aren't the final answer either, as the
<snip>
>find yourself 'good enough'. The difficulty adjustment can become
>a penalty for success instead of simply trying to increase the
>play experience, as the game simply smacks you back down whenever
>you improve.
Yes... there has to be some sense of reward for getting
better, but I think that can come out of the gameplay rather than meeting
the micro-goals that one gets through on a minute-by-minute basis. By
that, I mean things like JGR's trick chains or a neatly executed set of
Crazy Throughs in CT.
> In the end, games are being marketed to crowds who want entirely
>different things, things which can contradict on even the most
>basic level.
<snip>
Yeah. If games can't be made to adjust to fit these opposing
desires (and I don't think they can; few people would want to explicitly
choose the options you listed below, and I doubt they'd choose the option
they 'really' want anyways), then we're gonna have to pick one. I bet a
lot of game devs will end up picking the one they feel will gain the most
mass-market acceptance, if only cause that's the safest option.
--
The war on drugs has resulted in an incarceration rate so obscene that
almost 1 in 4 of every person behind bars in the entire world is locked up
in the United States.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/12/drugs/index.html
Raymond McKeithen II
"Matt Greer" <torto...@SPAMgbafan.net> wrote in message
>
> "Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
> news:61mU6.3$ad....@newshog.newsread.com...
>
> > - Entire categories of games, such as the 2D shooter, are all but dead,
> and
> > the few that are made now are for the expert/shooter-god only. The
> scrolling
> > beat-em-up (i.e. Streets of Rage) is gone. 2D platformers have been all
> but
> > replaced by inferior 3D versions with hordes of playability problems and
> an
> > emphasis on "collecting" crap rather than solid gameplay.
>
> That's where the GBA steps in. Which is likely to be a very nice 2D
refuge.
It's also a portable, which makes it worthless to an 'old man' with so-so
eyesight and no ability to use a joystick with it.
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email
Joe Ottoson
>
> > Ideally, a RPG should make player think, and in fights, actually work as
a
> > team and use strategy to take down enemies and bosses. Leveling's just a
> > crutch for a complete and total lack of actual challenge.
>
> actually, there's other genres like turn-based or real-time strategies for
> that.
No, a RPG is not intended to be nothing but a level up interface.
Joe Ottoson
Matt Greer <torto...@SPAMgbafan.net> wrote in message
>
> "Joe Ottoson" <jaot...@fortlewis.edu> wrote in message
> news:9ftvct$647jm$1...@ID-80475.news.dfncis.de...
> >
>
> > > 80 huh? That doesn't compare well to the 400+ games between the Saturn
> and
> > > N64.
> >
> > Yes, nitpicking one system proves that there were less games.
> >
> Oook, so why did you bring it up then?
Hmm. One of many on the market at the same time. Relevance? Quite high.
> > At the time, the Amiga was tapped firmly into the console market
actually.
>
> heh.
Yep that totally removes it from the picture.
> > For that matter, the C64, had a huge library of games. (It kinda stepped
> in
> > once the market crashed as the solitary gaming platform so the markets
> > totally merged for for years.) Street Fighter, Contra, Bad Dudes etc
*all*
> > appeared on the C64. It had a library of games that'd probably shame the
> PSx
> > in fact.
>
> Which is all irrelevant and has nothing to do with whether the C64 was
> directly competing with the NES.
The NES supplanted it to a fair degree.
> > You can play the pissing contest all you like.
>
> You're the one who started whizzin all over the place first. Or was that
> someone elses long, drawn out list of old 80's computers?
I was listing systems with large game libaraies. You aren't accomplishing
anyhting aside from listing newer platforms that have similar levels of
actual support. That doesn't even prove whatever point you're trying to
make.
> > There have been hundreds upon
> > hundreds of games released per year every year since the first console
> > appeared. It's not suddenly a new phenom.
>
> Um, ok. No one ever said it wasn't.
Um, that's what the guy I responded to claimed. You're supporting his claim
that more games are being made now so the quality to crap ratio's lower now.
> > And for all that, you're really just giving multi platform releases
equal
> > weight as different titles. Doesn't really make much sense.
>
> I'm not surprised there, Joe.
Hum. Weak insults, noncommital snorts and no actual point from you. I'm not
suprised either.
Joe Ottoson
Oracle <hel...@sega.net> wrote in message
news:3B229241...@sega.net...
> Joe Ottoson wrote:
> >
> > Hyun Lim <hy...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> > news:9ftsge$n69$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
> > >
> > > > I wouldn't say Dragon Warrior (I only played the first one) was
hard. It
> > > was
> > > > just grueling. The game really tested your patience and
perseverance,
> > but
> > > > never really got hard.
> > >
> > > what makes an RPG hard then?
> >
> > Ideally, a RPG should make player think, and in fights, actually work as
a
> > team and use strategy to take down enemies and bosses. Leveling's just a
> > crutch for a complete and total lack of actual challenge.
>
> Wha-wha-what??? Levelling is a reward for doing well. It's not a crutch.
If you have to stop the flow of the game just to walk around in circles for
half an hour or more every time you leave a town, it's a crutch.
m.ca...@btinternet.com
"Maximg" <gora...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message news:ti37bp3...@corp.supernews.com...
> Haven't started a thread in a while, so...
