The recent issue of Retro Gamer had a making of H.E.R.O. for the Atari 2600 and - having enjoyed it sporadically over the years - I decided to go back to it, and attempt to see the ending.
I have to be honest, I had a lot of fun with it even today. Most 2600 games are awful, but like with all old hardware, there genuinely are games which are still functionally excellent.
That's what I personally like about old games. Finding the old ones that are still great. It's not about nostalgia at all (for me personally).
Having said that - I recently bought PC game Outcast on GOG, and... It's a bit dull. Not bad, just kinda meh. I even mapped the mouse to my rightside X360 control stick, to control it like a modern game!
Yeah, you're right... I was generalising massively, of course. Many of the old text adventures I'd still happily play actually. I also love my JXD thing - though most of what I play on there is post-88.
That new Spectrum really annoyed you didn't it? Haha.
Will you STOP with the Amiga hate already? LET IT GO, MAN!
Generally agree! I was bought up in the ST / Amiga 500 era, and recently bought both machines in a misjudged fit of nostalgia. Many of my previous favorites are miserable experiences today, although you do get the odd game that still holds up (although 'my era' was a great deal more mature than what you described in the video)
Not an original thought by any means, but nostalgia is best left as a beautiful memory, as a rule of thumb. Modern source ports and vibrant modding communities that breathe new life into games like Doom are exempt from this though!
Not sure if you were much of a doom fan Mr B, but ludicrous doom mods would be a good top 10 feature actually!
"Nostalgia is best left as a beautiful memory" - sorry, but nonsense. I'm not having that. Retro gaming is not 'nostalgia' - it's OUR HISTORY. And people willing to forget history are, well, numbties, frankly.
With one or two very exceptions, no argument here.
The problem with this argument is that it's too simple, a bit like an inverted version of the 'everything was much better in my day' outlook which it attacks. Games age - but some age better than others. I call it the Robotron Principle: If you're having fun playing it, then it's good, regardless of its age.
On the other hand, games that age badly weren't necessarily rubbish, but simply reflections of the times they were created in. Maybe Manic Miner, for example, really only makes sense to people who were there at the time. There are plainly games that are plainly rubbish and only depended on people not realising it at the time - NARC leaps to mind. Conversely, Atic Atac has aged very well, I'd say, alongside other arcade adventures like Starquake and Batman/Head Over Heels. They're elegantly beautiful in their execution, marvels of the 8-bit age.
Technology plays a role, of course, but not as much as you might think. Doom's graphics have aged really badly, but it's still the best FPS that's not called Half Life. Vice City is now almost 13 years old, but it's still the best GTA game, meanwhile. Sometimes, though, the fading of allure that comes with ageing technology reveals what we should have noticed all along - the original Street Fighter II seems like a crude first draft in comparison to what followed.
In summary, some aspects of good game design are timeless, while others are dependent on their times. The brutal truth of the matter is that shit games have been released, are being released and continue to be released, but sometimes it takes us a while to spot them.
I genuinely strongly disagree about Street Fighter II. I think the arcade version and the console conversions of it (and champ edition and turbo) were genuinely perfect games, and I still occasionally play now.
I've found the later versions to be overly fussy and busy, and they lack the "anyone can play" feel of the SF2 where the special moves gave you an edge, but weren't game breaking when playing against someone who didn't spend seven hours a day playing
Oddly, I think arcade games are an exception to the (admittedly simple - as Cyberbunny says) rule. Most 80s arcade games - and even going back to Space Invaders - play great. I just think the ambition of home computer games in the 80s went beyond the capabilities of the hardware.
Turbo and Championship >were< Street Fighter II, as far as I'm concerned, the polished final product. My point was that 'The World Warrior' plainly wasn't.
Late to the party, but I respectfully disagree - I think there are a lot of old games that have stood up well to time and still play exceptionally well today - on just every system going. Even the Apple II and ZX81... I think that the only way to find this out is to play lots and lots and lots of old games now, which most people don't have the time to do, but I have (because I'm unemployed and a hermit). Emulators, I think, also make playing old games more fun, with quick saves and suchlike, making very tough games more manageable.
I went through a C64 phase recently and really enjoyed playing stuff like Defender of the Crown, Paradroid, Exile, Quedex, Scarabaeus, Wizardry, IK+, and a number of other classics. Yes, there is plenty of rubbish out there (the Last Ninja series for example, which I think are dreadful), but there *are* gems still worth playing on every system, if you have the time to find them and play them properly.
I hate to say it, but I *generally* agree with what you're saying here, at least in terms of the 80s home computers. There are very few of my one time favourite Spectrum games that I find I can still enjoy playing nowadays.
For more "advanced" systems, like the NES and SNES, I think most games hold up pretty well, it's just the once groundbreaking things that try to push the system too far that fall down. Try playing the original Super Mario Kart or Starwing/StarFox now and prepare to see your favourite pair of rose-tinted specs smashed by a large, blocky pixel moving jerkily in a barely controllable manner...