# Man, screw new crap.



## IanKeith (Jul 28, 2008)

Give me old games any day. Better music, more colourful graphics, gameplay that's actually amusing with mechanics that /work/, controls that don't confuse the hell out of everyone...

I recently came into semi-possession (it's actually my mate's) of a Genesis, and I've played that at least as much as, if not more than, my Wii. Nothing against the Wii, I've loved owning one, but damnitall, classic platformers have everything on today's market, inundated with shitty, repetitive FPSes. Give me funny, unique characters any day over Bob McGuns. Ugh.

ITT: Proof that older games are better than new.

Bubsy 1 > Bubsy 2 > a pile of dog poop > chainsaw to face > Bubsy 3D
Aladdin (Genesis or SNES, take your pic) > any movie tie-in game in the past ten years
Same goes for Lion King.


----------



## Micah Coon (Jul 28, 2008)

All right, I'll bite.

I'll work with two games that I still play: X-COM: UFO Defense and Exile 2: Crystal Souls (Spidweb Software).

*X-COM*'s a good place to start. Part base builder and resource manager, part tactical combat simulator, it uses one of the basic, and perhaps one of the best, video game/tv show/movie/book/fap session ideas out there: OH NOES! MARS IS ATTACKING! KILL IT WITH FIRE AND RICHARD SIMMONS TAPES! The graphics, by todays standards, are simple. The controls, the theory behind it, simple...honest...fun. 

...yet, to this day, the game still uses my rear end in a manner that even the kinkiest person would be uncomfortable with...and that's what made it fun. The tactical combat in and of itself was superb - the buildings, the trees, the UFO hull...it all made it very difficult to see what you were walking into. You usually spent an hour on one combat because you were waiting for the aliens to take a shot at you so you know where to aim the rifle (or because you were too scared to go anywhere because, if you moved out from behind a corner and there was an alien there, they'd shoot at you).

What's a tactical combat game these days? Think Final Fantasy Tactics. You can see the entire field, where everyone is, what their abilities are, how much health they had...ugh, it just takes a good chunk of the challenge out of it that X-COM had.

*Exile 2: Crystal Souls* is a great RPG. I recommend you get it, but that's beside the point. It is a happy little RPG with a rather epic storyline, side quests coming out the nipples, thousands upon thousands of things to stab/club/cut/shoot/mage to death, likeable personalities, hateable personalities, and a world that spans just about forever.

Just life Final Fantasy, right?

Final Fantasy has only one thing up on Exile: graphics. The plotlines are well written on both sides. The characters are well designed on both sides. Final Fantasy has animations and, as you get into later stories, cutscenes and voice. Exile has very simple pixel graphics. And text boxes. Lots of text boxes.

So why do I still prefer Exile over more modern RPGs? How many of them let you design a character from scratch and improve his abilities ANY WAY YOU DAMN WELL PLEASE! Design a tank that can not only weild two weapons, but heal and buff himself, debuff the enemy, and look damn in his swank purple cloak of w00tness +5! Create that Wizard/Cleric that can call down the Wrath of God and then shoot Death Arrows at his enemies. Make them however you want - leveling up only gives you HP and SP based on your appropriate scores. That's it. You could customize your character through skill points and gold, however the way you wanted. Progress at your own pace...

Without the need for an internet connection and a subscription...right Warcrack? :3
THAT is what an RPG is...not this linear "you get X strength, Y intelligence, Z agility, B hit points" bullocks. Of course, there's also the true free-form exploration that most games have now a days, where anywhere that you can reach - walk, boat, fly, catapult, clusterhump - can spawn a monster, hide treasure, conceal a hidden door, spring a trap, or whatever else your twisted little mind can imagine.

If games went back to those sorts of formulas, they'd be a bit more fun...

...I hope I did this right...


----------



## Tycho (Jul 28, 2008)

NetHack.  Nearly as old as me.  You cannot get much more retro.  One of the best games ever created.


----------



## Shark_the_raptor (Jul 28, 2008)

Super Mario Bros.    Supposedly the best game of all time.


----------



## Linko_16 (Jul 28, 2008)

Micah Coon said:


> *Exile 2: Crystal Souls*



*That's quite literally the first time I've heard anyone but myself and my family members talk about the Exile series. I applaud you.*


----------



## Dyluck (Jul 28, 2008)

Old games, fuck yeah.


----------



## Glennjam (Jul 28, 2008)

Mother 2/Earthbound = Win =3


----------



## Wontoon Kangaroo (Jul 28, 2008)

Claymates. Pure awesomeness when I played it.
Yoshi's Island for the SNES. (Play Yoshi's Island DS only if you're hardcore, is a bit of a masochist, and wanted a sequel)
Starfox for the SNES. And Starfox 64. Godly games.
Donkey Kong Country 1-3 and Donkey Kong Land 1-3 for GBA.