>
> I read PA fairly regularily (as if you care), and lately they've been doing
> a little bit on, well, games not being as good as they used to be.
Personally, I think that people who reckon this are just kidding themselves. There is no way I
could go back to playing (on a permanent basis) 8 bit or 16 bit systems. Dont get me wrong, I still
love some older games - the Mario games in particular - but the extra power offered by the newer
systems means that better games can, and currently are, being made.
Compare Perfect Dark to Joust - I could play Joust for a while, but would soon get bored of it.
Perfect Dark on the other hand, could me entertained for most of the day.
I bet the people who reckon this wouldnt play on an old Atari 2600 for very long if you plonked one
in front of them.
Oracle
The "flow of the game"? What is that? Remember that we aren't talking about
games which are meant to be finished in one sitting. These have save menus
and they usually take weeks to complete. There really isn't any momentum for
playing the game in one sitting, in fact most modern RPG's would take a maniac
going sleep-deprived for a 3-day weekend to run an RPG from beginning to end
non-stop.
Besides, you don't *have* to do that. If you want to go up against, oh, say,
Dark Falz in PSO at level 10, the game will let you do that. You'll lose,
but the game will let you do that.
Steve Liu
strategy and some thinking to move through the game within the story's
timeframe. You could abuse leveling, but that wouldn't be within the
timeframe.
For example, if the game's story required you to reach CastleX which on
the other side of the Bridge of Rassilon, you should be able to just go
there and be able to survive with smart thinking and tactics, not because
you had to spend 30 hours wandering around TownA killing Magidrakees
before you were strong enough so a Armored Knight couldn't kill you in
two hits or before you could afford the Slayer of Hitpoints Sword.
Unfortunately, I think only the strategy-RPGs like FFT, FM3, Vandal Hearts
really fit this description. Early console RPGs were heavy on the
"required levels" while recent RPGs are just sort of easy. Square RPGs in
particular have a problem of interesting battle systems that don't really
need you to fully explore them.
Skies of Arcadia is pretty good on the difficulty, but still on the
easy side IMO. Xenogears had its moments, but it was easy unless you
totally ignored the deathblow stuff (which I did the first time and
promptly got my ass kicked by Elly because my Gear had no deathblow
attacks)
==============================================================================
Steve C. Liu Internet address: koal...@radix.net
"Lisa, in this house, we obey the Laws of Thermodynamics!"
This sig has been brought to you by... Frungy! The Sport of Kings!
==============================================================================
m.ca...@btinternet.com
"Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
news:61mU6.3$ad....@newshog.newsread.com...
>
> news:ti37bp3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > Haven't started a thread in a while, so...
> >
> > I read PA fairly regularily (as if you care), and lately they've been
> doing
> > a little bit on, well, games not being as good as they used to be.
> >
> in
> > my piece. There was as much crap back in the day as there is now. And
> > there were just as many compelling titles back in the day as there are
> now.
>
> I couldn't possibly disagree with the last sentence more. Once the Saturn
> era ended so did the "golden era of gaming."
>
Surely you cant honestly say, that since the Saturn died, you havent enjoyed playing games as much
as you had before?
Whilst I agree that the Saturn has had more play from me than my PSX ever has, my N64 and DC have
more than enough high quality games for me to be kept happy.
Maximg
>They don't represent the
>norm of what gaming has become in the slightest. Compare the norm of back
>then to now, and games were harder then.
>
What was the norm? I mean, there aren't a lot of old NES games out there
that still give me that much trouble. There are *some*, (just like there
are *some* today) but the average NES game really doesn't seem harder... and
most long-running series really haven't gotten any easier from installment
to installment.
>> > Castlevania 1,
>>
>> The series has taken a different direction, so it's hard to compare...
>>
>Even though that's not a very viable point, it still shows something.
>There's no denying Castlevania 1 is much harder than SOTN, regardless of
>direction. How does "direction" factor in at all?
It's harder because it relies strictly on platforming/timing. If KCET had
made SOTN that way, I'd wager it would've been just as hard. The difficulty
just lies in character advancement... which can be defeated by leveling up.
Actually, try playing the game as Richter. How easy is that? Pretty damn
hard.
Raymond McKeithen II
>
> "Raymond McKeithen II" <rfmc...@suchiepaijas.net> wrote in message
> news:61mU6.3$ad....@newshog.newsread.com...
> >
> > "Maximg" <gora...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
> > news:ti37bp3...@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Haven't started a thread in a while, so...
> > >
> > > there were just as many compelling titles back in the day as there are
> > now.
> >
> > I couldn't possibly disagree with the last sentence more. Once the
Saturn
> > era ended so did the "golden era of gaming."
>
You could say that.
> > > My question... what does everybody else think? IMO, this whole "games
> > > aren't as good these days" idea is just nostalgia clouding one's
> > judgement,
> > > but... are there people out there who don't think companies shoveled
as
> > much
> > > crap as they do nowadays? Or that the rate of good games being
released
> > was
> > > much higher years ago?
> >
> > Don't know or care about rates of good to bad as how many bad games is
> > irrelevant, only the good ones matter.
>
> "good" games are relative. I found Wild Arms 2 fun to play while many
> hated. I hated Chrono Cross and Xenogears for various reasons while many
> others loved it.
