Why do we still play retro games?

[D.D.D.]

Albeit Nintendo typically makes/publishes my favorite games, I somehow doubt that their focus in the 80s or 90s (or now) was for anything but making profit. It just happened to be that they have a helluva designer, great software teams and we ended up with quality games.

Nintendo is absolutely a cutthroat company. Not sure how they can be construed any other way.

Never intended to sound any other way. I stand by what I said in terms of their quality that they produce but like any other company out there, profit is the goal.

[flamepanther]

No disagreement that profit was always the goal. However, there's a world of difference between "cut-throat and for profit" and "cut-throat and merely for profit"...

Business practices in the industry have always been brutal, but apart from the Great Crash, the design and development process almost always used to be about creative people doing what they loved. The attitude about making the games used to be that making something fun that the designers wanted to make would lead to a marketable product. Now the first thought is "what's selling right now? We need to make one of those." without regard to whether the product will be fun or interesting, or whether it's what the developers really want to be making.

[isiolia]

Never intended to sound any other way. I stand by what I said in terms of their quality that they produce but like any other company out there, profit is the goal.

Yeah, I didn't really mean to imply you didn't say that. More that I was agreeing with you in the sense that there's really no question that their goal is, and has always been profit.

Business practices in the industry have always been brutal, but apart from the Great Crash, the design and development process almost always used to be about creative people doing what they loved. The attitude about making the games used to be that making something fun that the designers wanted to make would lead to a marketable product. Now the first thought is "what's selling right now? We need to make one of those." without regard to whether the product will be fun or interesting, or whether it's what the developers really want to be making.

I think of it more as there almost always being both. You can find knock-off games in basically every generation. It's come up in similar discussions before...how much of, say, the SNES library consists of cash-in fighting games, middling licensed titles, and so on? The games most of us remember the console for are really in the minority within the over 700 titles released on it (in the US anyway).

The biggest change is probably the gap between a small release and a big budget one. If you don't have tens of millions of dollars to pump into art assets and the like, your game -probably- won't be able to compare to an HD AAA title in terms of graphics/sound/etc.

That aside, however, the situation is probably better than ever for being able to bring a creative vision to life and get it in the hands of gamers. The tools are better and more available. The internet means you can hook up with like-minded people, get help, get news out, put your game there for purchase/download, etc. Plus it's not even just for PCs (to mean personal computer in general) - every current console, and every smartphone/tablet platform has an app store of sorts too.

As a result, there's really an incredible variety of games being released. I think the problem is more likely a combination of volume, and the prevalence of information thanks to the internet.
A game is simply less special when it's only one of several well-crafted AAA titles to come out this week/month, and has already been dissected online.

[D.D.D.]

No disagreement that profit was always the goal. However, there's a world of difference between "cut-throat and for profit" and "cut-throat and merely for profit"...

So you really see a difference between Nintendo and Sony? I mean sure, when Yamauchi was at the helm he did some whack Japanese-style "business tactics" but now with him out, I dunno. I don't really see a difference between N & S except for the content that comes out for the respected systems.

Business practices in the industry have always been brutal, but apart from the Great Crash, the design and development process almost always used to be about creative people doing what they loved. The attitude about making the games used to be that making something fun that the designers wanted to make would lead to a marketable product. Now the first thought is "what's selling right now? We need to make one of those." without regard to whether the product will be fun or interesting, or whether it's what the developers really want to be making.

Yeah good point... sucks cuz it's true.

Never intended to sound any other way. I stand by what I said in terms of their quality that they produce but like any other company out there, profit is the goal.

Yeah, I didn't really mean to imply you didn't say that. More that I was agreeing with you in the sense that there's really no question that their goal is, and has always been profit.

Ah gotcha. Yeah for as much as I enjoy playing Nintendo games, I always find the N-fanboys mindset interesting; like they only want to make games, just for us.

[flamepanther]

I think of it more as there almost always being both. You can find knock-off games in basically every generation. It's come up in similar discussions before...how much of, say, the SNES library consists of cash-in fighting games, middling licensed titles, and so on? The games most of us remember the console for are really in the minority within the over 700 titles released on it (in the US anyway).

