Theory

[icycalm]

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/retro/

I am going to reply here to a commonly encountered "criticism" about this article. The idea is that the postscript at the end is wrong...

PS. The UK magazine Retro Gamer must surely be the stupidest-titled videogame magazine ever. Because the games it covers are in no way, shape or form "retro" -- they are simply old for fuck's sake! -- for a game to qualify as retro it must be contemporary! I mean, for the love of Christ, there's absolutely nothing retro about stuff like Gradius!

... because the magazine is called Retro Gamer not Retro Games. I.e. the games it covers are not the ones which are supposed to be retro -- the word 'retro' is supposed to refer to the people playing them.

This is all pure humbug invented after the magazine's editors read my article, in a pathetic attempt to cover their stupidity. The proof is in the magazine itself. Again and again -- AND AGAIN -- they call games like Gradius "retro" while largely ignoring the REAL retro games such as DUX, or Yuusha no Kuse ni Namaiki Da or whatever. And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they apply the retro label to stuff like modern STGs or fighting games -- which are of course not retro.

And even if we accept that the concept of the "Retro Gamer" as someone who plays old games is a valid one, and that the magazine specializes in simply covering OLD GAMES (as opposed to old-style games, meaning retro) that still doesn't explain how games like, say, Geometry Wars: Retro Evolved 2, which is reviewed in the latest issue, are given coverage. Geometry Wars 2 is not old, after all -- it's clearly new and truly retro, so yeah.

Nice try, retro boys, but no cigar.

[icycalm]

The Future of Gaming

I'll now take the time to give you my personal outlook on the future of the videogame industry. Many people are saying that Sony will have a monopoly and we'll all be damned to play shitty games by 989 Studios, but I don't see that happening. If you'll look around, there's been a sudden wave of "nostalgic", for lack of a better word, games coming out. Just look for the Gameboy Color, we have an updated Bionic Commando, and Blaster Master and Crystalis games coming out. On Playstation and N64 we have Namco Museum games, along with a few knockoffs like Konami Arcade Classics, and these games are doing quite well. I don't think this trend will end anytime soon. Just when big budget polygonal games have almost taken complete hold, it's with a sigh of relief that I welcome this new trend, even if it isn't quite as good as playing the games on the NES. People are finally waking up and realizing that most of the games today suck, and so the market calls for games they know are good.

Getting back to the subject at hand, we all saw how the Dreamcast was accepted: with mediocre excitement in the beginning which has slowed down to a trickle. Before it came out, the gaming media was ecstatic, then... they saw what it was, just a means for more sub-par 3D platformers and a few good sports and fighting games. When this gets old, people begin to look around for better games, so either the 3D games will get better, or the companies will remake classic games, and since making a top-quality 3D platformer is a tough task which takes years of programming, gobbling up as many classic game liscenses as it possibly can will more likely be the option that the game companies go for.

In a couple years when the Nintendo Dolphin is launched, officially marking the complete mainstream takeover of the next generation systems, I don't think much will have changed. What can you possibly do for a game that hasn't already been done? Nothing much, better graphics, that's about it. It's all been done, there is no other demension to conquer. When creativity amongst games reaches it's brim, things will stagnate. The industry will no longer progress but rather regress. Some people are yapping about the next generation consoles may possibly have enemies with no set patterns but they control themselves, and that will be the next big breakthrough - bullshit. That will accomplish nothing except having smarter enemies, nothing special. The only thing that may save gaming is the online frontier. Playing games over the net may never get old.

That's about all the time I have now for this brain dropping, but I may add onto it later.

http://deathspork.flyingomelette.com/ga ... eview.html

Somewhat prophetic article circa 2000. Emphasis is mine.

[Bradford]

Who are the people sustaining the market for these old games, anyway? Is it people who are being fooled by their nostalgia, or am I unusual in that I find that ten year old games that I played to death the first time are unable to hold my interest, and I've realized that therefore spending money to play them again is a waste?