Of course it's relative...but why would I personally care about games others
like that I don't?
> > The number of games I have any interest in is getting to be less and
less;
> > it seems to be rapidly approaching zero. I look at what's scheduled to
> come
> > out the rest of this year and it depresses me.
>
> I agree with you on this one. I really enjoyed my DC for the past year
and
> ever since the annoucement that DC was being canned, I haven't seen a
single
> good game released. I really thought that DC was going to be a bit more
> successful than the Saturn.
In the US it was. In Japan it never had a chance due to bonehead decisions
by Sega management that eliminated entire popular categories of games that
the Saturn had.
> > - Entire categories of games, such as the 2D shooter, are all but dead,
> and
> > the few that are made now are for the expert/shooter-god only.
>
> not always true. Try playing Giga Wing 2, Thunder Force 5, Ray Crisis,
and
> Einhander. If you have played shooters before then all you need is time
and
> perseverance to beat them.
TF5, Raycrisis, and Einhander were on the Saturn and PS; i.e. they're from
the last generation of consoles. It should be clear from the rest of my post
I wasn't complaining about that; the Japanese Saturn has more 2D shooters
than any system ever has before and probably ever will again. (Of course, I
think TF5 and Raycrisis are poor games too.)
In the current generation (i.e. DC and PS2) we have Gigawing, Gigawing 2,
Mars Matrix, Gunbird 2, Silpheed, and Gradius III/IV. I think Silpheed is
crap, Gunbird 2 and Gradius are good.
Gigawing, Gigawing2, and Mars Matrix are exactly what I'm talking about when
I talk about games for shooter experts only.
> The scrolling
> > beat-em-up (i.e. Streets of Rage) is gone. 2D platformers have been all
> but
> > replaced by inferior 3D versions with hordes of playability problems and
> an
> > emphasis on "collecting" crap rather than solid gameplay.
>
> when has a platformer not been about collecting crap?
How many have you played?
Revenge of Shinobi? Shinobi III? Pulseman? Strider? Any number of others
that have no collecting at all? Beyond that, something like a 2D Sonic has
collecting as a minor extra, not the entire point of the game as it
typically is now.
> > > And while we're on the topic, what years in particular do you feel
were
> > the
> > > best for gaming? Support it with the lineup that came out that year
or
> > > something...
> >
> > The Genesis/SNES through Saturn era, with an emphasis on the latter (and
a
> > handful of PSX games too). What I explained above should be more than
> > sufficient explanation as to why.
>
> If I remember correctly, the Saturn died around mid 97. Around then most
> PSX games were crap. Although the Saturn had few good games(Panzer
Dragoon
> saga and Dragon Force comes to mind) it just didn't have enough variety of
> games.
In the US? The US Saturn is crap. I'm talking about the Japanese system.
Dragon Force is one of the most overrated pieces of crap of all time.
> Also, the marketing and pricing of Saturn was weaker than PSX and
> N64. At the end, it's about business.
And that has what to do with the subject?
--
Raymond
remove "suchiepai" for email.
Maximg
>No kidding. Personally, I don't see how anybody can say that any of the
>PlayStation Final Fantasy games were just as hard as Final Fantasy 1. It
took
>a lot of level building, a gamer who knew what they were doing, and a good
bit
>of luck to beat FF1.
Serious? Haven't played it in a few years, but it was a cakewalk when I
did...
(e)magius
<SNIP>
> It's harder because it relies strictly on platforming/timing. If KCET had
> made SOTN that way, I'd wager it would've been just as hard. The difficulty
> just lies in character advancement... which can be defeated by leveling up.
> Actually, try playing the game as Richter. How easy is that? Pretty damn
> hard.
Richter's game is a joke unless you cripple yourself by refusing to use
item crashes and use super jump -> dash combos sparingly. There's only
*one* difficult boss, really (if you don't use item crashes like mad, in
which case even he is a pushover). Now, Drac X (SNES) -- crappy though
it may be -- had one *hard* boss (Drac himself). =)
Best,
--Imad "(e)magius" Hussain
_____________________________________________________________________
"I have put on the mask of the sorcerer to hide my true self, but I am
revealed, for the mask has become my own face." -- Darrell Schweitzer,
_The Mask of the Sorcerer_
_____________________________________________________________________
Maximg
>Richter's game is a joke unless you cripple yourself by refusing to use
>item crashes and use super jump -> dash combos sparingly. There's only
>*one* difficult boss, really (if you don't use item crashes like mad, in
>which case even he is a pushover). Now, Drac X (SNES) -- crappy though
>it may be -- had one *hard* boss (Drac himself). =)
>
What do you mean by item crashes? And yes, I did cripple myself by not
using most of those combos.
But I will admit that the old Castlevanias were tougher... if for no other
reason than the stiffer control.
Joe Ottoson
The idea in any game is to provide a smooth transition from one area to the
next. Provide a reason and motivation for the player to want to move on.
Some RPG's like Wild Arms and Beyond the Beyond don't really do a good job
of this, and drive away players as a result.
These have save menus
> and they usually take weeks to complete.
Even the longest I've played took a week.
Maximg
And
>> there were just as many compelling titles back in the day as there are
>now.
>
>I couldn't possibly disagree with the last sentence more. Once the Saturn
>era ended so did the "golden era of gaming."