I'm not saying there weren't cash-in games back then, either. However, at that time, it wasn't left to tiny developers or low-budget titles to bring something new to the field. The major players in the industry used to contribute to that arena. Again, consider the recent direction of Capcom. Back in the SNES era, they certainly were aleady releasing Mega Man games and Street Fighter II revisions quite frequently--but interspersed were Demon's Crest, Slammasters, Magic Sword, U. N. Squadron, and Breath of Fire. Even the never-ending stream of Mega Man games was pure quality, with visible love poured into it, and people still complained about the monotony of it because there was so much variety to be found elsewhere in the industry. Compare that attitude to the gaming public that now clamors for an endless stream loveless of COD and Medal of Honor games churned out mechanically every year. In that environment, a company like Activision couldn't even hope to be a dominant player in the industry. Not so now.

When Nintendo is in charge, companies do chafe and complain some. They also certainly don't like competing with Nintendo's first-party gems. At the same time, I think it's fairly easy to see that Nintendo inspires developers to excellence. When was the last time Sony inspired a "Capcom 5"?

So you really see a difference between Nintendo and Sony? I mean sure, when Yamauchi was at the helm he did some whack Japanese-style "business tactics" but now with him out, I dunno. I don't really see a difference between N & S except for the content that comes out for the respected systems.

I do, but even that's not the real problem. What Sony does now is just like the other developers and publishers that are still following in the direction set by Sony during the PS1 era. The problem is what they did then, and that damage is already done.

[D.D.D.]

So you really see a difference between Nintendo and Sony? I mean sure, when Yamauchi was at the helm he did some whack Japanese-style "business tactics" but now with him out, I dunno. I don't really see a difference between N & S except for the content that comes out for the respected systems.

I do, but even that's not the real problem. What Sony does now is just like the other developers and publishers that are still following in the direction set by Sony during the PS1 era. The problem is what they did then, and that damage is already done.

What's your beef with PS1-era Sony? Cuz they pushed for 3D only? Or...?

[flamepanther]

What's your beef with PS1-era Sony? Cuz they pushed for 3D only? Or...?

I see that as a problem, but that's not what I'm complaining about here--although it might be partially related. The problem was you had a company that didn't know or care about games promoting an image and a technology, rather than a culture of fun games as Nintendo and Sega had each been doing in their own ways. It didn't matter whether a game was good if it appealed to the "mature" new audience of fratboy gamers. It didn't matter that a game was clumsy or boring, as long as it showed off the hardware's better features. Their marketing created an audience that will pay $60 for a bland game. That much I can attribute to ignorance or indifference.

It was knowingly, however, that they encouraged games to be more like Hollywood movies, and I think that accounts for more than half of what's wrong with the industry today. Contrast that with Nintendo, whose choice of storage mediums consistently restricts a developer's ability to abuse the medium and substitute videos in place of gameplay. Sega would likely be doing the same if they still could (e.g. GD-ROM instead of DVD).

[isiolia]

Again, consider the recent direction of Capcom. Back in the SNES era, they certainly were aleady releasing Mega Man games and Street Fighter II revisions quite frequently--but interspersed were Demon's Crest, Slammasters, Magic Sword, U. N. Squadron, and Breath of Fire. Even the never-ending stream of Mega Man games was pure quality, with visible love poured into it, and people still complained[/u] about the monotony of it because there was so much variety to be found elsewhere in the industry. Compare that attitude to the gaming public that now clamors for an endless stream loveless of COD and Medal of Honor games churned out mechanically every year. In that environment, a company like Activision couldn't even hope to be a dominant player in the industry. Not so now.

Part of that, again, is the problem with comparing a generation (or more) of console highlights with what's on the shelf this month or year. Maybe Dragon's Dogma will be good? You have things like Lost Planet and Dead Rising that were new IPs. They published Okami, Ace Attorney (and now Ghost Trick) games.

Even then, their success with things like SFIV is a mixed one. On the one hand, stuff they're doing with DLC, pumping out revisions, etc is annoying. On the other, they had a rather large hand in reviving 2D fighting games as a mainstream genre.

In 10 years, if you look back at the entire life of the Wii/360/PS3, I'm sure you'll be able to pull a few games out that break the trend, just like you can with the SNES era.

The problem was you had a company that didn't know or care about games promoting an image and a technology, rather than a culture of fun games as Nintendo and Sega had each been doing in their own ways.

The same Nintendo that prohibited releases of games on both the NES and TG16, and would have been partnered with Sony if not for backing out of the SNES-CD contract?

