So apparently "Retro Games" suck..........

[Original_Name]

The retro games video is the same bullshit. He gets an argument no one is making and trounces it. That's it. But then people who actually identify as retro gamers and are not completely stupid might appear and take offense to that. The argument is practically designed to do that.

Of course it is, if it doesn't polarise then no one talks about it. yes he's ultimately being facetious but that's the point, it's a debate starter not a sermon. I think he's top class, he's nicely filled the hole left behind when 'Rev Rants' stopped.

...Anthony was an incredibly forward-thinking enthusiast of video games' potential to affect on deeper levels than we expect them to, and the potential ways which developers could go about realizing such moving experiences in games. He got gamers to to talk on a higher level about games than they were accustomed to, and was ultimately a great thing for the community at large. Jim just says a bunch of bullshit that even he probably doesn't believe 70% of the time so he can get cheap hits. I'm not impressed by a person's ability to get hits if he's just doing it by stirring up controversy and nothing else of worth... even if he gets twenty times as many hits as Anthony, that doesn't mean he's done an effective job of filling the hole left by Anthony's departure... they're different holes entirely. Hint: Jim's type of hole starts with an "A."

[Limewater]

...Anthony was an incredibly forward-thinking enthusiast of video games' potential to affect on deeper levels than we expect them to, and the potential ways which developers could go about realizing such moving experiences in games. He got gamers to to talk on a higher level about games than they were accustomed to, and was ultimately a great thing for the community at large. Jim just says a bunch of bullshit that even he probably doesn't believe 70% of the time so he can get cheap hits. I'm not impressed by a person's ability to get hits if he's just doing it by stirring up controversy and nothing else of worth... even if he gets twenty times as many hits as Anthony, that doesn't mean he's done an effective job of filling the hole left by Anthony's departure... they're different holes entirely. Hint: Jim's type of hole starts with an "A."

To continue with a little bit of positivity, I never really visited Destructoid and only stumbled upon the Rev Rants a couple of weeks ago after only recently discovering "Hey Ash Whatcha Playing." The Rev Rants videos really surprised me. They are definitely worth watching.

[joehero]

His point that games are better now than they were in the 80's is spot on. Ofcourse, theyre better. So is technology. Therefore, phones, tv's, movies, etc, are all better now. That doesnt mean, that for those of us who lived through these times, didnt feel that these games were great. It was the best that gaming companies had to offer, and we loved it. And today, a lot of those same gaming companies are making what he calls, the greatest games ever. And 25 years from now, todays games will be dated also, but we'll still love them.

And on a side note. Is there anyone on this retro gaming site that actually believes that the only good games are old games?

[J T]

What I like about this rant is that he tosses in a lot of reminders about the throw-away crappy games from the 80s and 90s that many of us forget because they were, well, forgettable. It's easy to think back on the games of old and only remember the ones we liked when we were young. This is just a basic thing about memory. We remember the good stuff, and conveniently forget a lot of the bad and almost all of the boring. This leaves us with a rosey impression of the past.

I agree with him that it's assanine to disregard the last 10 years of gaming. There have been some fantastic creations in the past decade and great games continue to come out today at a faster pace than I can keep up with.

That shit he said about Zelda 1 & 2 though... thems fightin' words!

[Erik_Twice]

His point that games are better now than they were in the 80's is spot on. Ofcourse, theyre better. So is technology. Therefore, phones, tv's, movies, etc, are all better now.

Being technologically more advanced doesn't lead to better quality, specially since most games benefit very little from them when they reach a certain point.

Megaman 2 would not benefit from new technology. Other than graphics and a better sound there's very little that can be done now that couldn't be done before.

I don't think movies are much better now than they were fifty years ago. Other than more "realistic" explosions there's nothing that couldn't be done and, in the end, special effects don't matter much as long as your suspension of disbelief is working.

[Ivo]

Being technologically more advanced doesn't lead to better quality, specially since most games benefit very little from them when they reach a certain point.

Megaman 2 would not benefit from new technology. Other than graphics and a better sound there's very little that can be done now that couldn't be done before.

I think we do not disagree but you are just not expressing yourself well here.
1. JUST being tech. more advanced does not imply better quality, yes.
2. Many games benefit little after a certain point of tech., yes (but little is more than nothing).
3. Megaman 2 would benefit a little from better graphics and sound, of saving between levels and other modern stuff like that.

All other things (gameplay, usually the most important) being the same*, better technology leads to a better game. If the art direction is good enough and a game is remade without changes to gameplay, the remade version is almost all the times "strictly better".