Oui, I've a big list.


----------



## Tycho (Jul 28, 2008)

Glennjam said:


> Mother 1/Earthbound = Win =3



Actually, "Earthbound" was Mother 2.  Mother 1 was an unreleased NES game in the series, you can find a ROM of it usually under the name Earthbound Zero.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 28, 2008)

Super Mario Bros. 3

(Personally, I prefer the All-Stars version on the SNES. But they're both about the same. One just looks shinier.)


----------



## IanKeith (Jul 29, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> NetHack.  Nearly as old as me.  You cannot get much more retro.  One of the best games ever created.




Sure you can. Go play rogue. =3 I have. Now I'm stuck on Crawl -- Nethack's a great game, but almost simple compared to frickin' Crawl.


----------



## E-mannor (Jul 29, 2008)

old games relied on being really apealing to the player, the newer games are more like "you can see the blood splatter form 100 yards out"

really it shows something was done right when people still play space invaders and tetris


----------



## Stratelier (Jul 29, 2008)

For older games, graphics and sound were limited by the hardware.  Because certain tasks (3D being prime among them) were flat out impossible with the hardware, developers worked with what they had.  And they became *damn good* with what they had to work with.

So what if the NES had only three voice tracks plus a noise channel, developers belted out some of the most memorable videogame tunes with only that at their disposal.


----------



## Ashkihyena (Jul 29, 2008)

Micah Coon said:


> All right, I'll bite.
> 
> I'll work with two games that I still play: X-COM: UFO Defense and Exile 2: Crystal Souls (Spidweb Software).
> 
> ...



Heh, and Exile was good cause it had a group of lizard species that you could be.    Though I was pretty bad at that game, so bad.


----------



## DamienFox (Jul 29, 2008)

Being primarily a Console RPG player, I still hold firm to my belief that the SNES was the console that saw the best RPGs made. Final Fantasy 6, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, Super Mario RPG, Earthbound, Breath of Fire 2, etc. The first Playstation comes in second on my list.


----------



## Dyluck (Jul 29, 2008)

DamienFox said:


> Being primarily a Console RPG player, I still hold firm to my belief that the SNES was the console that saw the best RPGs made. Final Fantasy 6, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, Super Mario RPG, Earthbound, Breath of Fire 2, etc. The first Playstation comes in second on my list.



This.


----------



## Adelio Altomar (Jul 29, 2008)

Old games FTW!'

Nothing beats the classics.


----------



## Lukar (Jul 29, 2008)

1) Super Mario Bros.
2) The Legend of Zelda
3) Pac-Man
4) Metroid

I actually don't like the original Metroid that much, but it's still fun.


----------



## Glennjam (Jul 29, 2008)

Tycho The Itinerant said:


> Actually, "Earthbound" was Mother 2.  Mother 1 was an unreleased NES game in the series, you can find a ROM of it usually under the name Earthbound Zero.



:O You're right, silly me x3


----------



## Spaceberry (Jul 29, 2008)

Find time to replay Chrono trigger now and then, sometimes discover a new ending, always a surprise.


----------



## Range (Jul 29, 2008)

IanKeith said:


> Better music





Stratadrake said:


> So what if the NES had only three voice tracks plus a noise channel, developers belted out some of the most memorable videogame tunes with only that at their disposal.



Tetris
Super Mario Brothers
Metroid
Legend of Zelda
*continues to list off NES games with theme songs that nearly every gamer can instantly recognize*


----------



## Micah Coon (Jul 29, 2008)

Ashkihyena said:


> Heh, and Exile was good cause it had a group of lizard species that you could be.    Though I was pretty bad at that game, so bad.



Nono...
They had a species of lizard people that were horribly broken and badass that you could be...


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

Oh, awesome, we're already getting videogame elderly.

"Put down them virtual-reality whatever-you-call it, son. They made some of them proper games in my days I tells ya!"


----------



## Urban Wolf (Jul 29, 2008)

lol! well said Draco. I was thinking that the other day when i was explaining to some kids why Ocarina of Time was one of best games of all time and why Alone in the Dark is... not...

I've become my father. (howl!)


----------



## Kajet (Jul 29, 2008)

I think half of it is that newer games rely way too much on visual orgasming than actual playability, and the other half is that games seem to get more complex and/or dumbed down (fifty million button combos for a game you could beat just by mashing one for example) no one seems able to make games that one word... started with an F... then there was a U... 







Oh yeah... 

