It turns out that, just like fancy graphics, not constantly trying to empty your customers pockets actually represents some kind of economic value. The ironic thing is so many of these old games were literally designed to steal your quarters.
Well, only the arcade versions of games were designed to steal your quarters. The home console versions were much better about not harassing your wallet.
For instance, Gauntlet Legends on its arcade cabinet hardware drained your health at a consistent time based rate. Add more quarters to gain more health. All home console versions abolished this health drain mechanic.
That's mostly true, except for games made specifically harder so that you'd have to rent them multiple times (eg: ActRaiser 2 NTSC-U/C / SNES is much harder than its NTSC-J / SFC counterpart).
games made specifically harder so that you’d have to rent them multiple times
Fucking BattleToads
Don’t forget Lion King!
https://www.cbr.com/lion-king-brutally-difficult-platformer/
That's mostly true, except for games made specifically harder so that you'd have to rent them multiple times
Wait this was a thing game designers actually to into account? I’ve never heard this
Probably some games did after the home rental market got started, but a lot of older games were difficult specifically to extend the experience. Cartridge storage was small, so if it was too easy you'd get through all 10 levels in less than a day and then feel like you hadn't got very much for your money.
Well I guess I am just wondering how more rentals from a video store would benefit the developers financially? I mean I’m sure I could research but surely game studios didn’t get any kind of percentage from the rental places based on how many times a title was rented right?
They didn't want you to rent it multiple times. They wanted you to rent it once, be unable to beat it, but be intrigued enough that you purchased the game from a store. If you could play and beat a game in a single rental, there was little incentive to buy it (so the developers thought, and I imagine had some data to back it up).
The game companies also wanted gamers to call their hotline if they get stuck, where they would charge by the minute to give tips (and they weren't known for their brief calls).
Except there were so many Japanese games not brought to the west because they were deemed too difficult for western gamers.
It's because those old games are good and fun
Gameplay always wins over everything else. The rest is a bonus.
Classic movies, music, etc why not expect classic games?
Simple as
Because the games are good? Does their need to be a deeper reason then that? I mean, I guess a boom in retro games among Gen Z and younger says something about the state of the modern industry, but younger generations have always liked older things despite entertainment industries trying to push them towards the shiny and new. Still definitely nice to see though.
Yeah, agreed. They play retro games for the same reason people watch classic movies, read literature, or listen to older music: because it's enjoyable regardless of how old it is.
It's also easier to determine which games are good and which aren't. I doubt there's a ton of people playing licensed games from LJN, at least not as many as are playing Zelda or Chrono Trigger.
They made gaming a chore.
Games used to be a simple concept, and fun to play. I still play Tetris more than anything else by a huge margin. Imma go play a round right now.
They made gaming a chore.
I couldn't agree more, every damn game looks exactly the same to each other, a huge ass RPG like with tons of sidequests which can be or not good and with cosmetic upgrades or paid DLCs.
The last four games that I have played follow this formula:
The Witcher 3
Batman Arkham Knight
Breath of The Wild
Nier Automata
Currently I have only finished The Witcher 3 and Batman Arkham Knight, and got "tired" with the last two, currently playing SIFU and god it feels very fresh... Although I'm stuck at the "git gud" phase.
Saying stuff like Witcher 3 and Nier are "just a huge ass RPG with tons of sidequests" has to be the least intellectual take I've seen in years. They're both groundbreaking games with (at the time) unique systems never before seen. BoTW was also a breakthrough in that it was the first mainline Nintendo game to embrace modern advancements, and did so without sacrificing much of their traditional fun-oriented design.
Are most AAA games complete unsalvageable garbage? Sure. But to classify the few exceptions as equally bad is disingenuous - ESPECIALLY when most of the games you listed are actually fairly old.
retro accessories such as the Wii Fit Balance Board
I feel old now
why would someone intentionally harm like this
I recently started playing Zelda The Minish Cap (GBA) on my PS Vita, and for me the appeal - especially with old handheld games - is the simplicity in terms of game mechanics.
The game only has like a dozen of equippable items, dialog with NPCs is very simple, there's a lot of puzzles cleverly integrated into the map, a small trading system (forgot what it's called, these round things where you match your half with an NPCs half), a few different collectibles (heart containers for example) and they pretty much made a very enjoyable game out of that.
Today, a lot of games come with a crafting system, some sort of hunger/food mechanic, complex character progression systems etc. And while I enjoy this a lot of the time, playing a well crafted game based on much simpler (and fewer) mechanics is a welcome change from time to time.
That is why I will always miss these "lesser" versions of the games, AKA as handheld games, and the Switch, or the industry, might have killed that already.
The biggest perk of handheld gaming nowadays is doing the "videogame chores" (like sidequests) more comfortably for your adult life, and not like a quick burst gaming style... Perhaps indies might be the only experience of it that is left.
