Opinion: Has the new generation been jilted?

[Salluz]

Edit: I missed out on some of the good stuff as a kid.

edit 2: Just look for The Coop's post and you will see my change of heart.

If you ask me, I would definitely say that today's kids are jilted. Unless you're talking GTA, Smash Brothers, or some well-marketed, A+ graphic video games, these kids don't "know wussup". (I am 18, so I am between the neophytes and the veteran gamers). Why do I say this? I have just played "Chrono Trigger" for the first time last night, and it actually had a point! Many RPG's are a simple knock-off of this game. I don't play RPG's very often, but I believe that Chrono Trigger is either one of the best RPG's, or the best RPG ever.

I see people from ages 9-13 pulling out their Nintendo DS's from their pockets (you could help me express my opinion, Mr. nintendo ds is trash). They think it resembles fortune, but I see it as a ripoff. Sonic Rush has nothing against the originals, except screen switches and extra moves. They tried to bring back the originality of Mario, but it just cannot happen. Those DS semi-3D adventures disgrace the savvy of the original Mario. After SM64, Mario's adventure games lost me. I haven't played Sonic's recent adventure games (yet), but the "Sonic Heroes" era was a sad, sad phase.

From what I see, this generation has it good with shooters, racing, fighting and sports games (let's not even talk about the lameness of NBA Live '95). Today's RPG's get by, but many of them are a bite off of the early titles. However, most of the adventure games fell off by the early-mid 2000's. If you disagree, play Mario 3 or SMW, and then play some DS garbage. Maybe you could play SMG (Galaxy)! If you play it for a second, you'll think, "Wow, Mario can fly inside of bubbles and do the spin attack!" Well, I can't judge SMG because I didn't play it long enough, but it was pretty stupid for starters.

My main point: I believe that 65% of today's games may look good on the shelf, and may have good graphics, but are not worth a dime. The other 35% are the games that respect their elders (correct me if my percentages aren't accurate). So, do me a favor: play an original Sonic, Mario, Zelda or Castlevania game. Perhaps play an original RPG, or one of those good old beat-em-up titles like Final Fight 3 and BTDD. Trust me, you will kneel before the Almighty and repent for lowering your standards.

[Nekofrog]

HEY YOU DAMN KIDS, GET OFF MY LAWN!.

But seriously, why are you bitching? If they're having fun with their games, let them have fun with their games. That's what gaming is about. What's fun to you is antiquated to them, just as what's fun to them is disingenuous to the originals to you.

[Dhsu]

This is a terrible thread. You've dishonored all the threads exactly like this that came before you, as well as the art of posting itself. You should be ashamed.

[Salluz]

But seriously, why are you bitching? If they're having fun with their games, let them have fun with their games. That's what gaming is about. What's fun to you is antiquated to them, just as what's fun to them is disingenuous to the originals to you.

Please don't take this seriously (why do I get the impression that I am being taken seriously when I shouldn't be?); I feel that in some areas, I missed out as a mid-gen gamer.

[prophetik music]

i was at my student teaching placement a little while ago, goofing around before a lesson with my 5th graders (trombone lesson, actually). i was noodling on the piano with the original mario theme - possibly the most well-known and recognizable game music theme in existance - and one of my kids turned and said, "hey, i recognize that! it's in super mario galaxy!" or something like that.

and my heart broke.

i hear you, ghettoflame. i hear you.

edit: hey, dhsu, don't be a dick. he's got a good point.

[Dhsu]

Well, if your complaint is that KIDS THESE DAYS are missing out because they haven't played the ZOMG CLASSICS, that's true. But who cares that they think the Mario theme is from SMG...in fact, that speaks to me how much it honors its roots by STILL having that ditty in full orchestra. And you can't get much more hardcore oldschool than huge pixel Mario in Super Paper Mario.

Ghettoflame's point, however, is that modern games can't hold up to old ones, which is retarded. He mentioned SMG and Sonic Rush, which are both fantastic games, while providing weak examples for why he doesn't like them as much. He went so far as to say ridiculous things like they "disrespect their elders," so I responded in kind by saying he dishonors all the threads people have posted saying the exact same thing.

