Now Playing (Video Games)
- Thread starter Onhell
- Start date
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Yeah, I've bumped into more and more people over the years in a similar trajectory. And while I had a NES I never owned another Nintendo console. I would play them at friends' homes, but I had a Genesis, PC (early Blizzard games, Pirates! Gold), then a Mac until my 360 like.... damn.... 6 years ago? I can check the posts, but close enough.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
Sorry to step on your applause line, but when you go from systems like the Intellivision or the Atari 5200 which had 12+ buttons and either a 32-direction disc or an analog joystick, and you’re playing things like an early RTS game that made full use of the keypad, and driving games with finer-grained control, and then suddenly the entire market moves to 8-direction D-pads and only 2 or 3 buttons for the next decade or more, it’s kind of a slap in the face. And we were stuck there with only incremental improvements for 2 full console generations, thanks to Nintendo.
They were also primarily responsible for gaming being treated as a children’s pursuit for as long as it was. Prior to the NES, arcade and home gaming had a broader-based audience, but the intentional simplicity and kid-friendliness of Nintendo’s offerings created a public perception that didn’t start to be shaken off until the Sega Genesis, and wasn’t fully shaken off until the Playstation 2.
Don’t get me wrong, Nintendo makes well-crafted first party games for their target audience. But they’ve also done their fair share of damage over the years.
Doubtful! You've always cheerfully enjoyed stepping on them in the past!
The collapse of Intellivision and Atari has nothing at all to do with Nintendo - they brought it upon themselves. The Atari 5200 that you mention - which was a great system for the time, absolutely - sold a million copies and was discontinued within 2 years of release. The $269 retail price had a lot to do with that ($670 today), of course. They also spent a ton of money developing games that were quickly and easily pirated or just were terrible. You can be as advanced as you want, but if nobody buys you, then were you really advanced? An unused video game system doesn't convince the powers that be that 16 buttons and 32 directions are worthwhile.
Besides, while all this was happening, people who were willing to spend that kind of money were able to get the best gaming system available: the PC, where game development proceeded apace. The NES-Super NES era lasted 11 years (approximately) and during that period of time, the PC was hammering out classic after classic. Wolfenstein 3D. Doom. Civilization. Sim City. Myst. It's not like technological video game development stagnated during this time, far from it. In fact, everything you talked about kept happening, just on the PC, and it is the 80s and early 90s where serious PC gamer culture starts to form.
And while we're at it, let's get the button issue straight. The NES had a 8 direction pad and 4 buttons. The SMS originally had a similar direction pad and 2 buttons. Why? Because the Atari 5200 failed. Intellivision failed. Complex controller configurations had been tested by the market and not succeeded. By 1990 they had moved up to 8 directions/8 buttons. This clearly followed a gentle evolution from the Atari 2600 controller, which is a joystick and a button.
Atop that, you're forgetting the number one reason why people liked the Nintendo. In the space of 2 years, it went from this:
To this:
Oh, the 5200 had better graphics, but nowhere near as good as the NES/SMS. I remember growing up around people who had switched from Coleicovision/Intellivision/Atari to NES/SMS and very few people in 1988 were pining for 16 buttons. They loved the way the games looked and sounded (don't forget the audio capacity of NES/SMS is much better as well) and played and felt intuitive. The only complaint I recall about the NES was the controller being uncomfortably square. The NES was affordable, but Nintendo always has understood that a good game doesn't need to be a complex game. It just needs to make people playing it smile. Which is why Atari sold a million 5200s (and less 7800s, from what I can find), and Nintendo sold...61 million NES consoles.
So, let's be clear here - video game technologies continued to develop on the PC, producing massive blockbusters that remain hugely influential to this day, and would later encourage console developers to work in concert with the PC to ensure that they don't miss on killer apps. The Nintendo and Sega systems of the 80s and 90s greatly contributed to the concept of video games as an art form - if they aren't as focused on complexity of play, they are instead more focused on capturing vibrant colours and clear sounds and packaging it into an affordable set, and building stronger aesthetics into the console form. I think it's pretty clear that if you don't have Nintendo, you don't get the PS1 in the form that it is, straddling the two lines. Almost like Nintendo paid Sony to devise a CD-based console for Nintendo games, but then broke off the relationship... ...