>
What kinds of games do you like? I know what you hate, but...
>Don't know or care about rates of good to bad as how many bad games is
>irrelevant, only the good ones matter.
>
It was a subject of discussion in the comic, so it was brought up...
2D platformers have been all but
>replaced by inferior 3D versions with hordes of playability problems and an
>emphasis on "collecting" crap rather than solid gameplay.
>
I'll do us both a favor and leave this one alone. ;)
>- No more real Langrisser games will ever be made.
>
Two questions. Why? And I'm sure more similar games will be made, won't
they?
And finally... don't you think it's a little early to condemn the current
generation?
Oracle
>
> Oracle <hel...@sega.net> wrote in message
> news:3B22B955...@sega.net...
> > Joe Ottoson wrote:
> > >
> > > Oracle <hel...@sega.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3B229241...@sega.net...
> > > > Joe Ottoson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hyun Lim <hy...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> > > > > news:9ftsge$n69$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
<snip>
> > The "flow of the game"? What is that? Remember that we aren't talking
> > about games which are meant to be finished in one sitting.
>
> The idea in any game is to provide a smooth transition from one area to the
> next. Provide a reason and motivation for the player to want to move on.
Like a reward? Like a level up maybe? Reason and motivation. In other
words, the player goes "what's in this for me?". The game has to give the
player SOMETHING, or else what happens to the reason and motivation?
> Some RPG's like Wild Arms and Beyond the Beyond don't really do a good job
> of this, and drive away players as a result.
I actually like Wild Arms. It let you upgrade guns and that little dance
done by Cecilia every once in a while is pretty cute.
> These have save menus
> > and they usually take weeks to complete.
>
> Even the longest I've played took a week.
That's pretty ravenous. It's a rare game that has me finish it inside of a
week, simply because I'm playing many other titles and a game really has to
grab my attention to make me play it exclusively. The only games capable of
getting me to do something like that have been Metroid, Zelda, Legend of Oasis,
Burning Rangers and Shining Force III. Everything else I could put on a back
burner and play other games.
Raymond McKeithen II
>
> And
> >> there were just as many compelling titles back in the day as there are
> >now.
> >
> >I couldn't possibly disagree with the last sentence more. Once the Saturn
> >era ended so did the "golden era of gaming."
> >
>
> What kinds of games do you like? I know what you hate, but...
2D platformers, shooters, (scrolling) beat-em-ups, some S-RPGs, some driving
games. Other things I've probably forgotten. Since you say you know what I
hate I guess I won't reiterate that.
> >Don't know or care about rates of good to bad as how many bad games is
> >irrelevant, only the good ones matter.
> >
>
> It was a subject of discussion in the comic, so it was brought up...
I don't read that comic so I wouldn't know.
But why is it relevant? Does anyone (other than some pirates) play every
game? If the answer is "no" then why does it matter how many bad games there
are? As long as there are "enough" good games why should anyone care how
many bad games there are?
> 2D platformers have been all but
> >replaced by inferior 3D versions with hordes of playability problems and
an
> >emphasis on "collecting" crap rather than solid gameplay.
> >
>
> I'll do us both a favor and leave this one alone. ;)
>
> >- No more real Langrisser games will ever be made.
> >
>
> Two questions. Why?
Because Career Soft, the makers, have said so; they've moved on to
Growlanser. In addition Mesaiya, the publisher of the Langrisser games, is
out of the game business. Mesaiya's one attempt to make a Lanrisser game
without Career Soft resulted in the bad game Langrisser Millennium.
> And I'm sure more similar games will be made, won't they?
Similar? I highly doubt it. Most of the other S-RPGs have little strategy at
all but depend on some license or other hook (i.e they feature robots are
have the FF name), or they have some game system that's ridiculously compex
just to be complicated (i.e. FFT). While Langrisser games were being made
there were really no other similar games, so why would there be now? The
last Langrisser was on Saturn; there hasn't been anything similar in ~4
years now, why would that suddenly change?
> And finally... don't you think it's a little early to condemn the current
generation?
Why? Don't you consider the DC part of the current generation? I certainly
do. The DC was a huge disappointment overall in game library for me compared
to the Saturn; yet the DC library is fabulous compared to the current and
announced PS2 library. At this point we basically know every DC game that's
coming out, there certainly aren't going to be many, if any, further game
announcements.
In addition, the Japanese PS2 is now ~15 months old, and it has quite a long
list of scheduled games, with almost none of any interest to me. How long
does it have to be out before it's acceptable to you for me to criticise it?
I think we all know what sort of games will be on the Gamecube and Xbox. At
any rate I can't play promises, only games.
So how long am I supposed to wait before it's "ok" to condemn the current
generation?
For that matter, where did I condemn it anyway? I said:
"The number of games I have any interest in is getting to be less and less;
it seems to be rapidly approaching zero. I look at what's scheduled to come
out the rest of this year and it depresses me."
That's a fact. It might change (which I doubt) but that's how it currently
stands.
Chris Byler
>Hyun Lim <hy...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
>>3D fighters have always been easy. Did anyone notice that skill gap between
>>a beginner and a veteran in 3D fighting game is smaller than that of 2D?
