Your journey into retro games?

[oxymoron]

It would be ridiculous to have a 8/16-bit games be 6+ hours as they didn't have save capability back then.

The first time I played Rygar it took me 6 hours because I didn't have a manual with the borrowed cart. Ok, I was grounded too and kept jumping up to check the window every time a car went by in case it was my mother coming home since I wasn't supposed to be playing games.

Either way he's wrong.

[Menegrothx]

It would be ridiculous to have a 8/16-bit games be 6+ hours as they didn't have save capability back then. Personally, It's about the quality of the game, not the quantity of length in it. I don't want to play a bunch of filler.

retro games for the most part have a much higher cost/hours of gameplay ratio than modern games

I never claimed them to be better, just that you're getting more content and length for your money, even if it's less enjoyable and more poorly designed.

Either way he's wrong.

Spoken like a true expert after collecting retro games for 1½ months

The first time I played Rygar it took me 6 hours because I didn't have a manual with the borrowed cart. Ok, I was grounded too and kept jumping up to check the window every time a car went by in case it was my mother coming home since I wasn't supposed to be playing games.

Obscure puzzle design and bad conveyance (a term coined by the game design pro Egoraptor ) certainly give many earlier retro games "artificial" length (it's less artificial than grinding and fetch quests in my opinion), but chances are that most people will look that stuff up from the internet nowadays, dramatically reducing the length of those games.

[KDub]

I grew up with them.

[TheGregzilla]

Its not really more length for your money when you think about it. If I spend 60 dollars on a PS3 game that takes me 10 hours to complete, but say I didnt love it, say I just thought it was ok--Then I'll probably never wanna replay through the whole game again. Thats 60 dollars= 10 hours of a modern game.

In the same instance, I can pick up some retro games for 5 bucks, that I have easily put hundreds of hours in-- Shorter games tend to have higher replay value.

[Menegrothx]

You can get those PS3 games used too. And most of good NES, SNES, Genesis, PS1, DC etc games are more costly, the games you can find for cheap tend to be bad, often so bad/mediocre that you wont likely finish them unless you dont have that much games to play and you're bored.

The replay thing is definitely true with retro games though. Modern games have achievements and online to compensate, but I'd rather replay a good game than do artificial goals (collect useless collectibles that are scattered through the levels) or play poorly designed online games that will die as soon as it's unprofitable to support the servers.

[KDub]

Are you sure you're on the right forum?

:p But anyway I don't feel like the ratio is really all that different for the most part. Even if it might be you have other factors in retro game collecting. Also you don't have to do it as a collector and in that case even with paying you can get them in digital formats for super cheap.

[isiolia]

Its not really more length for your money when you think about it. If I spend 60 dollars on a PS3 game that takes me 10 hours to complete, but say I didnt love it, say I just thought it was ok--Then I'll probably never wanna replay through the whole game again. Thats 60 dollars= 10 hours of a modern game.

In the same instance, I can pick up some retro games for 5 bucks, that I have easily put hundreds of hours in-- Shorter games tend to have higher replay value.

It's more content for your money. Most modern games have enough that it actually takes 8-12 hours (or sometimes a lot more) just to progress through all of it. You're seeing environments once, hearing a track of music once, and so on. Stuff that took a lot of work to create.

An older titles that takes 45 minutes to run through might result in a player putting in the same kind of time, or more, by replaying it over and over...but objectively speaking you're getting a lot less game for your money.

Different players will get more or less value out of those purchases, of course. There's no guarantee that someone will put a PS3 game aside after one playthrough, nor is it a given that someone will play a retro title more than once.


Far as the original topic goes...um...back in the 80s, my aunt and uncle bought a Mac, and gave my family their old Apple IIe. We had Defender, and Frogger, and stuff like that. That's how I started playing video games in general at least. I've never made a real point to play retro games or not.

[ApolloBoy]

It would be ridiculous to have a 8/16-bit games be 6+ hours as they didn't have save capability back then.

Uhhh what

[Gunstar Green]

It would be ridiculous to have a 8/16-bit games be 6+ hours as they didn't have save capability back then. Personally, It's about the quality of the game, not the quantity of length in it. I don't want to play a bunch of filler.

You know passwords and battery backups existed, right?

Even still there were a lot of games that were brutally long without saves. I've done a lot of overnight pausing in my time.

[oxymoron]

@Menegrothx

Why are you trying to justify that modern games are better?