For example, a couple of years ago, I was all fired up to play a bunch of SNES roms that I got. About two hours into Chrono Trigger I was bored out of my mind (having loved the game and played enough to see at least 5 or 6 of the 11 or so endings when the game came out in 1995-96). On the other hand, one of the only re-releases I've purchased is Castlevania: Symphony of the Night on XBLA, because I never played it the first time - and it was great. Then again, I never played more than the demo for Duke Nukem when it was first out, but I have no interest at all in playing it now now when I could be playing COD4 instead.

And the Japanese especially seem to have an obsession with purchasing pointlessly updated versions of things they already own (see Pokemon and the DS), so maybe that plays into it. I read a comic somewhere - might have been penny-arcade - about the announcement of the Wii virtual console:
"I can't wait to buy Zelda!"
"Which one?"
"All of them, over and over again!"

[zinger]

"Playing a game to death"; a metaphor for playing a game until you've reached a point where you feel that your progression isn't enjoyable anymore, right? Spending more money on it in that case sounds like it's a waste, yes!

Anyway, the two games you gave as examples, though they certainly have their qualities, are flawed as hell. Chrono Trigger is simple and boring and Duke Nukem 3D's cool and humorous interactivity features often worked against the action and strategy aspects of the game (which seem fairly limited as well). Regardless of that, the best way of trying to understand how games have developed is by playing them. All the good ones, all the bad ones, all of them. And this should interest everbody, since it increases your understanding for games in general. And in addition to that, what's wrong with satisfying your nostalgia?

The availiablity of some games is pretty limited, so in those few cases I have nothing against reissues. I'd rather play them on their original system though, naturally.

PS. DN3D also has nudity!

[Magnum Apex]

Regardless of that, the best way of trying to understand how games have developed is by playing them. All the good ones, all the bad ones, all of them. And this should interest everbody, since it increases your understanding for games in general.

If we're being realistic, one should focus on the genre or genres that most interests them, and then play all videogames of said genre as much as possible.

It would be cool to see a gaming publication that reviews videogames to form such a practice. Hire individuals that have a strong interest and experience playing a particular genre until every genre is well represented in the staff, and then require each to play any games from that genre, old and new. Of course, this is assuming the staff can also think critically and write their thoughts clearly.

Game developers would also benefit from this process when making a game (ideally, the entire team on the project, but that's a tough challenge), but there's a problem with the industry believing that playing a game halfway, and only a couple of times, is enough to understand what's good or bad about it. It's like saying playing a few rounds of Super Street Fighter II Turbo and completing the single-player mode is enough to know what the game has to offer. This could be the cause of why some games don't evolve their genre.

[icycalm]

At least we can agree hardcore gamer is an awful term. Ever heard of a hardcore reader? Just another rubbish term, like "retro".

I'm a hardcore reader, and this book is over 5 years old so i'm retro-reading.

http://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php?s= ... &p=6030408

[icycalm]

adonis is me (my icycalm account was banned circa '09), strider is one of Retro Gamer's editors, if not indeed the chief editor.

http://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php?/t ... p__8466872

So does Retro Gamer stand for "Retrogressive Gamer", or is it meant to imply that you cover only retrogressive games? Do you cover any real retro games at all? (i.e. contemporary games designed with retro-modeled mechanics)

Also, do you think that Crime and Punishment is a retro novel? Or Mozart retro music? Citizen Kane a retro movie?

Perhaps you should publish an article clearing that up in the 100th issue. I think that after close to a decade of this bullshit it might be time you addressed your magazine's astonishingly retarded title.

Failing that denial will do just fine too, I guess.

I wish you had told me all this a month ago. We'd have had time to change the magazine especially for you. Oh well, back to being rubbish. And to think you could have actually made a difference if you told us all this 8 years ago when the magazine first started. You weren't a Spectrum fan were you?

Hey strider, that retort is much better than the flat-out denial I was expecting. You are not as bad as the other uneducated, uncultured aspies, so carry on with my blessings.