So I repeat, this is a terrible thread, and you should be ashamed for posting it.

Edit: Play Cheetahmen II and tell me we've lowered our standards.

[Salluz]

But seriously, why are you bitching? If they're having fun with their games, let them have fun with their games. That's what gaming is about. What's fun to you is antiquated to them, just as what's fun to them is disingenuous to the originals to you.

It's not serious; I am just happy because I have been introduced to a classic (although I was about five or six when Chrono Trigger was released).

Well, if your complaint is that KIDS THESE DAYS are missing out because they haven't played the ZOMG CLASSICS, that's true. But who cares that they think the Mario theme is from SMG...in fact, that speaks to me how much it honors its roots by STILL having that ditty in full orchestra. And you can't get much more hardcore oldschool than huge pixel Mario in Super Paper Mario.

True, true, but let's not take this too seriously. This is comedy, man, comedy!

Ghettoflame's point, however, is that modern games can't hold up to old ones, which is retarded. He mentioned SMG and Sonic Rush, which are both fantastic games, while providing weak examples for why he doesn't like them as much.

My point was that many modern games aren't as good because they are more based on appeal than content.

It was an opinion, I will now say in humility. Sonic Rush wasn't that bad, but in my opinion, it wasn't that innovative. I had admitted that I couldn't judge SMG, so that solves that. This isn't PPR, so if you have a problem with me, then let me be.

Edit: Play Cheetahmen II and tell me we've lowered our standards.

I didn't say that every modern game was complete garbage. In fact, some of the new titles whoop the old ones, such as Prince of Persia (which is, once again, opinion).

So I repeat, this is a terrible thread, and you should be ashamed for posting it.

I would say something smart, but you're not worth the effort.

[Dhsu]

Sonic Rush wasn't that bad, but in my opinion, it wasn't that innovative.

We are talking about SONIC here. What was new in Sonic 2? One character. One move. Sonic 3? One character. One (useless) move. Nostalgia has made you blind, my friend.

I would say something smart, but you're not worth the effort.

A worthless thread deserves worthless replies. Wait, I mean THIS IS COMEDY, MAN, COMEDY.

[Rize]

You want a good RPG on the DS? Go play Etrian Odyssey (or the forthcoming sequel). That game will grow hairs on your chest.

And don't blame the changes to Castlevania on the DS, that's SotN's fault.

[Sir_NutS]

Epic fail, sorry. Been here since atari 2600 was the shit, and good games are still being made.

[Sobou]

You want a good RPG on the DS? Go play Etrian Odyssey (or the forthcoming sequel). That game will grow hairs on your chest.

But Etrian Odyssey wasn't good... It was a mindless, plotless, first person dungeon crawling wad of boring.

The only reason you'd grow hair on your chest is due to how long you'd spend actually trying to beat the monotony that Etrian Odyssey is.

[Binjovi]

Sonic Rush wasn't that bad, but in my opinion, it wasn't that innovative.

Dshu already made a valid point here, but I have my own to add as well. Sonic Rush's lack of innovation is what made it good. No, still not as good as the originals, but it was and is an awesome game. Every time Sonic Team has attempted to "innovate" with the series, it's lead to a disgrace. You're talking about the Sonic series going downhill recently, yet you use (quite possibly) the worst example game you could find. This makes me think you just wanted an excuse to complain about the DS.

[Salluz]

Dshu already made a valid point here, but I have my own to add as well. Sonic Rush's lack of innovation is what made it good. No, still not as good as the originals, but it was and is an awesome game. Every time Sonic Team has attempted to "innovate" with the series, it's lead to a disgrace. You're talking about the Sonic series going downhill recently, yet you use (quite possibly) the worst example game you could find. This makes me think you just wanted an excuse to complain about the DS.

Naw, not really, not really. I was just comparing new to old, and pointing out how the comparison between the two digs deep down towards the subject of innovation.

We are talking about SONIC here. What was new in Sonic 2? One character. One move. Sonic 3? One character. One (useless) move. Nostalgia has made you blind, my friend.

HAHAHA! Once again, let me enlighten you, my friend. You see, in many classics, the games had thrived because of their stories, along with the moves and actions of the characters.

