Omnimaga
General Discussion => Technology and Development => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Hot_Dog on December 28, 2010, 04:21:17 pm
-
Remember the days when the work needed to make a video game was emmence? Development teams were somewhat small, programming had to be done in ASM, and of course the consoles themselves were limited. And yet people these days still love playing those games! (I myself love the original Metroid.)
With huge development teams and C++, I personally would love to see games made in similar style to the old games, but longer. Sure, we can vamp up the graphics, but so much time spent on game gimmicks, extra animations and special moves could be spent on extending the gameplay time of the basics. Any comments on what it would be like if, for example, a year-long period was used to make Metroid with modern colors and looks but NES engine, graphics and gameplay to allow enough time to make a 600-hour long game?
-
Simply this: scenery and story porn.
Call it Metroid Universe and keep adding new regions to the world.
Also, shrink the characters so the levels can be the same size but take longer to traverse.
-
I agree fully, I prefer the first Castlevania for the NES over any of the new ones
-
Call it Metroid Universe and keep adding new regions to the world.
Kind of like WoW, huh?
-
Remember the days when the work needed to make a video game was emmence? Development teams were somewhat small, programming had to be done in ASM, and of course the consoles themselves were limited. And yet people these days still love playing those games! (I myself love the original Metroid.)
With huge development teams and C++, I personally would love to see games made in similar style to the old games, but longer. Sure, we can vamp up the graphics, but so much time spent on game gimmicks, extra animations and special moves could be spent on extending the gameplay time of the basics. Any comments on what it would be like if, for example, a year-long period was used to make Metroid with modern colors and looks but NES engine, graphics and gameplay to allow enough time to make a 600-hour long game?
I agree with this wholeheartedly.
Two of my favorite games are Final Fantasy 6 and Chrono Trigger. True they came after some of the games you're talking about, but they had incredible stories and didn't use a boatload of graphical gimmicks.
It pains me when people try to compare later games (*cough*Final Fantasy 7*cough*) to these masterpieces as if they were superior because they had better graphics, or the villain had a cool sword, etc.
-
^Agree
Capcom has recently revived the classic Megaman series with old school graphics, music, and gameplay in Megaman 9 and Megaman 10. They are downloadble for Wii, XBox360, and Playstation 3. I highly recommend them to anyone who is a fan the Megaman series, or old school games in general. They really did a phenomenal job on them. Konami also released a new Contra game done somewhat in this style, and it wasn't half bad either. So, yea. Some companies are actually starting to do this and it's really awesome.
*edit* forgot to mention Square-Enix's sequel to Final Fantasy IV, though I haven't finished it.
-
I can't stress this enough. There are people who say Starcraft Brood War sucks because of the graphics looking crappier compared to SC2. It's insane how people judge a game on its graphics these days. I'm a fan of FFVII but I prefer FFVI story and content.
*edit* forgot to mention Square-Enix's sequel to Final Fantasy IV, though I haven't finished it.
I have been wondering about this for a while now, I wondered what was all that talk about FFIV: The After Years, then decided to google, to discover it was a sequel by Square Enix. It appears to be available on the Wii Shop so I'm probably gonna buy it, since I was a fan of FFIV.
I also loved what they did with Megaman 9. The only thing I hated was that the game was way too hard, though.
-
It always amazes me how important gameplay can be, and yet so many people judge a game solely on its graphics :(
-
I also loved what they did with Megaman 9. The only thing I hated was that the game was way too hard, though.
The old games were hard, so of course they had to make that game hard as well. I liked the difficulty, it was much more entertaining than other new games that are easy.
-
I myself enjoyed the challenge in Megaman 9 as well, but I could see how the difficulty could be off putting for some.
-
Megaman 10 is fun. Plus, I think it has an easy mode, which is nice for those who aren't as used to the grueling difficulty.
And, there's DLC to let you play as Bass! ;D
-
I loved one of the "Gecko" games on the gameboy color because of its difficulty...in fact, one of my friends handed to me and said "This is your kind of game."
-
I also loved what they did with Megaman 9. The only thing I hated was that the game was way too hard, though.
The old games were hard, so of course they had to make that game hard as well. I liked the difficulty, it was much more entertaining than other new games that are easy.
Yeah but it seemed harder than older stuff. I got Mega Man 3 for the NES and it seemed much easier than 9. In Mega Man 9, I can't even get past the first hole. I agree that older games were much harder, though. However today I'm glad now they offer different difficulty levels too. For RPGs, back then you spent hours grinding for levels and it got boring, then it got kinda better. However eventually it seemed like you just had to beat every enemy on your way in a dungeon without beating the same enemy twice and you were still high level enough to beat the boss. Result: those who grinded ended up over-leveled and the game was too easy afterward. I also dislike how every game now show the enemy HP. It got a bit too easy at that point. When I worked on Illusiat 13, people even suggested me that feature. X.x
-
OMG I agree with this so much. A perfect example in my world of this is super mario world, and super mario rpg: legend of the seven stars. The graphics are lolcrappy but the game play is soo good
-
Gameplay might be more important, but I'll admit to being a sucker for great graphics. I like it best when the two things meet, as in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. You have a relatively small map to explore, but there's so much to do that you end up fighting through the same places twice and you don't mind in the least.
-
See, I really agree with qwerty.55 here. Is it too much to ask for both? I mean I think it's awesome that I can see a sword flying in slow motion in High-Definition 3D madness, but that's not what makes great games.
Although, I think the classics are played more because, well, they're classics. ;-)
-
Gameplay might be more important, but I'll admit to being a sucker for great graphics. I like it best when the two things meet, as in Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. You have a relatively small map to explore, but there's so much to do that you end up fighting through the same places twice and you don't mind in the least.
With Donkey Kong 64, it was bigger maps and so many different things to do. But the graphics were so good that I wonder how Rare did so well
-
I personally like having a certain minimum of graphics. On consoles and the computer it's 2D tilemaps with maybe at least 16 colors at once and on calculators it's ASCII art. This is a bit why I don't like menu-based/MUD-like games much. I also prefer that movement is done with arrows rather than inputting commands.