>
> *thinks about the only 3D fighting game that matters*
I assume you mean Soul Calibur?
Or if there's a better 3D fighter than that, please tell me what it
is!
> No, I haven't noticed that.
Me either.
It also depends on which 2D fighter (and, for that matter, which 3D
fighter). Even within the same company, some games are more
skill-oriented, and some are more button-mashing-oriented. Not that
the button-mashers can't be fun too, but Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 is just
not in the same league as Street Fighter Alpha 3.
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"I'm not a speed reader. I'm a speed understander."
-- Isaac Asimov
Chris Byler
<jaot...@fortlewis.edu> wrote:
>
>Hyun Lim <hy...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
>news:9ftsge$n69$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
>>
>> > I wouldn't say Dragon Warrior (I only played the first one) was hard. It
>> was
>> > just grueling. The game really tested your patience and perseverance,
>but
>> > never really got hard.
>>
>> what makes an RPG hard then?
>
>Ideally, a RPG should make player think, and in fights, actually work as a
>team and use strategy to take down enemies and bosses.
Like Bloodbane in Valkyrie Profile?
For most of the battle, he "only" gets 2-3 attacks per round,
sometimes several on the same character (which will usually kill
them), occasionally using magic for several thousand (a lot, but
usually not instantly fatal).
Once you get him down below about half of his HP (which he has A LOT
of, btw - IIRC, at least 100,000, possibly more), he starts using
Great Magic, which (from him) does about 90,000 damage to your entire
party. This automatically kills everyone (at the levels I was at, it
was about 3x overkill, so I seriously doubt you could level enough to
survive it).
Once in a while, he heals himself *completely* in a single round.
That hurts.
Now you might think, from this description, that there's no way to
beat him; but that's not QUITE true. I won't spoil the challenge
here, except to say that after numerous tries, and with the help of a
semi-hidden weapon, I did manage to defeat him.
An extra plus: while you're getting killed by him, you can enjoy his
personal battle music, which is excellent, as well as voice acting,
which sounds really cool (it's this very deep, gravelly voice, like
you would imagine an ancient dragon having if it talked).
>Leveling's just a
>crutch for a complete and total lack of actual challenge.
"Challenge" based on leveling only adds length - the time it takes for
the player to level up to the point that they can beat the boss.
Some challenging fights depend on using certain combinations of
equipment and/or abilities to succeed (e.g. elemental immunities,
resistance to poison/paralysis/whatever, etc.), and some depend (at
least partly) on luck - if you get Bloodbane down to 10,000 and he
heals himself, and then you get him down to 10,000 again and he heals
himself AGAIN, you probably aren't going to win that one. <G>
Chris Byler
wrote:
>
>
>>Best years of games
>>1994
>>FF3, Super Metroid, Secret of Mana - this was when SNES was in its prime.
>I
>>don't quite remember other titles but I remember having the most fun with
>>SNES this year.
>>SOR3, Phantasy Star 4
>>
>
>Didn't Lufia and some others come out that year, too? I remember playing
>Mana for hours on end... what a game...
If you enjoyed SOM you should *definitely* get an emulator and the
translated rom for Seiken Densetsu 3 (aka SOM2, since SOM's Japanese
title was Seiken Densetsu 2). It's a great game even if you have to
play it in Japanese without knowing Japanese (I did - several times -
that's how I know), but if you also know what you're doing and can
read the story it's even better.
The biggest gameplay change from SOM is that the charge attack system
has been replaced: hitting with normal attacks now increases each
character's charge meter, and when the meter is full, you can perform
a special attack that is unique to each character. During the game,
characters can develop more powerful special attacks. There are six
characters, but you can only play three in any one game; you choose
which characters you want at the beginning of the game, and then the
story varies depending on who you choose (including having three
different final dungeons and character-specific bosses).
Joe Ottoson
> Joe Ottoson wrote:
> >
> > Oracle <hel...@sega.net> wrote in message
> > news:3B22B955...@sega.net...
> > > Joe Ottoson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Oracle <hel...@sega.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:3B229241...@sega.net...
> > > > > Joe Ottoson wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hyun Lim <hy...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:9ftsge$n69$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The "flow of the game"? What is that? Remember that we aren't
talking
> > > about games which are meant to be finished in one sitting.
> >
> > The idea in any game is to provide a smooth transition from one area to
the
> > next. Provide a reason and motivation for the player to want to move on.
>
> Like a reward? Like a level up maybe? Reason and motivation. In other
> words, the player goes "what's in this for me?". The game has to give the
> player SOMETHING, or else what happens to the reason and motivation?
Leveling is work, it's not a reward. Clearing that next area's a reward. new
items are rewards. Leveling's very much like the rats in a psychology
behavior experiment. They know if they press a bar, food will come out. The
differnce is, the number of times the bar's pressed expands every time a
food pellet's dispensed.
Being a rat pressing a lever all day for a meager reward of a food pellet is
not my idea of fun.
> > Some RPG's like Wild Arms and Beyond the Beyond don't really do a good
job
> > of this, and drive away players as a result.
>
> I actually like Wild Arms. It let you upgrade guns and that little dance
> done by Cecilia every once in a while is pretty cute.
It got to the point that I stopped using my PSx for about three weeks
because I knew Wild Arms was in the system.
