Gravec.at: Blogging Like It's 1999Posted by Gravecat at 11:02 am under Gaming,Rambling,Retrogaming. Comments (6)
So I’ve been thinking about retrogaming, a topic that I’m sure is close to the hearts of many gamers of my generation.
In short — and in this context — retrogaming is simply the act of playing older games, and while it’s an unclear definition when a game makes the transition from “new” to “old” — and then to the elusive and revered “retro” — there’s no doubt that some of the most well-known and well-loved retrogaming involves arcade, console, and computer games from the 8-bit and 16-bit eras; the age of simple, chunky, colourful graphics and the charmingly tinny, memorable chiptunes. It’s an era of game development where the gaming community as a whole was really starting to find its footing and entrench itself, finding its place in society, and many of the games of the age served almost as prototypes to shape and define future creations. In short, the 8-bit (and, to a lesser extent, 16-bit) era defined gaming as a whole, and I’m sure few can reasonably argue otherwise.
The topic that frequently vexes me, however, and I’ve yet to find a reasonable answer to: Is the charm and allure of the “retro” simply because gamers such as myself have grown up through this iconic era and fondly remember with rose-tinted glasses, or is there truly a simplistic, innocent appeal to the games of this era — the forefathers, as it were, of the modern gaming “scene”? I’ve heard conflicting opinions, both from those who adore the era and practically worship the low-resolution offerings while others, such as a friend who I could only describe as a “modern gaming purist”, will snidely eschew any such notion, claiming instead that the only appeal is rooted in personal bias and hazy childhood memories.
So I’m going to open this topic to the floor, as sparse as it may be right now. Is there truly an intangible magic that will be remembered for generations to come, or are we simply blinded by fond memories of a time long-gone, when we were too naive to know any better?
Related Posts:
- Thoughts on the nature of gaming And there it is, after countless hours of boredom and...
- Effortless victory and pack mechanics A trend I’ve noticed in online gaming lately — well,...
- Where is the line drawn? So here I am, sick as a dog, coughing up...
- The times, they are a-changin’ Now there’s something I never thought I’d see — thanks,...
- Retrogaming: Gauntlet IV When I was a great deal younger and significantly less...
Lu — January 7th, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Allow me to offer my educated/professional/bullshit view on this.
tl;dr: Modern games are too jumbled, retro ones are enjoyable in their simplicity.
Being significantly younger than you, I guess in a way I don’t have the same rose-tinted view of retro games. At least not those from the 8-bit era, and early 16-bit era. Yes, I grew up with the likes of Sonic the Hedgehog, but that’s as far as my retro gaming expands. Yet, on a somewhat-crazed mission a few years back, I set out to obtain all the gaming consoles of the mid-80s and 90s. I now have a full set of Sega and Nintendo systems. And somewhere I have that old brick of a Playstation 1. I know the latter isn’t exactly “retro” to you perhaps, but I am younger.
That tangent was possibly pointless, but the point I am trying to draw to the fore here is that even though I have NO background in that era of gaming, only retro PC gaming, I adore older games. I enjoy playing the games of an era I has nothing to do with. Part of it could possibly down to the iconic chiptunes, things I find myself humming or playing in my mind on a daily basis, but on a personal level, it comes to something easy to define.
There are no complicated, bullshit game mechanics. Half the reason I only get through about 60% of most games today is because I get fed up of bullshit game mechanics that are clearly only there to tack on extra gameplay time that they can claim in the reviews (35 HOURS OF EXCITING GAMEPLAY.) There’s just the simple graphics, and simple mechanics, and simple missions.
I think that the 16-bit era possibly came close to perfection in that regard. Adding just enough to keep you interested, but without cluttering the game with pointless mechanics. I’m not saying that ALL games were good, because let’s face it, in every era, you will have your godawful games that just make you want to throw your controller through the window or othersuch.
I long for those days, when games weren’t cluttered with pointless, annoying mechanics (See: every part of Sonic Unleashed, one-off moves in Prototype, Twilight Princess’ fishing). There are some modern games I play that I can’t have enough love for, due to their well-executed choices in mechanics. But then, when it comes down to it, those games are just the simple mechanics of a retro game, with just a bit of flavouring. And those games in a few short years will start to get regarded as “retro”.
So, in closing, I think that perhaps, yes, there is a degree of rose-tinted nostalgia to every retro-gamer, as there is in any nostalgia. However, there is a degree of simple charm and magic to it all.
But then, different people, different views. Your mileage may vary.
Lu — January 7th, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Holy shit, the reply was longer than the post.
Lu — January 7th, 2010 @ 12:13 pm
Oh, allow me to quickly tack on as well that the Wii is everything that’s wrong with gaming today, and soon Natal will be as well.
Lu — January 7th, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
You know what balances modernity and retro..ocity? Is that even a word?
But either way, Okami does. And that’s the PS2 version, not the Wii version. At least, in my opinion. And I’ve played that game through more times than I have fingers for (9 times, I only have 8 fingers).