This is pure nonsense. In the pre-video game crash era, video games were seen as a children's thing too. Children went to arcades and pumped money into Pac-Man. Children played Atari. Regretfully I can't find any easy statistics on demographics, there's lots of anecdotes about it. There's a good one here:
Remembering the world's largest Pac-Man tournament at County Stadium in 1982
"All the success I had in that tournament was just from the skill I had of the basic game. I never really went in expecting to win."
milwaukeerecord.com
Some adults. Mostly kids playing Pac-Man at that tournament.
The Playstation 2 didn't return gaming to an old height - it merged with the PC-style of adult gaming that had already emerged and made it more mainstream, and good on it! The PS2 is one of the greatest consoles of all time and deserves to be so celebrated. But this fantasy world where Nintendo doesn't exist and therefore Atari can make complex, more modern games in the 80s is just that - a fantasy world. Nintendo didn't snuff out the competition, the competition snuffed itself out and Nintendo showed up with something that people wanted in bigger numbers than they ever wanted the pre-crash systems.
Yes, they do. They also make great games across the board. The Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Brothers are two of the most important, influential, and best selling franchises in history. Nintendo makes the most popular JRPG of all time, Pokemon. The Donkey Kong Country games in the mid 90s inspired a generation of polygonal games on the PS and N64 (most of which looked like garbage compared to DKC). Animal Crossing can hardly be considered a party game, it's a simulation that has taken the world by storm in a time where party games are almost impossible. What about Tetris, the killer app that made mobile gaming a thing? Don't tell me Nintendo is just Smash, Party, and Kart.
In the limited spectrum of you wanting a PS2 to be developed years earlier, sure. But the reality is this - Nintendo saved the console industry. The Video Game Crash of 1983 was catastrophic. Video game revenues declined 97% year over year from '83 to '84. Major US players went bankrupt. Companies looking at consoles bailed. Activision did exactly what I described above: they jumped to PCs, and I'm not sure, anyone hear from them how that went? Did they do ok on the PC? Speaking of the PC, 1984 was the year it took off, because people wanted something that they couldn't get from console, which presumably allowed for Activision to at least make two or three more games. As for Atari itself...well, it died too. It died in 1984, even before the Nintendo could launch their Famicon in North America. It was sold for parts, and while Atari eventually came back as a brand, it was never really the same. It died in a desert of its own creation before Nintendo could irrigate the once fertile of consoles and bring it back to life. Nowadays, Atari is a video game publisher...for PC games, while Nintendo is one of the largest businesses in the world.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
And I wasn’t trying to imply that Nintendo was responsible for that. Just that the way they elected to shape the console landscape as the industry was revived had long-term negative repercussions on controller complexity and fidelity, and on the nature of what types of games were available.
Shovelware for the Atari 2600 was the biggest contributor to the video game crash, from what I could see.
Be careful of the “popular = high quality“ argument, because that doesn’t hold up to scrutiny well, for obvious reasons.
My concerns have to do with technical constraints, not with market forces. Going from an Intellivision to an NES was like trying to perform surgery wearing oven mitts. Sure, it looked and sounded nicer, but the limited controls were an albatross hung around the neck of the entire industry for years afterward. Once 3D console gaming became a thing, even people used to those constraints finally realized how much they sucked, and analog control became the norm again. It was just painful to watch from the perspective of someone who’d already been to the promised land before the NES.
Yes, but the gulf between PCs and consoles was a lot larger then, and the types of games available on each were significantly different. If you wanted to play a combat flight simulator with decent control, the PC was your only option. If you wanted to play a platformer of some kind, with a small handful of exceptions you had to go to a console. Those divisions don’t exist today.
You’re really going to count Start and Select in order to double the button count? OK, whatever. 2 main buttons for gameplay, 2 auxiliary buttons.
How old were they? Had they ever played games like Utopia, or were they only interested in simple arcadey experiences? Context matters.