FUN


----------



## Range (Jul 29, 2008)

Draco_2k said:


> Oh, awesome, we're already getting videogame elderly.
> 
> "Put down them virtual-reality whatever-you-call it, son. They made some of them proper games in my days I tells ya!"


That reminded me of the old guy at the end of Awsome Fantasy VII that says "And that's why it's the best game ever!"



Kajet said:


> I think half of it is that newer games rely way too much on visual orgasming than actual playability, and the other half is that games seem to get more complex and/or dumbed down (fifty million button combos for a game you could beat just by mashing one for example) no one seems able to make games that one word... started with an F... then there was a U...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What about Wii, Rayman Raving Rabbids is pretty fun... until you've beaten everything and it's gotten old... ok, how about No More Heroes, or Mario Kart Wii, or Brawl?

My philosophy towards games has always been
gameplay > graphics


----------



## Ashkihyena (Jul 29, 2008)

Micah Coon said:


> Nono...
> They had a species of lizard people that were horribly broken and badass that you could be...



They were broken?  Like I said, I was very bad at that game, so I don't know how that happend, but yeah, they were pretty badass.

I don't remember the first one, but I do remember that they were also in it, just as bad guys though.



> My philosophy towards games has always been
> gameplay > graphics



This, definitly this.


----------



## TÃ¦farÃ³s (Jul 29, 2008)

Glennjam said:


> Mother 2/Earthbound = Win =3



*points to avatar and sig* =D

Licensed games used to have so much effort put in them. You can't find something as well-made as Aladdin or Buster Busts Loose for the SNES anymore. Shame, too. Movie games could have all the potential in the world if their development didn't start less than a year before the film's release.


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jul 29, 2008)

DamienFox said:


> Being primarily a Console RPG player, I still hold firm to my belief that the SNES was the console that saw the best RPGs made. Final Fantasy 6, Chrono Trigger, Secret of Mana, Super Mario RPG, Earthbound, Breath of Fire 2, etc. The first Playstation comes in second on my list.



CONSOLE RPGs.

In general, the best RPGs are on the PC - Planescape: Torment and Star Wars: Torment, err, KOTOR 2, Fallout... highest echelons.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 29, 2008)

> So what if the NES had only three voice tracks plus a noise channel, developers belted out some of the most memorable videogame tunes with only that at their disposal.


The NES had some kick ass music, not just the memorable stuff.

(You'll need Winamp and NotSoFatso or any player that will take NSF format)
Journey to Silius had some pretty kick ass music. So did Tetrastar. And Batman. And S.C.A.T..


----------



## Urban Wolf (Jul 29, 2008)

not memorable :O i still whistle Yoshi's flower garden when i'm bored (yoshi's island)
And Chrono Trigger? :O


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 29, 2008)

Runefox said:


> The NES had some kick ass music, not just the memorable stuff.
> 
> (You'll need Winamp and NotSoFatso or any player that will take NSF format)
> Journey to Silius had some pretty kick ass music. So did Tetrastar. And Batman. And S.C.A.T..


Sweet! Thank you.

Gotta love Winamp's back-compatibility, too.


----------



## Surgat (Jul 30, 2008)

IanKeith said:


> Give me old games any day. Better music, more colourful graphics, gameplay that's actually amusing with mechanics that /work/, controls that don't confuse the hell out of everyone...
> 
> I recently came into semi-possession (it's actually my mate's) of a Genesis, and I've played that at least as much as, if not more than, my Wii. Nothing against the Wii, I've loved owning one, but damnitall, classic platformers have everything on today's market, inundated with shitty, repetitive FPSes. Give me funny, unique characters any day over Bob McGuns. Ugh.
> 
> ...



You can't just look for examples that support your claim, and then disregard ones that don't.

Old games as a whole weren't better than new ones. There are tons of well-known, shitty old games. Examples:
E.T. 
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4jrsKB4g8s0 
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=JamesNintendoNerd&p=r


----------



## Range (Jul 30, 2008)

Surgat said:


> You can't just look for examples that support your claim, and then disregard ones that don't.
> 
> Old games as a whole weren't better than new ones. There are tons of well-known, shitty old games. Examples:
> E.T.
> ...



There's some pretty shitty ones for current gen too =\
Sonic the Hedgehog for the 360/PS3.
The Burgerking games (Seriously, why the hell was BK making video game?)


----------



## AlexX (Jul 30, 2008)

Runefox said:


> The NES had some kick ass music, not just the memorable stuff.


That's for sure. Sweet Home makes good use of its music to create a legitimately creepy atmosphere, which is more than what most survival horror games these days have done.


