What do the old games have that the new games don't?

[Flake]

I'll beat the same dead horse as everyone else - I miss turning the game on and playing. I can't STAND having to sit through a mandatory hour long tutorial or a half hour cutscene testimonial to how the games designers wish they were movie makers.

If I can't learn everything I need about the game by just PLAYING the game, then the designers have failed. I didn't need Mario to explain to me geopolitics and biology in the mushroom kingdom and things turned out just fine.

[corn619]

I think it partly has to do with not having 100s of people involved with making the game. If you have say 5 to 10 people making a game vs 500, the 12 person game will be a more focused and personalized vision of the games creator most of the time. Perfect example of this is Mega Man 2. It was made by only a few people with no corporate direction at all. And it stands to this day as the best Mega Man game ever made, and one of the greatest games of all time. Even today lots of these indie games like Braid are filled with the imagination of only a few and it shows in the gaming experience. And a earlier poster said it best when he said old games have soul.

[renardqueenston]

Perfect example of this is Mega Man 2. It was made by only a few people with no corporate direction at all. And it stands to this day as the best Mega Man game ever made, and one of the greatest games of all time.

i would argue that 5 and 6 are the best Mega Man games (i can feel that 2 was rushed out of the door in 2 months, i can feeeeel the lack of balance), but 2 is definitely the most popular and made the name big in the home. the entire original series was done by very small groups of people, and it goes to show in that each game has an interestingly specific art direction.

to chime in, though, yeah, the small teams are definitely a part of it. as corn619 mentioned, look at indie games nowadays, or hey, even Scott Pilgrim vs The World. the core dev team was pretty small, and it turned out to have spirit and soul that a lot of other titles lack.

[Erik_Twice]

I don't think that the question should be "what do old games have that new don't?". It's simply that most good old games are still good today and have not been superated.

I mean, the experience you get with X-COM or Megaman has not been replicated or beaten. What do "old movies" have that "new ones" don't? The question is not really as meaningful as it seems, it's too broad and hard to define.


However the "movie-like" trend is quite horrible. Cutscenes are ungame like in the same vein that narration tends to be bad in films. Also, focusing so much in having a story only tains the gameplay with horrible writting and predictable plots full of clichés.

I mean, no RPG I have seen has a good plot. Some have good characters or very good settings but no RPG I have seen has had a very good plot. It seems that they are capped at averangish. Good but not really remarkable.

[corn619]

Perfect example of this is Mega Man 2. It was made by only a few people with no corporate direction at all. And it stands to this day as the best Mega Man game ever made, and one of the greatest games of all time.

i would argue that 5 and 6 are the best Mega Man games (i can feel that 2 was rushed out of the door in 2 months, i can feeeeel the lack of balance), but 2 is definitely the most popular and made the name big in the home.

Are you being sarcastic? I'm not busting chops, its just your the first person I've ever heard say this. For myself by the time 5 & 6 rolled out back in the day, the whole formula was starting to feel tired. Between the lack of innovative gameplay, bosses and weapons it was just feeling old. Then there was the music, uninspired and just generic. I can still hum all the music in my head from 1, 2 & 3. The rest of the sequels just sound generic and sad. For myself 2 & 3 had the perfect set of bosses, music and interesting levels. And in 1988 those graphics & music just rocked. By the time 5 & 6 came out, it just looked old and used up. Especially when I was just starting to rock my SNES.

[renardqueenston]

Perfect example of this is Mega Man 2. It was made by only a few people with no corporate direction at all. And it stands to this day as the best Mega Man game ever made, and one of the greatest games of all time.

i would argue that 5 and 6 are the best Mega Man games (i can feel that 2 was rushed out of the door in 2 months, i can feeeeel the lack of balance), but 2 is definitely the most popular and made the name big in the home.

Are you being sarcastic? I'm not busting chops, its just your the first person I've ever heard say this. For myself by the time 5 & 6 rolled out back in the day, the whole formula was starting to feel tired. Between the lack of innovative gameplay, bosses and weapons it was just feeling old. Then there was the music, uninspired and just generic. I can still hum all the music in my head from 1, 2 & 3. The rest of the sequels just sound generic and sad. For myself 2 & 3 had the perfect set of bosses, music and interesting levels. And in 1988 those graphics & music just rocked. By the time 5 & 6 came out, it just looked old and used up. Especially when I was just starting to rock my SNES.

not being sarcastic at all. even though the formula may have been "getting old", those were the games that perfected it.

i personally thought that the robot masters from 1-3 didn't pack as much of a visual punch as the 4-6 robot masters. they may have been outrageous and goofy, but in a really great, memorable way.

since music is my forte, i just have to point out that i'd like to think that saying megaman 4-6 have "uninspired soundtracks" would say something about understanding music in general and how it's applied to the work it's written for. the proto man castle theme from mega man 5? charge man's theme? dust man's theme? tomahawk man? the soundtracks from 4-6 had the perfect balance of enough impact to be in an action-platformer, and really nailed the feeling of each stage. megaman 1-3 have music that could be swapped around pretty much any which way and it wouldn't seem terribly out of place. as simple and catchy as 1-3 are, that is all they have going for them. i'm not calling them bad, just not as good.

[corn619]

Interesting, I thought 4 was good but the rest didn't really wow me like 2 & 3. Maybe I'll have to pop in my Mega Man Collection disc and reevaluate them. I am definitely disagree about the music though. Try playing Heatman's stage using Bubbleman's music or vice versa, enough said. I though the music was suited to the levels perfectly, and was fast paced and catchy just like the gameplay.