> > These have save menus
> > > and they usually take weeks to complete.
> >
> > Even the longest I've played took a week.
>
> That's pretty ravenous.
Nah, just effective time budgeting.
Ethan Hammond
> popular, and mass release it across the country with an "indie" appeal.
> Just look at Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. It made Sony a lot of money.
> Look at Blair Witch project. They made this for around 4 grand, took it to
> Miramax, and made lot of money with it. But the thing is that they were
> allowed more freedom to create rather than meeting "blockbuster"
> requirements.
That depends on who has the final cut for I bet 99% of the time it is not
the movies director even in indie films.
--
All Purpose Cultural Randomness
http://www.angelfire.com/tx/apcr/index.html
Andrew Ryan Chang
>On 9 Jun 2001 06:00:20 GMT, arc...@sfu.ca (Andrew Ryan Chang) wrote:
>> *thinks about the only 3D fighting game that matters*
>
>I assume you mean Soul Calibur?
VF3tb. I'll play DOA2 or SC as substitutes, though...
--
Wiggum: This bullet matches the one we pulled out of Mr. Burns! Homer
Simpson, you're under arrest for attempted murder.
Homer: [getting cuffed] D'oh!
Wiggum: Yeah, that's what they all say. They all say "D'oh".
m.ca...@btinternet.com
> >
> > Like a reward? Like a level up maybe? Reason and motivation. In other
> > words, the player goes "what's in this for me?". The game has to give the
> > player SOMETHING, or else what happens to the reason and motivation?
>
> Leveling is work, it's not a reward. Clearing that next area's a reward. new
> items are rewards. Leveling's very much like the rats in a psychology
> behavior experiment. They know if they press a bar, food will come out. The
> differnce is, the number of times the bar's pressed expands every time a
> food pellet's dispensed.
>
> Being a rat pressing a lever all day for a meager reward of a food pellet is
> not my idea of fun.
>
Well, when you play boring RPG's like Final Fantasy VII, leveling up a level isnt really a big deal.
In something like Baldurs Gate II, going up a level can make quite a difference, due to the extra
abilities that your character can gain.
Hyun Lim
when
> I talk about games for shooter experts only.
>
you gotta be kidding me! Those are one of the easiest shooters I've ever
played. I had to put the difficulty to the fullest to get any kind of
challenge.
> > The scrolling
> > > beat-em-up (i.e. Streets of Rage) is gone. 2D platformers have been
all
> > but
> > > replaced by inferior 3D versions with hordes of playability problems
and
> > an
> > > emphasis on "collecting" crap rather than solid gameplay.
> >
> > when has a platformer not been about collecting crap?
>
> How many have you played?
>
> Revenge of Shinobi? Shinobi III? Pulseman? Strider? Any number of others
> that have no collecting at all? Beyond that, something like a 2D Sonic has
> collecting as a minor extra, not the entire point of the game as it
> typically is now.
2D Sonic is about collecting the Chaos emeralds. Games like Strider,
Shinobi, Gunstar Heros can be argued that they could be shooter hybrids.
Considering that, current Treasure games like Bangai-O and Sin and
Punishment is about good as them if not better.
Hyun Lim
Oracle
>
> Oracle <hel...@sega.net> wrote in message
> news:3B22F93E...@sega.net...
> > Joe Ottoson wrote:
> > >
> > > Oracle <hel...@sega.net> wrote in message
> > > news:3B22B955...@sega.net...
> > > > Joe Ottoson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Oracle <hel...@sega.net> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3B229241...@sega.net...
> > > > > > Joe Ottoson wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hyun Lim <hy...@cc.gatech.edu> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:9ftsge$n69$1...@news-int.gatech.edu...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > The "flow of the game"? What is that? Remember that we aren't
> talking
> > > > about games which are meant to be finished in one sitting.
> > >
> > > The idea in any game is to provide a smooth transition from one area to
> the
> > > next. Provide a reason and motivation for the player to want to move on.
> >
> > Like a reward? Like a level up maybe? Reason and motivation. In other
> > words, the player goes "what's in this for me?". The game has to give the
> > player SOMETHING, or else what happens to the reason and motivation?
>
> Leveling is work, it's not a reward. Clearing that next area's a reward. new
> items are rewards.
What we have here is a fundamental disagreement. Levelling sure seems to be a
reward to me, especially playing Phantasy Star Online and seeing people throw
up happy faces and congratulatory remarks whenever a player levels up. This
levelling makes players happy, and part of the reason is tied to "new items as
rewards". Many RPGs (and PSO is one of them) tie the ability to use a new item
to the character's level. You can't just go grab the biggest, baddest weapon
in the game and hope to use it as a low level character.
And clearing a level is a job, not a reward.
> Leveling's very much like the rats in a psychology
> behavior experiment. They know if they press a bar, food will come out. The
> differnce is, the number of times the bar's pressed expands every time a
> food pellet's dispensed.
>
> Being a rat pressing a lever all day for a meager reward of a food pellet is
> not my idea of fun.
Well, if you've got to be a rat anyway, what's the problem with getting some
food for being a rat? It beats having a short future as cat food instead.
Sitting around pushing buttons is kind of the way videogames are, and that's
definitely my idea of fun.
> > > Some RPG's like Wild Arms and Beyond the Beyond don't really do a good
> job
> > > of this, and drive away players as a result.