----------



## IanKeith (Jul 30, 2008)

Surgat said:


> You can't just look for examples that support your claim, and then disregard ones that don't.
> 
> Old games as a whole weren't better than new ones. There are tons of well-known, shitty old games. Examples:
> E.T.
> ...




I can, however, point out that for each "must play" game you might be able to come up with for current-gen systems, I can name several that are at least as good gameplay-wise and that have stood up to the test of time, on consoles up to twenty years younger.

My point remains. Games created these days have no creativity; give me old-school gameplay and games that work any day over forty million FPSes and shitty driving sims. Oh, and I can pretty much refute any arguments against "no creativity" with one word.

Madden.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

IanKeith said:


> My point remains. Games created these days have no creativity; give me old-school gameplay and games that work any day over forty million FPSes and shitty driving sims.


Portal, Team Fortress 2, Audiosurf, Half-Life series, Garry's mod, Left 4 Dead, Hitman series, Call of Duty series, Gears of War, Bioshock, Company of Heroes, STALKER, Defcon, Darwinia, Geometry Wars, GTA series, Psychonauts, Unreal, Unreal Tournament series, Dawn of War, Spellforce series, The Longest Journey, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, KotOR series, Gish, Pacific Storm, Thief series, Prince of Persia series, Little Big Planet, LOVE, Homeworld, Max Payne, Splinter Cell series, Rage, God of War, Spore - Just off the top of my head.

I think you just suck at picking games.


----------



## Urban Wolf (Jul 30, 2008)

Draco, my good friend.... you neglected to mention any Nintendo titles..

i'm sure it was an accident.

*cracks knuckles*


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

Urban Wolf said:


> Draco, my good friend.... you neglected to mention any Nintendo titles..
> 
> i'm sure it was an accident.
> 
> *cracks knuckles*


Don't own a Wii or DS, can't tell. Well, I don't own any consoles either, for that matter.

I assume Mario and Zelda lineages are still doing nicely?


----------



## Urban Wolf (Jul 30, 2008)

yes they are =_=

*calls off the hit*


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jul 30, 2008)

I wouldn't call beating the dead horse by cranking out title after title "doing nicely".


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2008)

Yeah, I can't say any Nintendo first-party titles have really been creative, fresh or innovative since the dawn of the Gamecube. That said, I'm not sure I'd call any of the GTA's past 3 to be fresh, either, since though they expand on the formula, it's generally the same stuff (which, when the formula is good, is awesome, but still not very creative/interesting. Take Ace Combat, one of my favourite game series, for example). But that's splitting hairs; There are definitely very creative games on the Wii (No More Heroes =D) and on every platorm, really, but they are few in number when compared to the legion of - and I'm going to say it, don't try to stop me - Doom clones.


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

Runefox said:


> ...but they are few in number when compared to the legion of - and I'm going to say it, don't try to stop me - Doom clones.


Halo clones. :neutral:


----------



## AlexX (Jul 30, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Yeah, I can't say any Nintendo first-party titles have really been creative, fresh or innovative since the dawn of the Gamecube.


Mario Galaxy wasn't fresh, creative, or innovative? Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn wasn't fresh, creative, or innovative? ._.

You'll probably say those don't count since they're established Nintendo franchises, but let's face it, if they weren't nobody would buy them and they'd be doomed to obscurity.



> I wouldn't call beating the dead horse by cranking out title after title "doing nicely".


I've got a bovine friend who would love your straw man.


----------



## Laze (Jul 30, 2008)

Warioland 2 for the Gameboy is genius.

Mainly because of a little idea that made it so Wario was unable to die. An odd idea at the time, surely the point of a video-game is to actually challenge a player so much so that the death of the player character results in a game over, which results in massive fail on your part. However, in Wario's case, not dying is a key element to the game play.

The game plays like a traditional 2D platformer and has Wario searching out the treasure that was half-inched from his castle by a massive gang of pirates and he vows to get it back. If you played the first one, you'd know all about the random mini-games that pop up during levels in which the completion of gives you a small treasure. Of course, the more treasure you have buy the end of the game equals the better ending. Of course, you'd imagine that getting to the end of the game would be easy considering you can die. well, you'd be wrong. Like I said, the game incorporates this into it's main mechanic - so in normal games where if you come into contact with fire, you'd burn and die. With Warioland 2, you burn, and keep on running around for a bit until you eventually flume up in flames and potter about as a human bonfire. Taking out enemies and indestructible blocks in your path.

This can be used to find other secrets and caches of coins and other point builders, but it is also used to progress. For example, in one level taking the guise of a massive tree, you need to encourage Giant Bees to sting you, making Wario's face puff up due to an allergy and the hit an extended branch of a bit of convenient ceiling to make air shoot from his ears and return to normal.

