Author Topic: Are games losing their quality?  (Read 4273 times)

« on: June 19, 2000, 05:46:00 PM »
I rented a Dreamcast, a 128 bit system, and invited a freind over. Instead of playing any of those games, we ended up playing NES and SNES games the whole time (after a quick tria run). Instead of running in a 128 bit three dimensional platformer, we were playing Chip N Dale for the NES. Instead of battling gigantic bosses, we were battling the endless waves of foot soldiers. Is it just me, or are games losing their quality? They just don't seem to have the "umph" they used to way back when.
First of all, don't go bashing Sega, and espcialy not Chip N Dale. What do you think about this? Have you experinced this too?

Kweeh! Forget Whark! Kweeh! Is better!
Kweeh! Kweeh! Yes, Kweeh forever!

« Reply #1 on: June 20, 2000, 05:39:10 AM »
Yeah, it happened to me too.
 I was playing with my cousins on the playstation. We playied "Crush Bandicoot". They said to me:"god, this game is sucks, wheres the old SNES?" and I answered:"he's in my room come'on. We went to my room and  playied S
Ori Porath

« Reply #2 on: June 20, 2000, 05:40:10 AM »
continue message:
and we playied Super Mario All stars for 5 hours. It was fun! I agree with you, some games are losing their quality.
Ori Porath

« Reply #3 on: June 20, 2000, 02:24:31 PM »
What was I thinking when I posted this? (Refers to previous message)

Edited by - Yoshi2 on 7/1/00 10:53:51 AM

« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2000, 12:43:59 PM »
How can you people bash Paper Mario before you've even PLAYED it!!



« Reply #5 on: June 21, 2000, 12:54:36 PM »
Mmmn... I agree as well. I could sit hours and hours, maybe even days~[ok, maybe not THAT long...] without food or water, contentally playing SMRPG, or SMW, and even duck hunt--[if I still had it :( ] Whereas now, if I were to sit down and, Banjo Kazooie [great game, don't go bashing on it or me after I say this] I would probably only play for about 2 hours or less before I either;
a) got a headach
b) got so fusterated that I am loseing or can't figure something out[and that rarely happens ;) ]
c) or if it just got so boring...

I'm just making a small theory here, but I think it's because nintendo, sony and other gaming companies have spoiled gamers so much with beutiful, lush 3d graphics, that either Nintedo/Sony/ect... got weak in the area of replay in games, or that the companies are simply striving to make a better *looking* game than it actually is, so it will sell better... Anyway, thouse are just my thoughts~ ;)


« Reply #6 on: June 21, 2000, 01:47:37 PM »
Yeah, I agree. They need to focus on the gameplay and replay before they jump into graphics. I once went to a website for SNES enthusiasts that said the graphics don't really matter to a degree.. the gameplay counts. Then in the mailbox section this kid argued with the webmaster that gameplay didn't matter at all.. it's graphics that count. I sort of believe this is what is happening to these companies today.. they invest in the population with big eyes.

Oh.. and DarKnight13 and all of you.. I'm not hammering Paper Mario _that_ much! I was merely throwing in a contrast element.


« Reply #7 on: June 21, 2000, 03:23:41 PM »
Yeah, that's true. They invest so many on graphics that they are forgetting that the gameplay is the most important thing in the game itself! for example: SM64 is amazing! the graphics are incredible! it's also so fun to play but.... I wouldn't call it a Mario game.. I mean... It's not like SMW,SMB... It's so different. I'd say I want the old style
Ori Porath

« Reply #8 on: June 21, 2000, 03:41:23 PM »
Yoshi2: Well I don't think you can really say or imply that Paper Mario of a lower quality until you've played it or /at least/ until it's released.

Anyways... I've lost hope for Nintendo 64. I don't own one and I like some of the games (Perfect Dark, Winback, Mario Party) but I wouldn't go out and buy one just for those games. They lack the fun that previous games had. I think Nintendo made a mistake in thinking that 3D always had the upper hand on 2D, which is very very wrong. I don't like Super Mario 64 because I think it's too complicated for a Mario game. In older Mario games, the control is much more simpler and fun to play with. I don't think I'm making sense right now, but I'm sure you can figure out what I'm saying.