Also, Pika, I wasn’t saying retrogaming is better in any way, just attempting to explain the allure. I still adore playing old games, but would I isolate myself to them only? Never.
That being said, I do often find that older franchises trying to stay fresh do often succumb to irritating ploys or fluff, kind of like GW releasing a new codex every two years. You loathe them for doing it, but you buy into it anyway, you play it anyway. Bad comparison, but one I expect the both of you can relate to.
I do perhaps get a little annoyed with sandbox/open world games yes, since I have such a meandering, distracted mind that will dither for hours before continuing the plot. Yet looking at what games I have with me, I see Fable, Assassin’s Creed (1 and 2), GTA, Borderlands, Saints Row 2. I still love them, even if all I wind up doing is not advance the plot and aimlessly kill guards.
LittleBigPlanet is pretty groundbreaking, particularly for the sheer amount of things you can do in it. Final-year students in the university are using LBP as a means to complete and go through their assignments, and the fact that they can do that, and still get an excellent grade is astounding. Particularly since they don’t even have to go near the always-obnoxious Hammer Editor, which makes me want to gouge my eyes out with a crowbar (reference intended).
Regardless, while the games of our generation fade into the background, regarded was “retro”, the next generation will have the same thing, only their retro consoles will be our current-gen ones.
Technology is forever advancing, and while I look forward to some of the things it brings, I fear it in an equal measure. Why? Because gaming will, in my mind, only ever be done with the hands. Not the body. (I guess sometimes the feet if I’m playing a racing game).
Pika — January 7th, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
A modern gaming purist, eh? I LIKE it! I am assuming you’re talking about me but I have known to be wrong!
For me it’s as simple as this, if you have no experience with ‘retro’ gaming in any form, you won’t like it. Lu can argue that yeah, she likes going back to games before her time and having a good crack at them, but she also says she loved, and started, with games such as Sonic. That answered it all for me.
For almost 2 generations of consoles gameplay was exactly the same across all games and consoles… almost. You basically had side scrolling platformers, sidescrolling bat em ups or sidescrolling shot-em-ups. The gameplay from this age carried from game to game with high degree of transferble skill. It IS possible to enjoy games ‘before your time’ if the gameplay is what you already know and love,and something you already have experience in.
Now i’m not going to claim I spit in the face of retro gaming, i’ve been know to crack out the SNES or PS1 from time to time, and I am forever buying the PSOne classics from the PS3 Network store (And yes, i’d say the PS1 is considered retro now) and I love me the orginal Syndicate Wars or even the fantastic, and (for it’s time) groundbreaking G-Police, but would I hostly delude myself that Dizzy is better than Assassin’s Creed, or that Pole Position is better than Forza? … No.
For me retro gaming is all psycological. It’s all rose-tinted glasses and memories. Would anyone activly pass up a 360 or PS3 to stay with their speccy? I doubt it, and if you do you’re more of a fan than a gamer.
Games these days have grown and expanded, and one mechanic you find infuriating might be the very thing that keep another gamer coming back to it over and over. Games these days allow so much more, more and more are becoming sandbox games, letting the user fil in the gaps and do what they want. Little Big Planet is letting everyone be an up and coming games designer, games lie Forza can be cranked up to ultrea realistic and even support Clutch pedal controls, effectivly simulating a real car, or you can turn everything off, and play with a single button.
You can argue that games these days pad themselves out with repetition, while that would be a somewhat flawed argument when comparing it against retro games (I could argue all you do in sonic is hold right and press A occasionally, while wrong, is an equivilent argument) is only partially true. Yeah you might get bored, but I gurantee, with one hundred percent certainly that you had more fun, and spent a longer time playing it than you would have with some retro game.
I’m rambling so i’ll stop now. I’ll just end on this: Retro gaming is 90% psycological, 10% nostalgia (weather that be a memory of simple mechanics or memory of the game itself). It is not, in my opinion ‘better’ in any shape or form.
Gravecat — January 7th, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
Allow me to step in and both clarify my original meaning, while largely agreeing with both sides of the debate:
At no point could I ever, in good faith, claim that retrogaming is “better” than modern games — while I do enjoy a bit of Super MarioWorld or Castlevania from time to time, it’s very much firmly seated in the same area of gaming that houses such offerings as N+ or Geometry Wars; that is to say, the simple-yet-fun arcade-style experiences that we play when we simply want a short, meaningless burst of fun.
With that said, my query was largely in regards to whether retrogaming even fills _that_ niche adequately, or if it’s been completely surpassed by modern games. But after reading these comments and pondering the situation further, I’m inclined to believe that more ‘modern’ arcade-style games such as N+ are more or less exactly the same in form and function as the retro games of yore, the only difference being updated visuals and more modern control schemes. The basic gist remains: Simple, fast, fun.
With that said, I _am_ enjoying the little debate this post has sparked. :)