And you can get squished, but you emerge as flat as a pancake and able to fit under small cracks and places usually unreachable by other means. You can also fly to a degree; jump of the edge of a platform and Wario will float downward like a leaf in the breeze. There's other random little things too, such as eating too much from certain cake throwing enemies and becoming fat, becoming Zombified and having the ability to fall through platforms [?] plus a whole other bunch I can't remember.

I haven't played the game in a while, but I remember it draining my original Gameboy of batteries for a good few years. It was that good. Then you discover there are about seven secret worlds you need to discover in order to finish the game properly. There was an odd painting and you get a small piece for it every-time you finish a level - you start to scratch your head after the first play through and discover a good half of the painting is still missing.

But for what it was, it was awesome. 

If fact, I'm going charge up my SP and have a go.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2008)

> Mario Galaxy wasn't fresh, creative, or innovative? Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn wasn't fresh, creative, or innovative? ._.


Just because something is a good game, doesn't make it refreshing or even creative. Mario Galaxy's overall composure is very similar to Mario 64's, which, while a great model and highly expanded upon, has been done. What _hasn't_ really been done before is the heavy use of gravity for its gameplay, but that can only really be said because it hasn't been done before for a _Mario_ title. The hub system, the collecting of stars, and of course the kidnapping of Peach, can all be seen as staples of the mainstream Mario franchise.

I can't say that I've played Fire Emblem (much less Radiant Dawn), but as I understand it, Radiant Dawn is a _very_ traditional tactics RPG in the gameplay department, comparable to the likes of Final Fantasy Tactics, Shining Force, Disgaea, _Advance Wars_ etc. Advance Wars is italicized because interestingly, it's developed by the same first-party dev team, Intelligent Systems.

Am I saying that either of these games are bad? No, what I'm saying is that they aren't particularly _creative_, nor do they specifically stand out from the rest of the chaff. Truly memorable titles are the ones that people keep repeating over and over again - Things like Portal, Half-Life, Command & Conquer, Starcraft, Prince of Persia, Mario 64, Super Mario Bros (the original), Sonic the Hedgehog, X-Com: UFO Defense (... Well, maybe not so much), Final Fantasy Tactics (arguably), Okami... All of these are and were unique, interesting titles that stood out from the rest as shining examples that defined or reshaped the perspective of their respective genres.

Will Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn be one of those games? I don't think so. But that doesn't stop it from being a good game. As I said before, one of my favourite series of all time, Ace Combat, typically releases the same game over and over again with updated graphics, a slightly tweaked physics/flight model, and a different story, but they have me hooked so badly that if they released one for the PS3, I might have to start saving my money. When you have a good formula and you can refine it and still retain interest, that's something, too.

The point is, though, that the ratio of wheat to chaff has gone much higher in favour of the chaff than what I would personally consider the traditional norm. There needs to be a certain amount of expansion and exploration on particular design paradigms, and only once it nears perfection is there truly a need for something fresh and exciting. However, the current designs have been whittled down to a toothpick, with little meat or interesting qualities to find at all, and while a lot of good games are coming out, a lot of them are simply too similar to any other given game that it just makes it a little repetitive. This is why indy developers are gaining a lot of foothold in markets like X-Box Live and in the PC world - Many of them are completely different from what we normally expect in games today.

Take for example the development team behind Portal. They were almost completely composed of fresh graduates from Digipen, who landed jobs at Valve after displaying a concept game called Narbacular Drop, and based on that and the impressions they received from its gameplay, they created Portal, which happens to be one of the most innovative, addictive, and just fun puzzle games ever created, and which virtually everyone has heard of and played.


----------



## Urban Wolf (Jul 30, 2008)

*nintendo fanboyism sets in*

Nintendo is allowed to "beat the dead horse" as you say because the horse is very much alive. Tendo's main franchises continue to be the most genre-defining experiences out there, Galaxy brought the platformer safely into the 7th generation so that everyone may now copy it. Smash Bros Brawl was a faithful step forward in an amazing series, Metroid corruption :O. The fast range of casual games "which aren't really my thing" are still amazingly ingenuitive in that they've appealed to a never before catered-to gaming demographic. And what about the DS? Talk about ingenuity, the touch generations games are fantastic! titles such as mario kart DS, new mario brothers, Elite Beat Agents and its Japanese parents, animal crossing: wild world, and the latest installments in the pokemon series. 
Nintendo doesn't slow down. 
A series doesn't have to die if you treat it well. *stares at crash bandicoot... and mourns*


----------



## Draco_2k (Jul 30, 2008)

Innovation is merely a side-effect of making a good game.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2008)

Urban Wolf: I think you're missing the point - The game doesn't have to be innovative to be good, and by saying that Nintendo is beating the proverbial dead horse, I would think you agree. However, you don't have to defend them - What I'm saying is, that's pretty much all their first-party devs have been doing so far, with the possible exception of Big Brain Academy and Wii Sports.