There's something called a "vibe". We all are different, so we are all not going to respond the same way to different vibes. However, the vibe itself is supposed to captivate the gamer. Racing games have certain vibes, shooters have certain vibes, and the same goes with any other style.

I played Sonic Rush, and I saw a sad pattern. Specifically, this pattern is called "cheapness". If you play Sonic Adventure, you may notice some "cheapness", but you'll see more effort than cheapness. How can I prove this? If you play Emerald Coast, you'll see a combination of old things and new things (Sonic had his signature style, but still, innovation and effort took place. For example, new goals/objectives, more characters, new obstacles, new abilities, crappy things eliminated, good things made better, remixes of older ideas like Casinopolis' pinball game, etc).

In Sonic Rush, you were taken back to a Sonic 1/2/3 style: running around, bouncing off of stuff, same-ol'-same-ol', except now, there's a burning cat thrown into the equation. The two get dumb obstacles like being locked into rooms until they kill all of the enemies. The whole thing was just a fast-paced-zoom-a-zoom-watch-out-for-that-spike-I-mean-baddie-I-mean-cliff-grind-on-rail-boing-boing...

Hey, maybe it's time for me to "show the neophytes wussup". Maybe it's my turn; my time; my season.

A worthless thread deserves worthless replies. Wait, I mean THIS IS COMEDY, MAN, COMEDY.

[Laughs] Why do I get the impression that you are a cold, bitter person?

[Elex Synn]

Interesting thread to say the least...

I do understand what you're saying Ghettoflame. I had nearly cried when my best friends wife thought Ocarina of Time was the original Zelda back in the N64 days.

Granted the only reason I feel I agree with the original post is because it reminds me that I'm getting older, and NOT happy about it. I'm only 26 now and was 5 or so when the NES came out.

[friendlyHunter]

I might have said this before, but:

I don't think games are getting worse on average, it's just that the more popular, hyped, and well-known new games are worse than most of the classics we remember. So what if Mario Galaxy is worse or better than Mario 64 or Super Mario Bros. 3 - that says NOTHING about "today's games", it just says that that particular game may not have lived up to some particular predecessors, and that it may not have lived up to the hype it received. There are so many bad games from back in the day; you've just never heard of them.

I will agree though that today's bad games are DIFFERENT. You used to be able to play a game for 5 seconds and decide "Ok, this game just sucks" (e.g. Cheetamen). Nowadays, you have to play the game for an hour, and then think "Ok, this game MIGHT get good later on, or it might just stay crappy and easy and pointless" and then two weeks later "I just wasted THAT MANY HOURS playing Metroid Prime 3??!". In that way, I like the selection of "yesterday's" games better, especially with all the hordes of geeks to recommend the best ones to you, unclouded by hype about sequels and whatnot.

(Note: those are NOT my exact sentiments of Metroid Prime 3.... that game was for the most part boring and stale to me, but WOW did it EVER have its moments!!)

[benprunty]

I'm 24. My first game ever was Armor Battle on the Mattel Intellivision, which I still have. My favorite games include the original Metroid, Kaboom!, NetHack, EarthBound, Secret of Monkey Island, Daggerfall, Super Mario Bros. and DOOM. I grew up playing games and they have never not been a part of my life.

That said, some of my OTHER favorite games include Shadow of the Colossus, Half-Life, System Shock 2, Smash Bros., Geometry Wars and GTA Vice City. Shadow of the Colossus, in particular is a pinnacle of modern gaming and acts as a tribute to everything that makes games great.

There will always be people who say that games ain't what they used to be. I remember older folks saying this during the Super Nintendo days. I saw people writing letters to (*ahem*) GamePro complaining that modern games were all about graphical spectacle and were ignoring great gameplay. And they were talking about 16-bit systems compared with the stuff on the Atari! They were right, in a way: Atari games, when compared to everything that came after them, are great examples of pure, distilled, focused gameplay lovingly crafted by one designer.