> >
> > I actually like Wild Arms. It let you upgrade guns and that little dance
> > done by Cecilia every once in a while is pretty cute.
>
> It got to the point that I stopped using my PSx for about three weeks
> because I knew Wild Arms was in the system.
You *do* realize the the disks are removable, right? That seems borderline
obsessive to me.
> > > These have save menus
> > > > and they usually take weeks to complete.
> > >
> > > Even the longest I've played took a week.
> >
> > That's pretty ravenous.
>
> Nah, just effective time budgeting.
More effective than mine, that's for certain.
Raymond McKeithen II
> > Gigawing, Gigawing2, and Mars Matrix are exactly what I'm talking about
> when
> > I talk about games for shooter experts only.
> >
>
> you gotta be kidding me! Those are one of the easiest shooters I've ever
> played. I had to put the difficulty to the fullest to get any kind of
> challenge.
Well hooey for you.
> > > The scrolling
> > > > beat-em-up (i.e. Streets of Rage) is gone. 2D platformers have been
> all
> > > but
> > > > replaced by inferior 3D versions with hordes of playability problems
> and
> > > an
> > > > emphasis on "collecting" crap rather than solid gameplay.
> > >
> > > when has a platformer not been about collecting crap?
> >
> > How many have you played?
> >
> > Revenge of Shinobi? Shinobi III? Pulseman? Strider? Any number of others
> > that have no collecting at all? Beyond that, something like a 2D Sonic
has
> > collecting as a minor extra, not the entire point of the game as it
> > typically is now.
>
> 2D Sonic is about collecting the Chaos emeralds.
Wrong. That's an extra.
> Games like Strider,
> Shinobi, Gunstar Heros can be argued that they could be shooter hybrids.
> Considering that, current Treasure games like Bangai-O and Sin and
> Punishment is about good as them if not better.
Besides those two, what else is there today?
Matt Greer
> > Gigawing, Gigawing2, and Mars Matrix are exactly what I'm talking about
> when
> > I talk about games for shooter experts only.
> >
>
> you gotta be kidding me! Those are one of the easiest shooters I've ever
> played. I had to put the difficulty to the fullest to get any kind of
> challenge.
I can only speak for Mars Matrix, but playing it "properly" so that you gain
points quickly and level up quickly by getting long box chains is not easy
in the slightest. Blowing through a shooter, continuing endlessly until you
win, isn't really what shooters are about. That's like playing against the
computer in a fighter.
--
Matt
http://www.gbafan.net
(dedicated to the game boy advance)
Billy Bissette
> > Gigawing, Gigawing2, and Mars Matrix are exactly what I'm talking about
> when
> > I talk about games for shooter experts only.
> >
>
> you gotta be kidding me! Those are one of the easiest shooters I've ever
> played. I had to put the difficulty to the fullest to get any kind of
> challenge.
I agree somewhat on Gigawing 2. Haven't played Mars Matrix. GW2 is
one of the easiest shooters I've played. Immediately off the top of
my head, I can recall the NES Tiger-Heli being easier (I wrapped the
stages until I got bored one time). Bangai-O might be easier, but
thats a tough call as their design mechanics make it difficult to
compare. Bangai-O actually has puzzle stages, for one thing.
> > > when has a platformer not been about collecting crap?
> >
> > How many have you played?
> >
> > Revenge of Shinobi? Shinobi III? Pulseman? Strider? Any number of others
> > that have no collecting at all? Beyond that, something like a 2D Sonic has
> > collecting as a minor extra, not the entire point of the game as it
> > typically is now.
>
> 2D Sonic is about collecting the Chaos emeralds. Games like Strider,
> Shinobi, Gunstar Heros can be argued that they could be shooter hybrids.
> Considering that, current Treasure games like Bangai-O and Sin and
> Punishment is about good as them if not better.
The emeralds are an extra.
Strider, Shinobi, and Gunstar Heros are better served by the name
"action", or at least "action platformer". When people say platformer,
they often mean games like Mario and not games like Castlevania.
And even though I like Bangai-O more than Gunstar Heroes, I doubt I'd
say its better than Gunstar Heroes.
Gregory_D
>
> "Ethan Hammond" <esha...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:3B21CF...@worldnet.att.net...
> > Hyun Lim wrote:
> > >
> > > hmm, on second thought, "popular" games nowadays is much easier than
> > > "popular" games of the past. This is probably because of the fact
that
> game
> > > industry is trying to be like hollywood; make much money as possible
by
> > > pleasing the crowd. In terms of games, make it easier so less skilled
> > > people can play it. It's not a wonder why some people prefer indies.
> >
> > Of course what most people don't know is that most "independent" films
> > are funded by the major studios all along, it just makes people like
> > the more to say they are independent.
>
> of course. Major studios fund bunch of indies, take the ones that are
> popular, and mass release it across the country with an "indie" appeal.
> Just look at Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. It made Sony a lot of money.
That wasn't an indie. Sony just got the US distribution rights.
> Look at Blair Witch project.
Shit on a stick with a great hype machine.
GregoryD
Gregory_D
> let me restate that.
>
> Did anyone notice that a beginner can come up to you, use only about 2 or
3
> patterns of attack, and beat you?
