Author Topic: Gaming's Changed (Read 7065 times)

I_Chuck_Veggies · « **Reply #15 on:** February 04, 2003, 07:55:57 AM »

no, i just have no life

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #16 on:** February 04, 2003, 08:57:26 PM »

No, because I have no life either, so you must be better than me.

I write poetry when I`m not looking.

Watoad · « **Reply #17 on:** February 05, 2003, 01:45:34 AM »

Do I have a life, then? Hmmmmmm, let's see . . . . my name is Watoad. Nope, I don't have one, either. So you can feel better now.

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #18 on:** February 05, 2003, 08:57:20 PM »

Hmm... I don't know what to type.

I write poetry when I`m not looking.

HurlyGloves · « **Reply #19 on:** February 05, 2003, 11:16:24 PM »

At risk of sounding like I just rehashed the general consensus, here's my two cents...

I agree with the original claim that gaming has indeed changed. We all know that 8-bit systems certainly did not offer top-of-the-line graphics, but it was due to the limitations of the system that game designers put so much effort in creating situations that were more and more "impossible" for gamers, to give them a challenge that kept them coming back. They knew there really wasn't any other draw.

Fast forward to the SNES. Wow, quite an improvement in graphics. Still a bit archaic by our current standards, but seemingly incredible at the time compared to NES. We still saw emergence of good games, but combined with visual draw, things became a bit more enjoyable. Granted, 4 buttons (not counting the d-pad or start/select) made it possible to pull more things off due to the increase in potential functions as opposed to the creative timing needed with 2 buttons, but environments changed to create more challenges.

Fast forward again to N64. Here is where we see a drastic drop in challenge past getting used to the abnormally shaped controller. Graphics were awesome, but without substantial gameplay difficulty, you get flops. What used to be an objective of drawing the player back for replay with challenge and graphics was now primarily graphics, and the more intensive console races made it worse. I'm not saying that N64 didn't have good games (Ocarina, Majora, PD, SSB) but the challenge was certainly gone from most of the games.

GC is still in more infant stages, so we can't make any real analysis until it's age is over.

Overall, I am disappointed with the priority of graphics over gameplay, but that doesn't mean that gameplay has taken that far back a seat with the latest games. I think that we've just been experiencing a time of experimentation and misguided attempts to lure consumers, but it will end soon.

King Boo · « **Reply #20 on:** February 05, 2003, 11:20:08 PM »

HurlyGloves,are you Atticus?Because at the start of his/her posts they say "heres my two cents..."

Do you know when we die,we''ll be boos too?

redhat · « **Reply #21 on:** February 08, 2003, 03:21:02 PM »

Everyone loves Animal Crossing, and its graphics are terrible, or at least can be improved. Everyone likes it because of its gameplay, not its graphics.

Edited by - redhat on 2/8/2003 1:22:16 PM

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #22 on:** February 08, 2003, 08:49:44 PM »

Yeah, but the graphics aren't terrible. They wouldn't be terrible 1½ years ago.

I was just thinking, it seems to us, now, living in the 128-bit age, that the graphics didn't matter as much in the 80s, but then, I think about the whole Atari/Intellivision/ColecoVision graphics war...

I write poetry when I`m not looking.

Edited by - Chupperson Weird on 2/8/2003 6:51:07 PM

Mario Master · « **Reply #23 on:** February 09, 2003, 07:56:00 PM »

I think that the decline in challenge is not because of graphics, but because of rush to keep up with Playstation. Before they came around, you could play a game, beat it, and keep coming back for more! If you haven't noticed, all GCN games have that pathetic flop at the end and ending. That's because stupid PS2 released some new "blockbuster" and GCN is just trying to hang on. GCN is underdeveloped, like someone cracked the egg before the chick was ready. Shigeru Miyamoto just doesn't have it anymore. And neither does Mario. Mario has a annoying, high-pitched voice, all he does is save Peach from Bowser, and for what? A stupid half-effort ending and the credits roll. What Nintendo needs to do is team up with SquareSoft and Capcom again, 'cause some of their best games came from them. If you want a couple of examples for the cruddy ending thing, play Pikmin, Luigi's Mansion, Super Mario Sunshine (the ending is okay, but bowser's too easy), Super Mario 64, SMW, SMW2...

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #24 on:** February 09, 2003, 11:31:47 PM »

*shoots Mario Master*
...Uh, sorry about that. It was the first thing that came to mind. No offense or anything.

I write poetry when I`m not looking.

Mario Maniac · « **Reply #25 on:** February 12, 2003, 01:27:01 PM »

If your looking for a good game story, play an RPG. Platformers have never really had and emphasis on stories or endings. That's why most of them are simple run-and-jump-to-avoide/kill-the-enemies-and-collect-items-to-makle-yourself-more-powerful-and-try-to-make-it-to-the-end-of-the-stage type of setting...*whew!*

Mario Master · « **Reply #26 on:** February 13, 2003, 07:45:21 PM »

I agree with Mario Maniac. Super Mario RPG, Final Fantasy... all of them have really good stories and endings!

Chupperson Weird · « **Reply #27 on:** February 13, 2003, 10:12:06 PM »

Yeah, because that's half the point of that type of game!

I write poetry when I`m not looking.

HurlyGloves · « **Reply #28 on:** February 14, 2003, 04:57:57 PM »

I think Mario Master has a point when he says that Nintendo should team up again with Squaresoft and Capcom, because before their falling out, they were unstoppable together. As for Shigeru and Mario not having it anymore, I strongly disagree. Mario still has alot of potential games. They may not make the same impact, but he's still got leverage before it's time for him to hang up his overalls. Yes, most Mario games end up being the same, but if you look at it that way, then pretty much all games are the same. Final Fantasy games are just about leveling up, getting specific items for each person, and beating some random guy at the end who is supposed to be a universal evil to save the world. Megaman games are just killing robots, finding Dr. Wily, and defeating whatever final challenge he has for you. They seem alot less fun when you look at them like that and any Nintendo enthusiast will most likely tell you that there's more than that to them.

Oh, and Pink Boo King, no I am not Atticus.

Mario Master · « **Reply #29 on:** February 15, 2003, 12:36:55 PM »

Yeah you're right, I was just paranoid that day... Mario does still have a lot of potential. I was just a bit mad about Bowser being so easy to beat in SMS. And same thing in Luigi's Mansion. Overall though, they were pretty good games. Just a bit frustrating. That's why I was mad. You go through all the trouble of getting to the final boss, and then it turns out to be something like the SMS Bowser. Still, I took me a while to beat him. I was just surprised that there wasn't a second form of him. Anyway, Mario does still has lots of potential and Shigeru deserves credit for that. I just wish that Mario games were a little more... like Legend Of Zelda. No more Goombas or Koopa Troopas or other weird things. Just good, solid monsterage and some cool levels to go with it.