I Miss the SNES Days

[Klashbash]

I take a look at the Xbox 360, Revolution and Playstation 3 and once again I feel myself missing the good ol’ SNES days. In the SNES days there wasn’t too many ways of making the graphics look any better, so rather than focus on making something looking shiny they focused on the game play. Every single game I bought on that system was good and if it wasn’t it almost most definitely had a good concept with a flawed execution and those types of games actually tended to be quite rare. Yet that’s so unlike the world of gaming today where the game developers focus on just graphics to morons who buy a game simply because of how “real†it looks rather than the fun factor of the game. You have to dig through countless games to find any real beauties.

Not only are the games focused on just graphics but they push out tons of sequels with little creativity and hardly any games are revolutionary. The scariest part of all is that people continue to buy such terrible games like FFX and Metal Gear Solid 2 which are nothing but $50 movies… this only encourages companies to continue with these poor standards. Man I miss the SNES days…

 

[Rascal]

i dunno cyborg. i see at least 2 things that have to be taken into account. the snes came out 10 years ago? more? we were all but pups back then ('cept mrsd and some other assorted people) so games probably seemed a whole lot better. i remember playing some games for the snes and wondering why i loved them so much? like super mario kart, the mario kart on gamecube pops all it's balloons, and not just because of the graphics, it's a much more complete experience.

there are also 2 types of games these days, "bargain bin" games and regular ones. bargain bin games are the biggest waste of time in history, you know the ones, they go straight to walmart and try to get joe 6-pack to buy them. games like deer hunter and a slew of others that i can't even remember, these games are absolutely worthless, no time was spent in development, they were made so that the company could make a quick buck (and they unfortunately did, so they continue to make them). then there are the companies that really try to make great games, i'd throw Blizzard in there, and Bioforge (i think the did the baldur's gate games on xbox), and EA Sports continually is improving their gameplay along with their graphics.

sure the old days games were simpler, but the weren't as deep and consuming as say Knights of the Old Republic. snes and genesis (my fave...my friend had snes) were good systems in their own rights and had some classics, but i love my current systems just as much if not more.

 

[Pyro16]

I'd have to agree with both of you. The NES and SNES are my roots, I won't deny that. I play them even now and I still enjoy the games that came out on them. The fact is, times change. Sure the average gamer now isn't like what it used to be, graphics seem to be more important. When you do find a great game though the replay value is usually amazing. I have quite a few games that I'd pick back up and play through them again. Maybe games won't come back to how they used to be and maybe they will, but as an 18 year old that has spent 13 years gaming, I'm content.

 

[pink_beliefs]

I remember Paper Boy... classic concept and very enjoyable. But I loved my atari system, and I wish I still had it. When I rescused stick people in my little pixalated helicopter, or swung over pits in pitfall, I was so happy. Now... its just not the same. *sigh*

 

[Rascal]

hehe, sure all those old games are still fun to pull out once in a while. but i boil it down to this, you can choose only 1 system from all the systems that are currently available (so no xbox360's, ps3's), or available in the past to play for the rest of time, which do you choose? i know that snes and genesis had some cool games, but there is no chance that i don't take my xbox as that one system. can you honestly say that you would want to only play snes games for the rest of time? there is absolutely no way that games will go back to being designed as they were back 10 years ago for the simple fact that games back then were very very shallow. would you rather play ninja gaiden for the nes, or ninja gaiden for the xbox? prince of persia 1 (the one on computer from the 80's), or prince of persia on the xobx? there's just no comparison. the gameplay is leaps and bounds more detailed and involving, the stories are heads and tails more complex...they play well, the graphics draw you into the game, but they quickly take a backseat to the awesome gameplay.

 

[Klashbash]

Responding to Rascal…

i dunno cyborg. i see at least 2 things that have to be taken into account. the snes came out 10 years ago? more? we were all but pups back then ('cept mrsd and some other assorted people) so games probably seemed a whole lot better. i remember playing some games for the snes and wondering why i loved them so much? like super mario kart, the mario kart on gamecube pops all it's balloons, and not just because of the graphics, it's a much more complete experience.

That’s true, when we are not as developed as we are now we are amused more easily. However, basically each Super Nintendo game was revolutionary in its own right. It established the genre of games while the Nintendo games were the prototype. I play SNES ROMs time to time and I can see over and over again that the game was focused solely on gameplay… maybe for just the fact that the SNES had limited graphic capabilities. What we also have to put in perspective is how little there was of programmers to make games back then and how many there is to work on one game now, yet the amount of replayability has even decreased in many cases for our current games.