That said, Elite Beat Agents is a third-party game, The New Mario Bros is a traditional platformer, and Mario Kart DS is, well, Mario Kart. Neither of them are particularly innovative in any way, and while the hardware certainly is (from a gaming standpoint), that doesn't necessarily mean that the game automatically is for using said hardware.


----------



## Urban Wolf (Jul 30, 2008)

i have to defend them... To quote yahtzee: I'm not white enough to own more than one next gen console...

But i guess nintendo is a big boy now, he doesn't need my help.
I see what you mean by somethign not necessarily needing inovation. Uncharted: Drakes fortune is hardly innovative but acclaimed for being fun, havn't actually played it meeself. Every RTS follows similiar guidelines, though i must say i do prefer the RTSs that push the envelopes.

thanks for quelling the fanboy rage -_-


----------



## Mikael Grizzly (Jul 30, 2008)

Urban Wolf said:


> A series doesn't have to die if you treat it well. *stares at crash bandicoot... and mourns*



I wouldn't call cranking out spin-offs "treating well" either.

Most of the good series have died. Except for the Tiberian Universe, but that's a controverisal oddity.

For example, Fallout died with the cancellation of Van Buren. KOTOR with the announcement of KOTOR3:MMO. X-Com with spin-offs. Might & Magic with the crappy Nine. Ultima with Nine.


----------



## AlexX (Jul 30, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Just because something is a good game, doesn't make it refreshing or even creative. Mario Galaxy's overall composure is very similar to Mario 64's, which, while a great model and highly expanded upon, has been done. What _hasn't_ really been done before is the heavy use of gravity for its gameplay, but that can only really be said because it hasn't been done before for a _Mario_ title. The hub system, the collecting of stars, and of course the kidnapping of Peach, can all be seen as staples of the mainstream Mario franchise.


If you're expecting a long, deep, and complex storyline from a Mario game, you're looking in the wrong place. Mario games have always been about the gameplay, and Mario Galaxy plays completely different from Mario 64.



> I can't say that I've played Fire Emblem (much less Radiant Dawn), but as I understand it, Radiant Dawn is a _very_ traditional tactics RPG in the gameplay department, comparable to the likes of Final Fantasy Tactics, Shining Force, Disgaea, _Advance Wars_ etc. Advance Wars is italicized because interestingly, it's developed by the same first-party dev team, Intelligent Systems.


I'm always bothered when people claim that Fire Emblem is nothing special compared to other SRPGs... There's two main differences between every other SRPG and Fire Emblem, and ways that Radiant Dawn takes them a step further. Forgive me if I end up rambling, but I'd like to explain my point:

The first main differeince is that, for the most part, you can create new or recruit units as needed in each of those games you listed. If you lose a unit, it's no big deal since you can always just recruit/call in another later on. In Fire Emblem you can't do that due to its world-famous permadeath (which means that if too many people die you're left with either too few units or mostly crappy ones...), and Radiant Dawn is unique in that the game is split into several story arcs, which means if anyone dies or you neglect too many characters, the last part that joins everyone together is going to be that much more difficult (since what happens is that you split your whole roster into 3 groups of units of your choice in which to tackle the last few missions with).

The second main difference is the battle system... Fire Emblem's battle system has always been consirably more simple than the games you mentioned, with the RNG having a larger impact due to its control over fights and unit levels. Radiant Dawn goes a step further by allowing you to somewhat control the RNG depending on what you do (which could easily work against you if you're not careful).



> Am I saying that either of these games are bad? No, what I'm saying is that they aren't particularly _creative_, nor do they specifically stand out from the rest of the chaff. Truly memorable titles are the ones that people keep repeating over and over again - Things like Portal, Half-Life, Command & Conquer, Starcraft, Prince of Persia, Mario 64, Super Mario Bros (the original), Sonic the Hedgehog, X-Com: UFO Defense (... Well, maybe not so much), Final Fantasy Tactics (arguably), Okami... All of these are and were unique, interesting titles that stood out from the rest as shining examples that defined or reshaped the perspective of their respective genres.


If I were to name 3 Mario games that completely stand out the most from the rest of the franchise (obviously not counting the first one for the NES), I'd name Super Mario Bros 3, Super Mario 64, and Mario Galaxy. Doing the same with Fire Emblem and making the same omitting of the first game on the NES, I would name Genealogy of the Holy War (the 4th game in the series), Thracia 776 (the 5th game), and Radiant Dawn (10th game).