Of course there were crappy low tech games and good low tech games and there are crappy high tech games and good high tech games.

Ivo.

* Also, there were significant "advances" in terms of gameplay just because designers and developers have been perfecting that part as well. I think it is pretty short-sighted to ignore that there are now some decades of collective "experience" and knowledge about creating games and that designers and devs today did not benefit from what has been learnt during that time... It isn't just prettier graphics and nicer sounds and music.

[Erik_Twice]

I think we do not disagree but you are just not expressing yourself well here.

Yeah, I'm brain dead today. I rewrote the same thing two or three times before just giving up.

I agree with your post.

[MidnightRider]

Improvements in technology doesn't automatically mean improvements in quality. The potential to improve in quality, yes, but not an automatic improvement without a worthwhile effort.

When games were/are better is only an opinion one way or another. Pushing that opinion as fact is a surefire way to start a heated argument, which is obviously what this Sterling attempts to do in the first place.

Now, in my opinion:
Megaman 2 would not benefit from modern advances. The stages are maybe 5 minutes long at most, why would one need to save in between that? You have infinite attempts to keep going as well. Graphically, it could all be stick figures if it plays as well. Granted, that's myself as I am now talking, rather than the child I was been back when it came out. Back then, it was the best technology could offer, which is part of why it's remembered as it is. However, the success of the Wiiware Megaman games kinda kills the argument that the series would need better graphics, sounds, and modern advances.

To me, as a (mostly) retrogamer, the technical limitations are what grounded classic gaming in the realm of gaming, rather than becoming an "immersive experience." I would rather play the original Super Mario Bros. just going from right to left to reach the flag/axe, than running around Super Mario 64 trying to find stars. I couldn't be happier that New Super Mario Bros. exists. Modern advances in graphics and sounds, sure, but someone remembered what brought the series to the dance in the first place, and made good use of it.

I guess what I'm saying is, I'm a (mostly) retrogamer because I would rather play a pick up and play game, than be immersed in an epic storytelling experience, or not have to whittle away at making bits of saved progress, turning the hobby into, essentially, work, or turn almost every genre into a half adventure. If these things are what make gaming better today, then I'm sticking to the period when they "sucked!"

[Ivo]

A. Improvements in technology doesn't automatically mean improvements in quality. The potential to improve in quality, yes, but not an automatic improvement without a worthwhile effort.

B. Megaman 2 would not benefit from modern advances. The stages are maybe 5 minutes long at most, why would one need to save in between that? (...)

C. However, the success of the Wiiware Megaman games kinda kills the argument that the series would need better graphics, sounds, and modern advances.

D. I couldn't be happier that New Super Mario Bros. exists. Modern advances in graphics and sounds, sure, but someone remembered what brought the series to the dance in the first place, and made good use of it.

A. Agreed.

B. If you don't want to use it, fine. Personally (even when I want to replay a game from start to finish) it matters to me that I can stop and not "lose" a lot of progress if I want to stop playing (for whatever reason).

C. I'm not saying it "needs". I'm saying that with better graphics and sound it would be better, not that they need better graphics or sound to be good games. Now in this specific example of those new games in retro style, for what they were meant to be the old-style graphics were possibly the best choice, so "better" needs a context. But for example for the games in the series that came out on the Saturn, having old-style graphics would make those games worse (IMO at least).

D. Another great example. For most, that game is better having the graphics it has than if it had NES quality graphics. Same goes for All Stars, which is I think widely accepted as a remake that is strictly superior to their respective NES games.

I hope I'm being extremely clear now I also tend to prefer the type of gameplay of older games (tended to be simpler, and for me more fun). Due to technological advances the majority of games now are of a different type... But I really believe that if games of the "old" type are made today (and some are) with the appropriate amount of work put into them they can be better than the older games, because they would have better graphics, sound, and yes even gameplay (because there are new ideas and there are refinements on the old ideas as well).

Ivo.

[corn619]

Its really hard to take anything this guy says seriously anyway. I mean come on just look at him, hes a obese joke with aviators on. In some respects he does have a point. Games do look better and sound better. Looking better & sounding better doesn't make them better as a whole. Todays games playing better is purely based on the person playing the game. For instance, my wife loves the controls on SMB3 & SMW but hates the way Super Mario Galaxy controls. The problem with new games today is there is no more boundaries. A consoles limitations usually sparked innovation, creativity & imagination.