next »

[shig]

I wasn't entirely joking when I said the thread could have been locked by the second post, but since it didn't happen:

So why are we so reminiscent where we should be focused on evoliving?

I think you're just looking at the wrong places. And by the wrong places I mean this forum.

[Belimoth]

evoliving

Spelling error? Pop culture reference? Intentionally thought-provoking pun?

[Derek]

I played Pokemon White. It was ok.

I remember back when Pokemon had charm, soul and heart...now look at the corporate carbon-copy faux-pocket monster designs we're getting today... ;______; *a single leaf drops from a tree and falls to the ground slowly, moving slightly in the cool breeze*

Even though charm and soul and heart and "magical" are abused in the nostalgic way you're suggesting, I do think such a thing exists... a quality that is a little subjective and hard to describe. Sometimes you do compare two works where one is maybe superior on a technical level but is lacking in personal style, exaggeration, imagination, recklessness, etc.

My example of this is always Massive Black, who have enviable technique but whose illustrations and concept art tend to leave me feeling cold:

http://www.massiveblack.com

Compare that to Shinkiro or Katsuya Terada or Moebius or Paul Bonner... you get the picture. (EDIT: not that any of them are lacking in technique, just that their work has much more charm.)

The problem is when people undervalue one or the other, and I would actually agree that technical skill (those fundamental ideas that are built upon over long periods of practice) tends to get undervalued in the indie game scene. But it's a mistake to undervalue "charm", too, imo... and you can't argue that corporate influences and "too many cooks" aren't a danger to that part of the equation.

[The Monster King]

THIS RETRO GAME IS SO GOOD

[JWK5]

I think sometimes with nostalgia it is a matter of being able to break through the surface of a game and learning its inner workings.

Back in the NES days I didn't tend to have a lot of options when it came to choosing a game to play, I just played what was bought for me (which happened pretty infrequently). When I did get a new game I pretty much played it to death, no matter how bad it was, because at least it was something new.

One game that is still one of my favorites to this day is Wizards & Warriors 2: Ironsword. It is not technically a great game, it was actually a very frustrating game at first (especially the way shit constantly flies at you from all angles), but once I got used to its flaws and figured out ways around them and developed a feel for the game it became a lot of fun (and the awesome music and the colorful graphics really grow on you).

I think like any art sometimes the "nostalgia" factor isn't so much about looking back on something with rose tinted lenses as it is having seen something worthwhile beneath its surface that struck a chord with you personally.

[DavidCaruso]

I played Pokemon White. It was ok.

I remember back when Pokemon had charm, soul and heart...now look at the corporate carbon-copy faux-pocket monster designs we're getting today... ;______; *a single leaf drops from a tree and falls to the ground slowly, moving slightly in the cool breeze*

Even though charm and soul and heart and "magical" are abused in the nostalgic way you're suggesting, I do think such a thing exists... a quality that is a little subjective and hard to describe. Sometimes you do compare two works where one is maybe superior on a technical level but is lacking in personal style, exaggeration, imagination, recklessness, etc.

I just mentally replace those words with "stylized [usually cartoony]/goofy visuals" when I see them. Seems to work 95% of the time, at least. (Which I guess is essentially what you're saying.)

[Blademasterbobo]

I was replying to cynicalsandel. Playing Pokemon White wasn't the same as playing the old Pokemon games; I didn't feel the same "sense of wonder." This is because I am no longer 8 years old. Pokemon White was... ok.

[Derek]

I just mentally replace those words with "stylized [usually cartoony]/goofy visuals" when I see them. Seems to work 95% of the time, at least. (Which I guess is essentially what you're saying.)

No, it's more like the difference between one of icycalm's posts and one of yours. I'll let you figure out which one is more charming.

[C.A. Sinner]

i enjoyed pokemon as a kid in the 90s because of the "social" aspect (talking about the game with friends, trading pokemanz etc). it was cool be part of a huge phenomenon like that. the games themselves have always been pretty humdrum jrpgs imo.

anyway, regarding quality standards: i think there's a more uniform quality standard for videogames now than there was in the past (at least as far as mid to high budget commercial gams are concerned). this means there are fewer outright terrible games but also fewer exceptionally great (or just exceptional) ones. i feel there are more competent but boring games "these" days. speaking as someone who generally keeps up with new game releases and plays mostly "modern" games here.