Mario Galaxy and Radiant Dawn aren't "same game, new name" games, despite how people like to act. Radiant Dawn often bends and sometimes even breaks the normal FE formula to the point where you could take away the "Fire Emblem" from the title and make it an entirely different SRPG series on its own, and likewise, Mario Galaxy (unlike Twilight Princess) isn't afraid to take a few risks outside the normal Mario gameplay.

I guess I'll end my post here since that's about the only stuff I have a good amount of knowledge about... I just hope I didn't look for trees and end up missing the forest like I sometimes do...


----------



## Range (Jul 30, 2008)

Runefox said:


> I can't say that I've played Fire Emblem (much less Radiant Dawn), but as I understand it, Radiant Dawn is a _very_ traditional tactics RPG in the gameplay department, comparable to the likes of Final Fantasy Tactics, Shining Force, Disgaea, _Advance Wars_ etc.



Disgaea isn't really a traditional game, because most games don't let you get lvl 9999, restart the character, and pretty much everything else in the games. \=|


----------



## blackfuredfox (Jul 30, 2008)

ok this i got to say is that video games are like wine, if you let it age it gets better compared to new. wolfenstien 3d love it. most old things are better like corvettes magazines, hell i got a ten year old gamepro with a statgey guide for silent hill 1 i like more than new mags but new things also got other perks like speed(reference to corvette) and the look so it just depends on what you talk about.


----------



## Clyde_Dale (Jul 30, 2008)

Oh man, you just had to get me started...

Okay, for all you Halo fans, go dust off the game that started it all: DOOM. Before HALO, Before Quake, there was DOOM, and it was good. The father of all FPS games, of course, was Wolfenstein, but DOOM took it to a whole new level.

My old NES was one of the few pieces of electrical equipment I ever owned that I actually mourned the passing of. The SMB series was okay (and one of the very FEW who actually improved, SMB3 > SMB2 > SMB1. SMBW blew them all to hell. After that, it declined), but Zelda was good (the sequal, Link's Awakening, was not a worthy sequal, although Zelda: Link to the Past on the SNES was awsomesauce!), Final Fantasy was hella good (up to the SNES, after it went to the PS, quality took a severe hit until it peaked again at X), but you know which games I spent too much time on?

Dragon Warrior I-IV. Seriously, some of the best games I've ever played. IV was starting to get tired, so I was just as glad when they retired it, although I'd have loved to see an SNES version. To this day, I can instantly recognise the beginning music, the 'outside' music, the dungeon music, the city music, and the castle music. 

Faxanadu. Side-scrolling adventure perfection. I must have blown hundreds of hours on this game before completing it. And some of the music (Guru's music) will blow you away. Some of it just blows, granted, and gets repetitive, but there's a few good ones in there.

Wizardry: Trial of the Mad Overlord. This one I actually played on a Mac 512k (Enhanced). Man, that was a GAME. It was like the first D&D game, that had nothing to do with D&D. And there WAS no 'load from saved', if one of your characters died, you could permanently loose that character. If you lost your whole party, you pretty much had to start over from the beginning. You might find them again, but you're never going to get them raised unless you found them damn quick.

Ultima: Exodus. Also played this one on the Mac. Again, wonderful game with wonderful plotline. Turn the music off.

Bomberman. Who hasn't spent too many hours on this?

Gauntlet. Do I need to mention this? I guess so since no one else has.

Sonic the Hedgehog. Like Mario, well past his prime, but the early games were also time sinks.

MegaMan. Mindless mayhem in spades.

Seriously, I consider the SNES to be the 'peak' on console games. Too many favorites on there. Zelda: Link to the Past. FF IV and VI (We shouldn't mention Mystic Quest, it was hit on the head too many times as a child and was sent to the Sanitarium). Super Mario World. Chrono Trigger. Secret of Mana. Secret of Evermore (a fun little game that bashes the 4th wall on occasion). Mortal Kombat. Street Fighter 2. Act Raiser. And many, many more.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of any of the current consoles. X-Box 360... well, Bill Gates made it, so that's strikes one through twelve right there, but I'd also just as soon wait six months for the title to be released on the PC. PS3... pricing aside, I have no intention of purchasing any Blu Ray discs, as I can discern no difference between them and normal DVD's, and overheats too quickly. Wii... good idea, poor implementation. Here's a tip: Gamers are lazy, they don't WANT to move around. That's WHY they are all out of shape, and they generally want to stay that way. That and they finally found a way to make a game player look even MORE stupid than a typical controller.