In ten years folks will be complaining about graphics in games becoming too important. They'll wax poetic about games like God of War being perfect examples of a title that focused on gameplay, probably ignoring the graphical excellence of that game. Let's not forget that Super Mario Bros' graphics were unbelievably detailed for the time.

It is true that there are a lot of bad games these days, but there were even more bad games on the Atari. Have you ever played ET? *shudder*. Or Bubsy for SNES or Genesis? Yikes. How bout Spelunker on the NES? Good God. There will always be shitty games. From the very beginning till the apocalypse takes us all, we will have to sift through garbage to get to the gems.

Kids these days, alas, won't truly get to appreciate how dramatic and exciting the original Zelda was to play. I also know that older film buffs would say that I'll never be able to appreciate the drama of Citizen Kane because I grew up with nothing but special-effects laden, over-directed swill. But I sure love Back to the Future and Dark City. I've even found myself complaining that modern movies aren't as tight as stuff like Indiana Jones and Back to the Future. And I MISSED the Golden Age of movies! What right do I have to complain?

My Super NES and NES are still hooked up to my television, so I don't have to complain about missing the good ol' days. I just fire up Tetris Attack with my roommates and we have a ball. We also play new stuff like Smash Bros. Brawl and Okami.

I don't know if I had much of a point here, but I'm just a little tired of hearing people say that games used to be so much better 'back in the day'. When you say something like this, remember that your not saying anything new or insightful and also remember that others will consider games of today, the ones that you so readily dismiss, as the games of their own personal Golden Age. Do yourself a favor and play the great games and ignore the bad ones. It is what everyone else has been doing for 30 years. You'll forget stuff like Mace Griffin, Turok 3, X-Squad, Quest 64 and Evergrace and you'll instead just remember the awesome stuff.

And dude, get yourself a DS and play some games! There's some fantastic gameplay to be had. The fact that Nintendo specifically kept the system's graphic power at a minimum should tell you something about their design philosophy. I'll even help you get started with a short list of awesome games (all with great gameplay) for it:

Hotel Dusk

Yoshi's Touch and Go

Planet Puzzle League

WarioWare Touched!

[The Pezman]

Let's not forget what always happen when an artistic medium matures: people will pretty much only remember the good ones. How many operas will you hear about which everyone thought were terrible? What English literature made it into the canon that just plain sucked? Yes, there were great games back then, but like the great games of today, they must be put in context, against the not-so-great games and complete garbage that are released alongside them.

[Dhsu]

I played Sonic Rush, and I saw a sad pattern. Specifically, this pattern is called "cheapness". If you play Sonic Adventure, you may notice some "cheapness", but you'll see more effort than cheapness. How can I prove this? If you play Emerald Coast, you'll see a combination of old things and new things (Sonic had his signature style, but still, innovation and effort took place. For example, new goals/objectives, more characters, new obstacles, new abilities, crappy things eliminated, good things made better, remixes of older ideas like Casinopolis' pinball game, etc).

In Sonic Rush, you were taken back to a Sonic 1/2/3 style: running around, bouncing off of stuff, same-ol'-same-ol', except now, there's a burning cat thrown into the equation. The two get dumb obstacles like being locked into rooms until they kill all of the enemies. The whole thing was just a fast-paced-zoom-a-zoom-watch-out-for-that-spike-I-mean-baddie-I-mean-cliff-grind-on-rail-boing-boing...

Hey, maybe it's time for me to "show the neophytes wussup". Maybe it's my turn; my time; my season.

Okay...you've stopped making any semblance of sense at this point.

[Laughs] Why do I get the impression that you are a cold, bitter person?

No, I just play one on TV.

[Salluz]

^ You guys are dead right. Yeah, I remember most of the good titles back in the day. Mot of the garbagy ones are so out of my memory! The same principle goes on to this very day, so I'll just do what you guys are telling me: eat the fruit, spit out the pits.

[Jaybell]

Franchises that attempt to go back to their roots will never be able to fully replicate the actual feeling of playing the actual "classic" games of their franchise. This is because they are not actually the classic games themselves.

And orange juice won't feel exactly like eating a real orange. Does this mean we should feel ripped off by the orange juice? Nope. Orange juice may not be the same as eating an orange but it still tastes good. Anyone who refuses to drink orange juice on the grounds that it is not the same as an orange is an idiot.