The same Sega that pumped out accessory after accessory to put FMV into games or otherwise push specs, that continually promoted a contrary image to Nintendo? Sega does what Nintendon't. Like play Make my Video with Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch.

The Playstation launched with, predominately, arcade titles, or things similar to them. Ridge Racer, Battle Arena Toshinden, Mortal Kombat 3. The FMV flood had already started with the Sega CD, 3DO, PC games, etc.
The space they had to work with on CDs did certainly influence the kind of cutscenes that were put in...but games were doing that before the Playstation.

[flamepanther]

Part of that, again, is the problem with comparing a generation (or more) of console highlights with what's on the shelf this month or year. Maybe Dragon's Dogma will be good? You have things like Lost Planet and Dead Rising that were new IPs. They published Okami, Ace Attorney (and now Ghost Trick) games.

Look more closely. I only included Capcom's SNES games. Adding in their arcade games and titles from other platforms during the same generation would yield a much longer list. In your counter example, I see at least three platforms and two generations of consoles.

Even then, their success with things like SFIV is a mixed one. On the one hand, stuff they're doing with DLC, pumping out revisions, etc is annoying. On the other, they had a rather large hand in reviving 2D fighting games as a mainstream genre.

They have, and I applaud it.. but it's an exceptional gem in their recent history--which has not been so good as it used to be.

In 10 years, if you look back at the entire life of the Wii/360/PS3, I'm sure you'll be able to pull a few games out that break the trend, just like you can with the SNES era.

I can already look back at the PS2 and it doesn't look so good compared to the SNES.

The same Nintendo that prohibited releases of games on both the NES and TG16, and would have been partnered with Sony if not for backing out of the SNES-CD contract?

The same. Those practices, while worthy of criticism, have nothing to do with what sort of games they promoted to the public or encouraged their licensees to make. The very reason they broke things off with Sony was Sony's desire to take control of the publishing side fo things.

The same Sega that pumped out accessory after accessory to put FMV into games or otherwise push specs, that continually promoted a contrary image to Nintendo? Sega does what Nintendon't. Like play Make my Video with Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch.

Failed experiments. The Saturn and the Dreamcast could have continued that abysmal direction, but Sega and other publishers had clearly learned their lesson. Besides, the problem isn't merely too much FMV, it's the very idea that games should be like movies.

The Playstation launched with, predominately, arcade titles, or things similar to them. Ridge Racer, Battle Arena Toshinden, Mortal Kombat 3. The FMV flood had already started with the Sega CD, 3DO, PC games, etc.
The space they had to work with on CDs did certainly influence the kind of cutscenes that were put in...but games were doing that before the Playstation.

It isn't just the capacity. Sony has for a long time wanted games to be a more movie-like experience. While the early titles were indeed arcade-like, I suspect that's due to a large degree to the fact that these take less time to develop--and Sony's PS1 desperately needed to have a library early on or be doomed to failure like other newcomers. From the beginning, Ken Kutaragi was always promising to make games more like movies--and for all intents and purposes, he was the PlayStation.

[isiolia]

Look more closely. I only included Capcom's SNES games. Adding in their arcade games and titles from other platforms during the same generation would yield a much longer list. In your counter example, I see at least three platforms and two generations of consoles.

True, but development cycles are also longer now, along with more publishing options. It's probably more likely now that a studio that wants to do something else will take their chances elsewhere.

It isn't just the capacity. Sony has for a long time wanted games to be a more movie-like experience. While the early titles were indeed arcade-like, I suspect that's due to a large degree to the fact that these take less time to develop--and Sony's PS1 desperately needed to have a library early on or be doomed to failure like other newcomers. From the beginning, Ken Kutaragi was always promising to make games more like movies--and for all intents and purposes, he was the PlayStation.

I would still point out the simple fact that the industry in general was pushing that direction at the time. For Sony to say that they wanted games to be more like movies would simply tie straight in with marketing at the time. The "interactive narrative" thing was popular (such as it was) before the PSX.

If anything, the PSX returned more to gameplay compared to the multimedia "experience" of things like the 3DO or CDi. Air/Ace Combat, Twisted Metal, Warhawk, Wipeout, Tomb Raider, their port of DOOM, etc. FMV cutscenes? Often. But basically anything on any disc-based system had them at the time, and PC games had for years prior.