Why do we still play retro games?

[BoneSnapDeez]

Nostalgia is certainly a factor, but I do believe that older games (my favorite console is the SNES) are objectively better.

I just hate so many things about today's current generation of video games: terrible controls (dual joysticks/half-assed motion controls), abysmal writing and plotlines, hours and hours of padding, cut scenes, DRM, downloadable content you have to pay for, the endless amount of shitty remakes and sequels, load times, the proliferation of crappy American army man games, etc.

Most of the modern games I play remind me of older games (ie: Radiant Historia).

I guess an easy to sum up my feelings about retro vs. modern would be:
Retro: Japanese games made for nerds
Modern: American games made for fratboys

[Balasubbie]

Nostalgia is certainly a factor, but I do believe that older games (my favorite console is the SNES) are objectively better.

I just hate so many things about today's current generation of video games: terrible controls (dual joysticks/half-assed motion controls), abysmal writing and plotlines, hours and hours of padding, cut scenes, DRM, downloadable content you have to pay for, the endless amount of shitty remakes and sequels, load times, the proliferation of crappy American army man games, etc.

Most of the modern games I play remind me of older games (ie: Radiant Historia).

I guess an easy to sum up my feelings about retro vs. modern would be:
Retro: Japanese games made for nerds
Modern: American games made for fratboys

I agree with you a lot. I'd add that I'm tired of unreliable hardware, having to be logged into a paid online account to avail of games I've downloaded and bought. There's also genre bubbles where the corporations get behind a certain handful of similar titles that are in vogue, which is understandable as it's business, but thus leaving little incentive for smaller-to-mid range foreign and indigenous developers/publishers to bring their stuff
to certain systems and regions.Obviously leaving the industry with a permanent sense of stagnation and monotony, a problem that has mushroomed this generation. Then there's the trite matters of DLC, which in fairness, initially, was a good way for a company to make a buck off a game long after its release window and still provide more good reasons to play a game, but how the practice has fallen victim to greed and cynicism so quickly is positively stupefying.

I turn and I look to just even just last gen, and there's hundreds upon hundreds of games spread across platforms that I've never experienced, available relatively cheaply, mostly and will provide enough hours of entertainment that I'll be fine 'til I've only cockroaches for company. It's a decision that makes itself, more often than not.

[Key-Glyph]

I retro game because:
I like the graphical style of old games. They don't focus on realism.
Some of my favorite genres don't have a ton of new releases.
I like to collect.
I enjoy older technology.
I want to play titles that were important to video game history.
It's cheap. I can get 6 wonderful older games for less than $20.

Dude, that was perfect.

Thanks for writing my own post for me.

[Key-Glyph]

I just finished reading through all of these posts and I just wanted to say it was fascinating. Thanks to all those involved, particularly flamepanther and isiolia.

[BoringSupreez]

I guess an easy to sum up my feelings about retro vs. modern would be:
Retro: Japanese games made for nerds
Modern: American games made for fratboys

Are you saying Japanese devs > American devs? Because that, as a sweeping statement, is simply not true. I think they are equal, all things considered.

[DreamcastDude]

I think he meant more like who the devs are targeting more than which is better

[isiolia]

I think he meant more like who the devs are targeting more than which is better

I don't think it's accurate either way.

Retro games include PC games, for which Japanese developers are relatively sparse, just as western devs were on consoles.

Modern games are incredibly varied, still include more niche titles, and are (as always) trying to make a profit. IMO, the "for frat boys" type thing is more a reflection of the state of the gamer, not of gaming.

[BoneSnapDeez]

In the 80s/90s the most popular and bestselling games (Mario, Zelda, Mega Man, Final Fantasy) were phenomenal and worth playing. Today, the most popular and bestselling games (CoD, Halo, GTA, Gears of War, etc) are effing terrible and I generally have to look around for obscure titles to find something worth playing. I call it the Xboxification of gaming, crappy over-hyped American games are being pushed to the forefront.

I think it's a paradigm shift that has occurred in tandem with peoples' perceptions of gaming. When I was a kid, I was mocked for playing video games, it was a "nerdy" habit for kids who couldn't play sports, get girls, etc. Today I work with middle schoolers and see kids made fun of if they DON'T own at least a couple of current-gen consoles.

[isiolia]

In the 80s/90s the most popular and bestselling games (Mario, Zelda, Mega Man, Final Fantasy) were phenomenal and worth playing. Today, the most popular and bestselling games (CoD, Halo, GTA, Gears of War, etc) are effing terrible and I generally have to look around for obscure titles to find something worth playing. I call it the Xboxification of gaming, crappy over-hyped American games are being pushed to the forefront.

I think it's a paradigm shift that has occurred in tandem with peoples' perceptions of gaming. When I was a kid, I was mocked for playing video games, it was a "nerdy" habit for kids who couldn't play sports, get girls, etc. Today I work with middle schoolers and see kids made fun of if they DON'T own at least a couple of current-gen consoles.

Thing is, that's all subjective. That's why I say, it's the gamer, not gaming.

I was never mocked for playing video games growing up. At all. Ever. Pretty much everyone I knew had some sort of console, computer, or both. I moved around a fair bit, and games were always a common ground with other kids.

I agree, there's a shift in the general perception of gaming. To me, it's due to having more and more people that have just grown up with them. A parent who has fond memories of their NES will probably be not only more willing to buy their kids a Wii, but more likely to play it with them - unlike, say, my parents, who barely play any games, but also didn't grow up with them (technically, Ataris and all were around, but neither of them owned one).

Consider other mediums though - TV/movies, music, books, whatever. The tastes of one generation don't necessarily translate to another. That doesn't necessarily make them better or worse, just different.
The large differences in what's technically feasible now versus what hardware was capable of a decade or two ago only separates games further.

The presentation may be towards the humorous, but the recent Cracked article about being too old for gaming is relevant. I'd say a similar thing: as you grow up, your tastes, priorities, outlook, and so on change. New games (or music, movies, etc) essentially doing the same things that old ones did aren't perceived the same way.

Big name titles today aren't bad. Word of mouth, thanks to the internet, is more powerful than ever. If the games weren't truly entertaining and fun to massive amounts of people, they simply wouldn't sell, and developers would make something else or get out of games entirely.
Given that they're selling millions of copies to people who are apparently having lots of fun (which is the point, after all), it'd be unfair to dismiss them just because they don't appeal to your tastes. Doubly so when you consider that your tastes will probably change over time (I know mine have).

[flamepanther]

I guess an easy to sum up my feelings about retro vs. modern would be:
Retro: Japanese games made for nerds
Modern: American games made for fratboys

Are you saying Japanese devs > American devs? Because that, as a sweeping statement, is simply not true. I think they are equal, all things considered.

Well, as far as current gen console games, I think it's a generalization thats's more true than not, compared to a couple of generations ago.

Where I disagree with it is the generalization about retro games. We shouldn't forget that "retro" includes all of the great classic contributions of Western developers, especially prior to the Nintendo era. Atari and Williams deserve a lot of recognition for a great era of American game development, and games of a sort we no longer tend to associate with Western developers. Early Japanese developers like Nintendo, Sega, and especially Taito and Namco learned the fundamentals of great arcade gameplay from these American developers during this era.