Probably because "AAA" games are almost all cash grabs at this point.
Not to mention they require high end hardware to run due to lack of optimisation. Many people can't afford top end shit and with emulators becoming lighter and easier to run, retro games just become super accessible.
Even Wii emulators such as dolphin can run decently well on a bog standard phone and with the state the mobile game market is in, Wii games are just universally a better option.
The philosophies behind game development has changed so much.
Developers used to try and make fun games that they wanted to play, in hopes that fun games will sell well.
Now they have marketing teams with budgets that are greater than twice the development cost. Committees designing games to maximize addiction. And of course, the endless need to monetize everything, micro transactions, games as a service, etc., in order to maximize profits. Is the game any good? Probably not, but they just need a few whales to dump money into it.
It's this.
NDS games for example hust have a completely different design language.
Seeing a Wii Fit Balance Board referred to as a retro gaming accessory...
Just fucking bury me now, why don't you. 💀
cheaper, easier, simpler, more accessible, a good game is timeless
edit: easy as in shorter and to the point
Easier is questionable. Some of the older games can be tough as hell. Especially with outdated control schemes.
Games of a certain era were intentionally made challenging because they only had about 6 levels. They had to make it last, so they made that shit hard. You'd spend months just trying to beat level 3. Same with arcade machines; though they were hard to make you die and put another quarter in.
Ninja Gaiden from 1988 is still the hardest game I have ever played. It was next to impossible in the arcade and even harder on the NES
No microtransactions and old websites still have the codes you can type in for goofy play through
Because it is a time where you picked something up to be transported away from your worries, or just to have a bit of fun. You turned it on, hit start, and for the most part that was it. There were no season passes on the NES. There was no bullshit shoved in your face constantly. It was just the game, and that was it. My kids are shocked when I tell them about the flash game days, or the late 90's with an N64. If I was there for the commodore and atari days I'm sure I'd have more to say.
Sometimes simpler is better.
Don't know if I'd say simpler, some of the games for the NES are downright punishing in their difficulty.
Though they are often synonyms, simple != easy.
Simple is uncomplicated.
Easy is unchallenging.
Super Mario Bros. is a simple game, but not necessarily an easy one.
are they? much is propagandized about the new generations to older people but it rarely holds true.
just look at the numbers on any mtx ridden mobile game.
I mean, the first person to ever play NES Tetris long enough to make it crash is like 13 right now.
Ive been playing duke nukem 3d as of late. Admittedly it was one of the first real video games i played so big nostalgia but looking at all the other games i played and have installed most are nearing 10 years of age or are older.
The fact that younger generations are picking it up suggest it's not just nostalgia. It's not someone who was there wishing things were still like their childhood. Something has downright broken in the games industry for this to happen.
Something like my generation (elder millennial) listening to Stairway and Dark Side of the Moon. The associated industry was not providing in modern times, so we looked back.
Genz here, there's this sweet spot from about 1985 to 2010 where games and even movies just peaked for me. (Yes I'm aware most of that is before I was born). For movies special effects were finally good enough to still hold up today if used well but not so insanely cheap as to get the modern michael bay problem where writing has actually become secondary to often pointless spectacle. With games its a similar story, the end of that time range is pretty much the point of highest technical capability before online updates allowed a 'fix it later' philosiphy to creep in as well as all the cool secrets (Red levels + star world + extra second secret star world is still unmatched in sheer childhood wonder) becomming paid DLC.
TLDR: Retro stuff doesn't nickle and dime you and survivorship bias means we can pick from the best of it.
I've played a lot of different games in recent years. I'll be honest and say that I'm pretty easy to please. Also I'd say that for the times I was disappointed, it was usually by an AAA title. So much of the time they're just so boring, the files are massive, and the stories are whatever.
Some of the best gameplay I've experienced is in indie games with hand-drawn 2D or pixel graphics. So much more energy is put into games being enjoyable and interesting in these games.
It's so obvious that many of the features of larger releases are put in by non-gamers. Why do I need a 10 minute "quest" of getting drunk in a saloon with an NPC in RDR2?
There are some great AAA titles, ones that put less energy into marketing and more into polished gameplay. But I think if you want to have reliable fun, retro and indie games are the best. And the barrier for entry is a lot more manageable.
Here's a total banger that's simultaneously retro, indie and a cult classic: Cave Story. A remake is available on most digital stores, including Steam for the people interested. It follows the story of "Quote", a lovable and- you know what? No spoilers, I'll let people fall in love with the game by themselves ;)
Ah shoot, just when I had the disposable income to start collecting. Good for them tho for having good taste
Collect for the joy of collecting, not for the idea of a speculative vampire looking to destroy other's hobby for short-term profit.
Vintage gaming community.
Rules:
If you see these please report them.