And if you want an orange, eat an orange. And if you want some Super Mario Galaxy, play some Super Mario Galaxy, and if you want some Super Mario Bros, play some Super Mario Bros.

I have no idea how well this analogy worked but OH WELL

[defender!!]

you just do you

i'ma do me

[Dhsu]

Franchises that attempt to go back to their roots will never be able to fully replicate the actual feeling of playing the actual "classic" games of their franchise. This is because they are not actually the classic games themselves.

And orange juice won't feel exactly like eating a real orange. Does this mean we should feel ripped off by the orange juice? Nope. Orange juice may not be the same as eating an orange but it still tastes good. Anyone who refuses to drink orange juice on the grounds that it is not the same as an orange is an idiot.

And if you want an orange, eat an orange. And if you want some Super Mario Galaxy, play some Super Mario Galaxy, and if you want some Super Mario Bros, play some Super Mario Bros.

I have no idea how well this analogy worked but OH WELL

Dude orange juice is so derivative...no innovation at all.

[Sil]

It's always sad to see the torch being passed from one generation to another in all the arts. Admittedly our nostalgia makes us a bit biased, but I've always wondered if sometimes we're living in the shadow of the past. If we know what games ought to be like, how comes we're not the ones making them now? Can you even imagine how you'd top your favorite game of all time? It's the same way for me and classical music. If greatness has already been achieved, and you recognize it, it makes it kind of difficult to do any better.

[Imagist]

Opinion: Can Ghettoflame actually make and defend all these "points" and "main points" he claims to, or can he just talk about doing or having done so?

[The Coop]

This kind of thing happens with every console generation, Ghetto. The 2600 people looked back at the Pong players with a "GAWD! HOW CUD U PLAY THAT?!?! LOL!!!shift+one"-attitude. The 5200 and Colecovision people did the same to the 2600 folks. It then just kept on rolling with each successive console generation, and often happened within a generation (NES vs Master System for example). The current generation always has people that seem to think games didn't exist before what they're playing on their given system... either because they don't care, or they're simply ignorant with their head in the sand. That percentage will always be there, as will the generational in-fighting. So you have a choice... ignore them, or become the crotchety old man who keeps going on about "When I was your age...".

As for the bad games, like I said in a another thread, they'll always outnumber the good. Always. But somehow, nostalgia makes some folks forget all the drivel that was released as they get older. They talk about a given era like it was a utopia of gaming gold, when it never actually was. Pre-8bit, 8bit, 16bit, 32bit, 64bit, post-bit... all those eras were filled with horrendous "games", which easily outnumbered the good ones. But nostalgia kicks in, and that fact goes away. But, as I also said in that previous thread, there's a good reason why some people think the pre-8bit -> 16bit eras were so wonderful. Back then, things only seemed better because we didn't know what was coming out most of the time. There was either no press/internet reviews, or painfully little press/internet reviews compared to today. The turds that got released went unheard of back then, where as now, we hear about the good and bad games before they're even released half the time thanks to numerous magazines and game sites. We also get reviews quickly after release from fan sites and their ilk. It seems like there's more bad games now, only because you hear about them more readily. In fact, I'd almost be willing to wager that the good/bad ratio hasn't changed all that much since the 2600 days.

For those who didn't grow up in the pre-32bit era, try to keep in mind that good games don't need twenty different buttons to push or complex control schemes to be deep. They don't need umpteen-million polygons to have a huge, interesting, and vivid world to explore, nor do they need achievements to have secrets abound. And for those who came along in the pre-32bit era, try and keep your head in the reality of it all, and not in the rose-colored clouds of nostalgia. Just because games got more complicated with their controls, and polygons rule the roost, doesn't mean todays games lack depth, have uninteresting worlds, less-than-engrossing gameplay, and are covering it all up with pretty graphics and options. Both sides of this need to drop their gaming biases, and get back to what's supposed to be the point of it all... having fun. There was fun in the beginning with the simple specs and one button, and there's fun now with the high-end specs and 15 buttons. If you're willing to look for it, you'll find it.