« Reply #9 on: June 21, 2000, 06:09:36 PM »
Yes, I apologize. What I think is the SNES is an example of a good blend of graphics and gameplay. What I also think is most Nintendo 64 games are a good example of graphics going too far and gameplay being tied to a 10-ton weight. Here's what I think - it's Ok to make 3D games, just give us classic gamers some good 2D once in a while. And don't be shy about spending a while on a game! Sheesh! I'd rather wait a year or two for a classic Mario game than 3 months for some over-rated short and sour 3D game. Keep in mind more are coming out all the time! Right now, our only source of good classic gaming is the Game Boy.


« Reply #10 on: June 21, 2000, 06:35:14 PM »
Graphics aren't everything, you need substance, too.  "Crash Bandicoot: Warped" may be light years more advanced than "Super Mario Bros. 3," but who's better in the long run?  It's the same with movies.  "The Phantom Menace" has several times the budget and special effects technology of the original "Star Wars," but "A New Hope" is still superior.  
Mega 2
Cybernetic Abiogenesis Project

« Reply #11 on: June 21, 2000, 08:51:59 PM »
I agree they are losing there quality.  The supernes had the best RPGs I prefer final fantesy 3(japan # 6) over final fantasy 7.  And when my friends come over to the house they always start out playing playstation and N 64.  Then they say wheres all your nes games so I get em all out and we play nes for the rest of the day.  Usally TMNT3 and a few other titles.
Of course the NES was always my favorite and always will be but N64 and playstation just don't seem that good.  

« Reply #12 on: June 23, 2000, 12:08:40 AM »
I play many kinds of games.  From Pokémon to Mario to Perfect Dark.  I always look for fun in a game and never let graphics get into the way.  Even on the day before Pokémon Stadium gets released, I felt like it to pass the time, I grabbed SMB3 and played each of the world instead of warping.  I actually enjoy it.  Even though I play 3D systems, I still enjoyed playing the classics.  I played RE2 and had fun scaring my pants off I don't even notice the blood (I only look at blood to see if they're dead).  You know, I really hate when gamers care more about graphics than gameplay.  One time when I was at school, someone mention that the SNES sucks because it's not a 3D system and he said that graphics is more important and fun is second important.  I say, "It's fun first then graphics in most important."  I met someone that say, "I don't actually care about graphics" and mention games like Contra 3.  This is probably why N64 Pokémon games were disappointing and the GB Pokémon games weren't to Pokémon fans.  Less quality (even though I see PKMN Snap as the only disappointing PKMN game.  PKMN Stadium wasn't.  But it was still fun printing sticker picture out of the PKMN shots).  And my favorite Final Fantasy game is Final Fantasy 6.  It has storyline, fun, and a superb battle that makes FF6 a great RPG and there is no need for those [Dr. Evil Quotation Finger]Amazing graphics and FMVs[/Dr. Evil Quotation Finger].  I even heard a friend say that FF6 has lame graphics.  Also playing the original NES Excitebike through Excitebike 64, I finish a race and another friend laughed at the graphics.

It's like the saying "Don't Judge a book by a cover."  You, "Don't Judge a game by its graphics."  I saw quality in PKMN and most are only taking it as some fad (and I'm not).  They need to put in more quality in these games.  Perfect Dark is fun but I don't let blood and graphics get into my way of fun.  Even if I have 3D systems, I still look for fun in a game.  Remember, "Graphics Smaphics!  Play a video game for fun!"

Ralph Wiggium:  What''''s a battle?
Superintendant Chawmer (I can''''t spell so sue me!):  Did that kid say what''''s a battle?
Skinner:  No he said what''''s that rattle!  The air conditioning!

Villians aren''''t always hated.  Team Rocket of Pokémon is one example of loved villians.  Just because a character is evil doesn''''t mean he or she don''''t have any fans.

Pokémon and Mario both rule!

Edited by - TeamRocketAsh on 6/22/00 11:26:26 PM
Ralph Wiggium:  What''s a battle?
Superintendant Chawmer (I can''t spell so sue me!):  Did that kid say what''s a battle?
Skinner:  No he said what''s that rattle!  The air conditioning!

Villians aren''t always hated.  Team Rocket of Pokémon is one example of loved villians.  Just because a character is evil doesn''t mean he or she don''t have any fans.

Pokémon and Mario both rule!

« Reply #13 on: June 23, 2000, 08:42:20 AM »
I think that whether games are losing their
quality or not is relative.  We grew up with
Mario and are used to that type of game.
Games are changing.  Personally, I like the
older games better too.

