Article: Kids Can't Handle Old-School RPGs Anymore

[mobiusclimber]

Wow, this is just pages full of FPS and fighting game talk in an topic about old school RPGs. LOL. (Yeah yeah I know how the subject got here, but still.)

As for the article, I think the prof is missing something important here. He seems to realize no one is reading the manual and thinking that that's some bad thing. That doesn't mean no one is going to draw a map or anything, and I'm not even sure how he came to that conclusion. Thing is, yeah, I've played games were you had to read the manual, but I've also played plenty of games were I'd wished I hadn't read the manual first. Nowadays I think a lot of games don't even bother w/ manuals, but some of the older games would have drawings (or worse, screenshots) of monsters from different places in the game. Some would even spoil events in the game w/ screenshots. I kinda just stopped looking at manuals. Oh, or they'd have character bios for people who'd join your team way late in the game. Don't show me that shit! So yeah I can't say I blame anyone for not reading the manual.

And for a game like Ultima, seriously, time has not been kind to it. Look at how people act about the first Dragon Warrior, and that game is fuckin EASY. "Wha? i have to go into the menu to walk down the STAIRS?! Fuck this game!" But you at least HAD a menu. You didn't have to type your commands and hope the computer understood what you said. I don't think this has anything to do with not having instant gratification or not having a training level or anything like that. The game is just not a "jump in and play" kinda game, and I think we've all become used to that. If you've played nothing but console games, you probably almost invariably have had nothing but that. It's one of the things I really LIKE about playing console games. I can count on one hand the number of games I've tried playing where I couldn't figure out something that was written about in the manual. (Ghost Lion on the NES being one.) It isn't about having my hand held b/c trust me, the Wizardry games don't hold your hand. Ever. I just don't want stuff spoiled and I want to pick a game up and have fun with it, not study for a test. I do realize some games take longer to get good and take awhile for you to get the feel for them, but it's not some big surprise that anyone today would pick up a game like Ultima IV and be pretty lost playing it. Hell people were lost playing it back in the day, after reading the manual!

[Breetai]

There are lots of reasons most of the retro games send you back at the beginning when you fail. One of them is these games have thin content, this creates an illusion that the game is robust because you keep on going back again and again.

I'd say it has quite a lot more to do with arcades than "thin content." Just what are you comparing retro games to?

[mobiusclimber]

That's the other thing I wanted to bring up. A lot of old school games have ridiculous difficulty b/c they either started life in the arcades or they're following the pattern of arcade games, where the goal from the developer's standpoint is "waste as many quarters as possible." I think a great example of this is Altered Beast. If you have the Sega Collection on 360 or PS3, you can play both the arcade and the console version. See how much more brutal the arcade version is. Games now are more toned down and the difficulty tends to slowly ramp up while the game itself is longer. This is BETTER game design, imo, but it's like that b/c the game is meant to be played over a weekend or a week, rather than in one sitting while you plug quarters into a machine.

[Vita Mayo]

There are lots of reasons most of the retro games send you back at the beginning when you fail. One of them is these games have thin content, this creates an illusion that the game is robust because you keep on going back again and again.

I'd say it has quite a lot more to do with arcades than "thin content." Just what are you comparing retro games to?

Ok, "thin" may be a negative term, I say limited. But this is more often a compromise because of the technology back then, instead the devs were able to push the gameplay to stand on its own. For example, Legend of Kage in the NES, it's a damn good game, but you know that the game has "thin content" because the levels are just recycling with little added variety.

Of course, the coin-munching nature of the arcade has a lot to do with this, but let's not pretend that the recycling of levels does not happen more than before than it is today.

[theclaw]

There are lots of reasons most of the retro games send you back at the beginning when you fail. One of them is these games have thin content, this creates an illusion that the game is robust because you keep on going back again and again.

I'd say it has quite a lot more to do with arcades than "thin content." Just what are you comparing retro games to?

Ok, "thin" may be a negative term, I say limited. But this is more often a compromise because of the technology back then, instead the devs were able to push the gameplay to stand on its own. For example, Legend of Kage in the NES, it's a damn good game, but you know that the game has "thin content" because the levels are just recycling with little added variety.

Of course, the coin-munching nature of the arcade has a lot to do with this, but let's not pretend that the recycling of levels does not happen more than before than it is today.

Hence why I, as an admittedly unfair sweeping generalization, prefer eastern design over western (as if my avatar didn't make that clear already). I'd gladly take small vibrant worlds with simple mechanics and straightforward goals, over the gritty-looking obtuse open world approach. I don't even like the type of fantasy aesthetic used by series like Dungeons & Dragons or Harry Potter anyway.

[garrett123]

I think controlls have definetley changed, using motion controlls, and the interent also make new rpgs possibly easier compared to old ones.