Of course the games of our current generation will have more features than the previous games although Super Nintendo games are still fun, what we have to place into view here is how much gameplay replayability should already be established by the current times. There has only been a very small increase but a fanatical increase in the graphics department because that’s what sells. The game looks prrrrrty and so very “realisticâ€, how many gamers of our time would buy a game that had bad graphics but terrific gameplay?

How much more gameplay is there in Halo than in Doom? There truly isn’t much and that’s the whole point. They both take around the same amount of time to beat but the only thing that truly distinguishes the two is the graphics. The amount of time between Doom and Halo and what should’ve been is highly significant, Halo is NOTHING like it should’ve been. Halo is an overhyped piece of garbage.

EA Sports continually is improving their gameplay along with their graphics.

EA’s spokesman has already admitted that EA prefers quantity over quality but of course in a sugarcoating way with an appeal to emotion. Would you rather have a game per year or a game per three years? Is the main argument of his statements relating to that.

 

[Djeuve]

I still like playing the ol' SNES (ROMS)...mainly because my computer won't support the newer games!

But, my lack of a killer machine has made me sort through a lot of SNES games, and I have to say, there was a lot of garbage in there too... and I'm including some games that only came out in Japan and only recently being translated and released... But those are much more rare than the games today. I still like to stroll through the games section in stores sometimes, but nothing seems appealing. Every game just LOOKS like a let down... not like before, where I could hardly decide which one to put my hands on next! Ok, back then there was more novelty to it, and through the years I've developped my tastes into certain genres, but still. Isn't it kind of sad when I buy a new game, only to discared it after a few hours to download a game from the 90's and spend weeks on it?

Maybe it IS just sad...

:bunny:

 

[Rascal]

That’s true, when we are not as developed as we are now we are amused more easily. However, basically each Super Nintendo game was revolutionary in its own right.

The SNES was virtually a pioneer in the gaming world. There had been maybe 10 years of "games" (I use the term very loosely) before the SNES. The Commodore 64, the Atari, and various rudimentary computer games. There was no choice BUT to be revolutionary. It is harder now to make a unique game because it requires a unique, visionary talent to come up with an idea that hasn't been done before. Peter Molyneux has done some terrifically unique games. Populous (and older one) and Dungeon Keeper, and more recently Black and White, and Fable were very refreshing and different.

What we also have to put in perspective is how little there was of programmers to make games back then and how many there is to work on one game now, yet the amount of replayability has even decreased in many cases for our current games.

Programming is hard. I think I heard somewhere that like 5 people made Mortal Kombat. One did sound, one did art and the rest tied it all together. It took them at least a year. That is about the limit of what a group that small can do. A fighting game may not be the best example for replayability, but still given the choice between Mortal Kombat and say Soul Calibur 2, I take SC2 all the way. (See next section for some reasons, I sort of replied to this backwards, relevant stuff would be collision detection and "money plays")

gameplay replayability should already be established by the current times. There has only been a very small increase but a fanatical increase in the graphics department because that’s what sells.

There have been "fanatical" increases in every facet of games. I don't see how you can even start to claim that there hasn't been. Go play a game of hockey in Ice Hockey on the NES, then play a game in NHL 2005 on the Xbox. If you even try to tell me that the only thing that changed was the graphics...well, I guess you are entitled to that opinion. But NHL 2005 has physics systems built into it to determine how the pucks bounce of the boards, off the players, off of sticks. Also how players bounce off of each other, momentum is taken into account, there is noticeable acceleration differences between individual players. Then on the AI side of things...it's just wow. Teams play as teams, not a bunch of predictable sprites on a screen. There are no "money plays" (in early sports games, there would be one unstoppable play, these are gone due to advancements in AI). It just happens that the only thing that you can SEE is the graphics, but under the hood there have been incredible advancements made. This is also a hardware issue. Graphics processing has been increasing at a phenomenal rate, why not take advantage of that? The field of graphics is just mind bogglingly complex. Some of the most important things to gamers has been collision detection. In the old days, "baddies" had radii around them where you couldn't touch them (just go play DK in the arcade, you can see what I'm talking about when you jump over a barrel and don't actually touch it but die anyway), now it's nearly pixel perfect.

The game looks prrrrrty and so very “realisticâ€, how many gamers of our time would buy a game that had bad graphics but terrific gameplay?