>
> and I guess it doesn't have to be 3D. Think of Marvel vs. Capcom 2.
>
> Hyun Lim
>
You lose to a newbie at MvC2, and you are a scrub, plain and simple.
GregoryD
Hyun Lim
> I can only speak for Mars Matrix, but playing it "properly" so that you
gain
> points quickly and level up quickly by getting long box chains is not easy
> in the slightest. Blowing through a shooter, continuing endlessly until
you
> win, isn't really what shooters are about. That's like playing against the
> computer in a fighter.
>
If you are implying that shooters are about collecting much points as
possible before the game ends, I agree with you. If not, please expand upon
your statement.
Hyun Lim
Hyun Lim
> You lose to a newbie at MvC2, and you are a scrub, plain and simple.
>
> GregoryD
>
I don't think someone who had a 56 game winning streak is a scrub. First
time I played MvC2, I ended his streak and began a new one. Best way to win
in MvC2: keep them away, and use range attacks over and over and over.....
throw in some super moves and repeat. I prefer games like Street Fighter
Alpha 3, Street Fighter 3, and KOF, where there's 0 to 2 percent chance that
a beginner can even challenge you while experienced players are on par
depending on how good they are.
Hyun Lim
Maximg
>>Didn't Lufia and some others come out that year, too? I remember playing
>>Mana for hours on end... what a game...
>
>If you enjoyed SOM you should *definitely* get an emulator and the
>translated rom for Seiken Densetsu 3 (aka SOM2, since SOM's Japanese
>title was Seiken Densetsu 2).
I picked up Seiken Densetsu 3 in Japan a year ago. That way I didn't have
to feel bad about downloading the translated ROM. ;)
And yes, it rules.
and then the
>story varies depending on who you choose (including having three
>different final dungeons and character-specific bosses).
>
Is it worth replaying with other characters? I've been through it once,
but... (with Duran, Angela, and the green chick)
And what are the best combinations? I love having characters fight amongst
each other or watching a romance...
Maximg
>2D platformers, shooters, (scrolling) beat-em-ups, some S-RPGs, some
driving
>games.
K...
Out of curiousity, what S-RPGs do you like?
>> It was a subject of discussion in the comic, so it was brought up...
>
>I don't read that comic so I wouldn't know.
>
>But why is it relevant? Does anyone (other than some pirates) play every
>game? If the answer is "no" then why does it matter how many bad games
there
>are? As long as there are "enough" good games why should anyone care how
>many bad games there are?
>
Cripes, I don't know. ;)
They seemed to have the idea that there are more sucky games these days due
to technology or laziness or too much money spent on advertising.
So I brought it up...
>> And I'm sure more similar games will be made, won't they?
>
>Similar? I highly doubt it. Most of the other S-RPGs have little strategy
at
>all but depend on some license or other hook (i.e they feature robots are
>have the FF name), or they have some game system that's ridiculously compex
>just to be complicated (i.e. FFT).
I didn't find anything about it overly complex... and little things like
zodiac signs could easily be ignored without noticeably affecting gameplay.
While Langrisser games were being made
>there were really no other similar games, so why would there be now? The
>last Langrisser was on Saturn; there hasn't been anything similar in ~4
>years now, why would that suddenly change?
>
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't Growlanser similar?
And I've been looking in to some of the Langrisser games, which would you
recommend picking up? The system doesn't matter...
>So how long am I supposed to wait before it's "ok" to condemn the current
>generation?
>
Well, if you are only interested in certain types of titles, and aren't
really interested in branching out, I guess now is as good a time as any.
I *do* believe 2D shooters will stick around, S-RPGs aren't going anywhere
(although they may not be your flavor), and the GBA will have plenty of 2D
platformers. Sidescrolling beat-em-ups are probably done for, though,
you're right.
>For that matter, where did I condemn it anyway? I said:
>"The number of games I have any interest in is getting to be less and less;
>it seems to be rapidly approaching zero. I look at what's scheduled to come
>out the rest of this year and it depresses me."
>
Condemn might be the wrong word. But I think it's silly to believe things
won't get any better. These are transitional years (and half of the players
haven't even entered the fray, yet), and as soon as user-bases get higher
and development costs come down, I'd be willing to bet a lot of smaller
developers start developing the kinds of games you like. They've done it
for 3 generations, why stop now?
Tempora
<snip>
> > How about the crappiest pack-in ever? That's probably R.O.B., the NES
> Robotic Operating Buddy. Nothing else has matched that for sheer badness.
> It was AWFUL in the old days! Nintendo was the company that instituted
> the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" as a way to build consumer confidence,
because
> in the days leading up to the big crash, the only confidence that
consumers
> had was that the new games on the shelves were going to suck ass.
>
Sega also had that "seal of quality" thing all the way up to the Saturn, and
dropped it for the Dreamcast.
I hope Nintendo drops the "seal of quality" thing on their packaging since
any person who has played a Nintendo-licensed game knows it means nothing,
and it won't be as embarrassing for Nintendo when they let another "Superman
64" game appear on the GameCube. Oh boy, Nintendo slapping the "Nintendo's
Seal of Quality" on Superman 64; if that doesn't ruin the crebility of the
seal, then the mountain of crap the seal was on during the NES era
should've...
<snip>