----------



## AlexX (Jul 30, 2008)

Uh oh, looks like this topic is quickly turning into an "old school vs new school" debate: One side believes nothing good ever came after the 16-bit era, and the other side believes that older games are simply dated both in looks and gameplay.

In other words, TAKE COVER!


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2008)

Ah, there's plenty of good new stuff, but the fact of the matter is, there's so much copying and pasting going on that it's difficult to really get into games the same way you could back in the 8/16-bit era. Back then, it was a lot more about sink or swim than it was now, and since the hardware was bringing dramatic changes in technology, everyone was trying to really push the limits of what's possible.

Nowadays, there's not really a set limit. We have so many luxuries that we can just look at this and say "Needs bloom effects", and there they are. Use some pixel shaders to hide the crappy texture resolution, use a bit of bump mapping and then throw in some HDR effects for good measure... It's all technology that's been around for some time now, and we've kind of settled in. Things are starting to become somewhat cookie-cutter in their nature, both in gameplay and in graphics, because, well, you can put very little effort into making something that you know is going to make money. Diamonds shine from the rough, but they're far fewer than they once were.


----------



## Range (Jul 30, 2008)

Clyde_Dale said:


> Bomberman. Who hasn't spent too many hours on this?



Speaking of him, who else felt offended when they turned something they knew and loved into... this...


----------



## AlexX (Jul 30, 2008)

Runefox said:


> Ah, there's plenty of good new stuff, but the fact of the matter is, there's so much copying and pasting going on that it's difficult to really get into games the same way you could back in the 8/16-bit era. Back then, it was a lot more about sink or swim than it was now, and since the hardware was bringing dramatic changes in technology, everyone was trying to really push the limits of what's possible.


But sometimes what was done then isn't as good as what is made now just because it's older. That is, just because a game is older doesn't mean it's automatically better than the newer installments. Since they're so similar in terms of gamplay, let's look at pokemon gen 1 and pokemon gen 4:

Almost everyone says that it's inarguable that gen 1 is better, but... Why? Because it was the first. That's all.

Why would Gen 4 be better? Well, for one thing the gameplay is smoother, it has more options (both for playable pokemon and ways of combat, such as 2-on-2 fights, as well as tons of new strategies from the new moves introduced), it has a lot more creative pokemon (which is interesting, because if not for gen 4's pokemon being good I'd be tempted to think the designs for each gen worked in an odd/even pattern for good/bad pokemon designs), Sinnoh has a better design than Kanto/Johto (the first two generations were a typical RPG maps in that they went town>dungeon>town>dungeon), a story with MUCH better presentation (Team Rocket in the game was just as pathetic as it was in the anime, but you actually see Team Galactic damage the landscape and kidnap people and pokemon in their goal, not to mention Cyrus is actually what you'd expect from an evil leader), there's minigames like The Underground for a break from the usual training, and Pokemon Contests for those who'd rather train for reasons other than combat.



> Nowadays, there's not really a set limit. We have so many luxuries that we can just look at this and say "Needs bloom effects", and there they are. Use some pixel shaders to hide the crappy texture resolution, use a bit of bump mapping and then throw in some HDR effects for good measure... It's all technology that's been around for some time now, and we've kind of settled in. Things are starting to become somewhat cookie-cutter in their nature, both in gameplay and in graphics, because, well, you can put very little effort into making something that you know is going to make money. Diamonds shine from the rough, but they're far fewer than they once were.


Perhaps this is something to blame on the fans rather than the companies, then... After all, companies only continue to make games in a series if it sells.


----------



## Runefox (Jul 30, 2008)

I agree that certain games get too much credit simply for being old, but there are plenty out there that really deserve it, and true innovation was much more commonplace then than it is now. It's very easy to place squarely upon the shoulders of these games the credit for building the games we have today, and really, they deserve it. However, as for whether or not it's a good game, time decides that. There are plenty of firsts in long-running franchises that weren't so great. The original Final Fantasy is a classic, and yet, really and truly, the game sucks in almost every sense.


----------



## IanKeith (Aug 3, 2008)

AlexX said:


> Uh oh, looks like this topic is quickly turning into an "old school vs new school" debate: One side believes nothing good ever came after the 16-bit era, and the other side believes that older games are simply dated both in looks and gameplay.
> 
> In other words, TAKE COVER!



I'm not saying there's not good games; just that the ideas are really starting to get old. There hasn't been enough fresh and interesting lately; just a lot of rehashed concepts.

PS: I've written about this. Check it out here -- http://www.nfopocalypse.com/index.php/2008/06/01/in-which-ian-starts-off-on-the-wrong-foot/


----------