[Alevice]

I never enjoyed pokemon.

[DavidCaruso]

No, it's more like the difference between one of icycalm's posts and one of yours. I'll let you figure out which one is more charming.

See there you go, I have a cartoony David Caruso muppet head next to my posts and he has a photorealistically rendered next-gen digital image of a kid playing with toys. The definition works again!

[Richard Kain]

i feel there are more competent but boring games "these" days. speaking as someone who generally keeps up with new game releases and plays mostly "modern" games here.

There are very obvious reasons for these observations. The video game industry has a lot more money and effort invested in it these days. This is why more games seem competent, and it's much more rare to see complete train-wrecks. This is also why the volume of games released has increased to its current fire-hose rate.

As to why games may seem more boring? Same reason. The video game industry is a victim of its own success. When a game is developed by a small team, it is much easier for it to retain a sense of personality. The creative contributions of individuals are much more evident, and the game overall stands a better chance of maintaining a consistent tone. When a game is produced by multiple teams of hundreds of people, individual expression and creative vision are diluted. Creative direction is relegated to committee, and the personality that once permeated the development process is lost. Avoiding this in a business as large as modern game development is extremely problematic.

This is part of the reason why there has been a modern shift back towards independent development. Modern indie developers get to combine many of the advantages of smaller-scale development with the technological advantages available today.

[vinheim3]

Obligatory TVTropes page

this

how was this topic not started by 1982

also this

I never enjoyed pokemon.

not this (jk)


we're nostalgic because new gimmicks or combination of game elements were exploited to the max in the past. We were given a sandbox with which to toy around and mess with these gimmicks, and perfect our understanding and exploitation of game elements. This way, we can be the first few to create the "best character" or "best game" or just continue to toy around with the gimmicks for fun or to show off some skill

nowadays, gimmicks and game elements are getting old, and people who come up with fun, new gimmicks aren't exploiting it to the max

with the recent decline in the number of quality games this year, it's only a matter of time before we move onto the next phase of making games, which I'm hoping is user-created content:

- Games where you make the levels (Minecraft, Terraria),
- Games that come with a level editor (Jumper 2, DRoD) and the more exploitable type,
- Games that allow you to remake old games with no rom hacking skills (Zelda Classic and hopefully at some point, Fire Emblem and Dragon Warrior Monsters, etc)

...I call dibs on Fire Emblem editor

[Rm88~]

Which "gamers" are we talking about here? Because the smart ones play whatever interests them from any time period regardless of whether they played it as a kid, just like the smart movie, novel, or painting fans. (They also realize that some of the best games ever made are still coming out despite what nostalgia-wankers might tell you, and that something has to necessarily be lost in any artistic evolution whether anyone likes it or not.)

You know, since I enjoy classic gaming a lot (but including games I didn't play back in the day, even games older than me) I tend to believe there's some nostalgia involved. But then, I also play newer games and I find them just as "favorite game ever" candidate worthy as old games.

And favorite genres play a big role. I'm just not into shooters and most WRPGs, so I feel somewhat left out by not being able to enjoy a lot of "must play masterpieces" of this generation. Man, why did Western games take over? Can't complain, though, we still get plenty of fighters, platformers, JRPGs, etc.

Oh, and as someone who enjoys Pokémon games for what they are, modern Pokémon = old Pokémon. Soul? Charm? Gen 1 had some really basic or downright bad designs.

[shig]

we're nostalgic because new gimmicks or combination of game elements were exploited to the max in the past. We were given a sandbox with which to toy around and mess with these gimmicks, and perfect our understanding and exploitation of game elements. This way, we can be the first few to create the "best character" or "best game" or just continue to toy around with the gimmicks for fun or to show off some skill

nowadays, gimmicks and game elements are getting old, and people who come up with fun, new gimmicks aren't exploiting it to the max

if I told you that all these words i just quoted mean basically nothing would you think i'm insane