Two of my absolute most favourite games are series of games that have been around since about 1999, maybe earlier for one of them. The 2 series of games are Baseball Mogul and Championship Manager. Neither game has ANY graphics what-so-ever. They are also massively popular games. They have a text based, menu interface. In Europe at least Championship Manager is a huge seller (it's a soccer sim, so that explains it's lack of sales in North America), and Baseball Mogul gets critical acclaim left, right and centre and is the top baseball sim on the market, and outsells baseball games where you actually step into the batter's box.

How much more gameplay is there in Halo than in Doom? There truly isn’t much and that’s the whole point. They both take around the same amount of time to beat but the only thing that truly distinguishes the two is the graphics. The amount of time between Doom and Halo and what should’ve been is highly significant, Halo is NOTHING like it should’ve been. Halo is an overhyped piece of garbage.

Firstly, time to beat a game, to me, is not an indicator of how good a game is or how much "gameplay" there is. Maybe we differ on what "gameplay" is. To me, gameplay is the actual mechanism of playing a game, the controls, the AI and so on. Prince of Persia on the Xbox is a short game (10-15 hours) but the controls are crisp and well thought out and responsive, the story is involving, and the AI is...well lacking, but that's ok because it is still fun to play.

Halo and Doom are nearly completely uncomparable. Doom you are limited to ONE looking angle (ie. only straight forward, you cannot look up/down), Halo, you are free to look in any and every direction. Already that adds an element to the gameplay. No longer do you simply have to look in the right direction and fire blindly only to see a rocket go streaming upwards (good 'ol auto-targeting), it becomes a matter of actually trying to follow something moving about in 3 dimensions. Another huge factor is AI. The AI in Doom was this: the enemies either stood there shooting at you, or ran towards you shooting at you. That's it. I won't go into the depths of the AI in Halo, but if you play it you will see enemies using cover and working together. Your squad mates are actually useful. Let's not even talk about the vehicles adding layers to the gameplay, or the weapons actually feeling different and having different uses. Not a single mention of graphics there...Doom was a great game in it's time, but compared to the like of Halo, well even Quake, it pales in comparisons.

EA’s spokesman has already admitted that EA prefers quantity over quality but of course in a sugarcoating way with an appeal to emotion. Would you rather have a game per year or a game per three years? Is the main argument of his statements relating to that.

True some of the EA games are released before their time, but that is to meet the deadline of a new sports season starting up (for their sports games at least). Even though they may be released early they still build upon the previous year's game. There are always new AI touches (the casual gamer may not notice), or a tweak in the physics, or an extra mode or two, and yes, there is always graphics improvement. Some of their games may need an extra couple months of development, but overall they do a good job I'd say.

I think that's pretty much all I have to say for now...

 

[Nightwolf04]

ooo ok getting in all technically here and I really don't know much about them. I just know that I lvoed playing old mario etc. when I was a little bit younger. But now I love my ps2 it gives the same captivation as when I was playing mario, only the graphics are better and I can play more games with better graphics, ok maybe the games now aren't as original...but I still love my ps2, as well as I love my nintendo when I was little.

if that makes no sense you can of course yell at me ^.^

 

[JGJM]

i miss the old days but nintendo will always be the best a makin games and consoles.

 

[xod]

so true

 

[Coconut]

Now I am a sucker for each system, I have a gamecube, snes and nes. And I love games from wach system. But my favorite games of all time do come from snes (Teranigma, Crono Trigger, Secret of Mana, Link to the Past). But snes was the worst for quantity over quality. I was in a store that sells old games and it contained over 1000 snes and nes games with titles like Judge Dread. Come on! Snes had the most movies-made-into-games games.

I wanted to buy Secret of Mana but it was $100! I couldn't believe it.
Now my parents bought my snes games (I was 10 though) but I remember them not costing $100. Games nowadays do not cost that much.

Nostalgia and Secret of Mana lose out to me paying rent however

Sorry

 

[Guest]

I wish there were cheat sheets for the Donkey Kong and Mario! HA HA! I still have the SNES and I only have a PS1. I play occasionally but I have yet to get to the higher levels in all my games that a five year old can soar through in half an afternoon. I began playing in 1999 and have yet to advance to the third level of Donkey Kong. My nephew's boy borrowed Kirby to get me to another level; finished it in an afternoon; and WON'T give it back! The stinker! Kirby was the only one I truly enjoyed. Finding all that treasure! I want it back. Maybe when he graduates he will return it!