« Reply #14 on: June 24, 2000, 11:13:56 AM »
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has experienced this.

Kweeh! Forget Whark! Kweeh! Is better!
Kweeh! Kweeh! Yes, Kweeh forever!

« Reply #15 on: June 24, 2000, 06:26:52 PM »
I definitely agree that games are going down in quality.  The graphics look great, but usually the storyline is copied/boring/nonexistent.  I believe that the SNES is the best, most well rounded system of all time, with the Sega Genesis a close second.

I guess the only ones at blame for this downfall in game quality is us- the consumers.  If we buy poorly designed games, that is exactly what we will get.  Try to rent a game before you buy, and if it isn't any good, vote with your wallet and don't buy the game.

I dunno... I am actually gravitating more and more toward retrogaming myself.  It is much cheaper, and (surprisingly enough) it is just as much fun.
Someone set up us the bomb!

« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2000, 11:23:28 AM »
Another important aspect to consider, especially in platform-action games, is the toughness factor. In the olden days, you had to be aware of every second you played, scanning the border of the screen for enemies, exactly calculating that long jump, or you had to restart all the way to the beginning.
Nowadays, it seems more like exploring or collecting games, where we search every nook and cranny of every level to find these darn stars, puzzle pieces, golden bananas or other collectibles. And for you game designers, searching can and does get boring rather quickly.
DK64 is a prime example: you cannot, under any circumstances, be Game Over. Never. You have unlimited lives. Not that it's that tough: enemies are few and far between, and easily disposed of. And the greatest danger to all platform players isn't there anymore: holes. There are NO holes in DK64! How do you get less platformy than that?
To increase the difficulty, game designers should just do the Mega Man trick: it's alright to have a strong hero with lots of powers, but put matching enemies with high intelligence and firepower (not a weak hero and even weaker enemies!). And with many modern 3D platformers, this is too often neglected. Ooh, we can't do the levels too tough, everybody must be able to easily finish the game, they think. And when you get bored, you just save and you can return later.
Which brings another aspect of the downfall of quality: the ability to save.
Now, before I get flooded with angry mobs of players, let me tell that I'm not 100% against saving the game, especially for long games. I'm just against the ability to save anywhere. When you can save anywhere, you never play the same level twice, and believe it or not, re-playing some levels over and over trying not to get killed is what creates nostalgia, more often than not. What there should be is a system where you can only save at critical points of the game. This would bring together the benefits of both saving-everywhere and never-saving games.
This was the system that was the most common among Super Nes RPGs, and it worked very well. Game designers should extend this concept not only to RPGs but to the other genres as well.
Before I start to sound a bit too 100% pure retro-gamer, let me tell that a 3D game can be fun, but it has to be more intense. Intensity is what separates, in the end, the fun games from the boring ones. When you will actually be afraid of some enemies, or be overwhelmed in sheer numbers, and finally triumph after many tries and deaths, only to discover that there's even tougher ones just waiting for you around the next corner, that will be when 3D action-platformers will really shine. I hope that designers abandon a bit their collect-em-all mentality and start thinking about what was fun in the old games.

Whew, that was long.


« Reply #17 on: July 03, 2000, 08:19:18 PM »
ok i really doubt that any one is goona agree with me but i think one of the best systems is the atari 2600 now i know i'm gettin' off the topic but the games were just fun i mean they were really fun but the graphics stunk. think of frogger that was fun (don't know if any anyone else thinks that) and THEN they came with frogger for psx i thought it would bee REALLY cool ...well maybe not REALLY cool..(graphics came in) then i played it.... let's just leave it there...
so after sayin' all of this yes they ARE stinkin' up games.....  
stop your grinnin'' and drop your linen!

« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2000, 08:49:19 PM »
Never played Atari 2600 but wanted too.  Mines broken.  But I do like Colecovision alot and its like Atari.  I also like NES alot.

« Reply #19 on: July 04, 2000, 07:14:24 AM »
Unlike anyone else I never felt that games are losing their quality. Nintendo games almost always rule, no matter which system they're on. I look for games that are fun and challenging and I care little about the graphics. It's true that I play N64 alot, but that's only because Playstation games aren't as good, I don't have Dreamcast, and sadly, my Snes broke down for some reason.