The later games music just didn't make me want to play the level and kick ass. I thought theming the music exactly to the levels in the later sequels was part of the games problem. To my ears, while it did fit the stage, it sounded uninspired to me and didn't really hype me up to play the stage.

When I first heard say, Heatman's or Sparkman's stage music it got my blood pumping and wanting to kick ass. Thats cool though, you like the later sequels for certain reasons and I like the earlier sequels for certain reasons. To each their own I say. I would suck if everyones tastes were the same. I suddenly feel the urge to go on a Mega Man bender Bye Bye!

[Balasubbie]

I've been reading/hearing stories from parents of the next generation of gamers, the kids , and alot of them have begun to rebel against the newer stuff, and stick their flags down around the likes of Nintendo's older stuff or Sega's console catalogue. I think in this generation's rush to be more adult orientated, revolutionary, complex and chic has done nothing but alienate tomorrow's players, who after all enjoy nothing more but simplicity. Which is weird, for years I've relegated the notion of a preference for older games to be the practice of twenty-something, men-children who've opted out of evolution and opted into blind nostalgia, but what to make of this? I don't know. Quelle anomalous. Interesting times lay ahead, methinks.

[Gamerforlife]

I don't think that the question should be "what do old games have that new don't?". It's simply that most good old games are still good today and have not been superated.

I mean, the experience you get with X-COM or Megaman has not been replicated or beaten. What do "old movies" have that "new ones" don't? The question is not really as meaningful as it seems, it's too broad and hard to define.


However the "movie-like" trend is quite horrible. Cutscenes are ungame like in the same vein that narration tends to be bad in films. Also, focusing so much in having a story only tains the gameplay with horrible writting and predictable plots full of clichés.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang made great use of narration

I do think there is a problem with games trying to be movie-like though. One thing that always bothers me is that people think simply making a game have lots of fancy cutscenes makes it like a movie, which is such a limited and narrow minded view. I always use Uncharted 2 as an example. The fact that my character can run around and absorb bullets like a robot is in no way, shape or form movie-like. Why is it that when someone gets shot in a cutscene, it's a big deal, just like in a movie? Yet once gameplay kicks in, oh now we're in video game land again where bullets have the same effect as getting hit with a pellet gun. I'd love to watch Hard Boiled again and see Chow Young Fat get riddled with bullets and then just casually walk over to a white box hanging on a wall with a red cross on it and then tell his buddy, "okay, I'm fine. Ready to get shot another twelve times"

Being "movie-like" is a concept that doesn't work in most video games. Frankly, as long as games are still being games they will NEVER be movie-like, because the unrealistic rules that they play by make that impossible. Sometimes, you just have to laugh at how silly games are in how little they mimick reality, which is why I love this David Chappelle sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W35fhitGIl4

[BogusMeatFactory]

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang made great use of narration

I do think there is a problem with games trying to be movie-like though. One thing that always bothers me is that people think simply making a game have lots of fancy cutscenes makes it like a movie, which is such a limited and narrow minded view. I always use Uncharted 2 as an example. The fact that my character can run around and absorb bullets like a robot is in no way, shape or form movie-like. Why is it that when someone gets shot in a cutscene, it's a big deal, just like in a movie? Yet once gameplay kicks in, oh now we're in video game land again where bullets have the same effect as getting hit with a pellet gun. I'd love to watch Hard Boiled again and see Chow Young Fat get riddled with bullets and then just casually walk over to a white box hanging on a wall with a red cross on it and then tell his buddy, "okay, I'm fine. Ready to get shot another twelve times"

Being "movie-like" is a concept that doesn't work in most video games. Frankly, as long as games are still being games they will NEVER be movie-like, because the unrealistic rules that they play by make that impossible. Sometimes, you just have to laugh at how silly games are in how little they mimick reality, which is why I love this David Chappelle sketch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W35fhitGIl4

I don't think games are in any way trying to become movie like. If you consider what makes a movie good, it's pacing, character development and the like, there is almost no comparison. The closest argument you can have would be a game like Heavy Rain, or the classic drama point and click adventure games like the Gabriel Knight Series.

What many games are trying to do is development their own style of "Blockbuster," by providing adrenaline fueled, special effect ridden competitive driven experiences. Take a look at a popular game like Call of Duty. Sure the single player experience has a story and it develops that story at, what gamers consider, a normal pace. Watch a modern war movie, something like Hurt Locker, Jar Head, or go to the classic wars like Full Metal Jacket, Saving Private Ryan and the like and try to compare...you can't. New games now are trying to become flashy, grab your attention. I'm getting off topic.


What do the old game's have that the new games do not? Nothing. Each try to give the character challenges, goals and obstacles for players to overcome. Many classic games had simple visions, while others provided more complicated concepts. Look at King's Quest 3. Made in 1986 and had the player be aware of time, traverse a expansive land using a map to understand location. Not to mention a book of spells, items to collect and utilize those spells in a puzzle atmosphere all the while trying to tell a story.

Take a look at Combat for the Atari 2600. Made in 1977 and the goal of the game was defeat the other player in competition. You had various modes of play, there was strategy involved and there was the multi-player aspect.

We talk about games not being as FLASHY as modern games, but you look back at those classic games and reflect without the context of when it was released. At that time it BLEW people's minds away. Sure there were many games that were more difficult, but with that there were also games that told stories, that intrigued players, focused on character development and tried to do things that were very different than other games around it just like there are today.

You had the interactive fiction genre/text-based adventure games. You had stealth games like the original Castle Wolfenstein. There are games that exist in the days of old that are still fun today because the game, in essence is a great game. It is still fun to play because the people who developed it made it properly.