And pop music artists have always understood that a good song doesn’t need to be a complex song. It just needs to make people listening to it smile. So why listen to prog? The market has spoken, therefore people who waste their time liking prog are utter fools, right? Everyone else moved on and proved them wrong.
See the problem with that “argument”? Clearly Master Of Puppets wasn’t any good because the black album’s sales blew it out of the water. Silly me.
My local arcades were packed with teenagers and college students. A few people older than that, and a decent number younger than that. But it was most certainly not the domain of primarily young children. Game consoles were expensive in the early 80s, and not the most common thing in the world to get as a gift. Again, teenagers and college kids were a big part of that customer base because they had disposable income.
Nintendo kiddified the console space with the simplicity and tone of what they offered, and they brought the price down to where gifting made sense. Part of what brought the industry back was turning the console into a kid’s toy, but that had long term ramifications on public perception as well. And this left older gamers with nowhere to go on consoles if they weren’t into children’s entertainment, so many of them did wind up going to the PC.
Grand Theft Auto III on the Playstation 2 ended the Nintendo-fueled perception that consoles were for kids.
Yes, what about it? It debuted on a plethora of platforms before Nintendo ever got involved. I played it on my PC before it ever showed up on the GameBoy.
I never did, and I wasn’t planning to.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Technical superiority doesn't mean better product. Look at everything Apple has done since 97. Nothing was "new." Hell, touchscreen technology had been around since the 70s. Look at the Sega Game Gear vs. the Gameboy or Gameboy Color. Both gameboys were a better product even if technically inferior.
Look at the Wii, WAY inferior technically than the playstation and xbox it debuted next to, but a better product. In other words, what good is it to have the best specs, if only 5 people have it? Sales matter. Nintendo made gaming accessible and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Now I know you'll point to both consoles still selling in the millions and that being more than 5 people as an easy way to invalidate my point, so I'll just point out the fact that the Wii is the 3rd best selling console in HISTORY.
I used to go to arcades as a kid and you know why I hated it? Because it was the same toxic environment that multiplayer online is today. A bunch of teens and young adults hogging the best cabinets and when you finally get a chance to play they jump in and destroy you for being a n00b. Thank god for console ports, otherwise I would've never really had a chance to play Street Fighter II or Mortal Kombat..... Fuck Tekken, that shit was wack even on arcades.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
@Midnight, I posted this on a now buried thread in 2009. Since you are a fellow Mega Man fan I wanted to get your thoughts on it:
Even before reading The Depth of Shallow Culture (maybe that's why I enjoyed it so much) I've always enjoyed digging deeper into what is presented to us on Tv ads, movies and of course video games. All these media merely scratches the surface of deeper ideological iceburghs and this is my take on Mega Man.
The game consists of a little blue robot who in order to save the world must destroy 8 (except in the first game, only 6) "Robot Masters" and eventually capture their creator, Dr. Wily (which he does over, and over and over again...). The Game debuted way back in the mid 80's and became an instant hit. In trying to find out why the game is/was so popular expert offer the great music (for 8-bit beeps and boops anyway), graphics and the FREEDOM to choose your own path as the reasons why. This last one is the one I'd like to focus on. Mega Man all of a sudden is a microcosm of the free will vs. predetermination dilema. You have 8 robots you have to defeat, and you can choose which one to face 1st-8th, but no matter in what order you beat them you are destined to fight Wily. Kind of like no matter what path you choose in life you'll die eventually...
In the 90's Capcom gave the little blue bomber a face lift (along with a new identity) in Mega Man X. "X" is the first conscious robot, it has the ability to feel and make it's own desicions. Dr. Light is no longer living, but has left X several pods with enhancements to help him on his quest. When you find the first pod Dr. Light says that he created X with the ability to make up his own mind and he had hoped he would have chosen a peaceful existence, yet it seemed that he was destined to fight.... Something Dr. Light doesn't mention, but the booklet does hehe, is that the current robots were made off of X's source code and X feels somewhat responsible for the mayhem. Thus, could X simply have chosen a peaceful existence? Was he "destined" to fight? Or was his desicion an obvious one? In other words how "free" are we in our desicion making?
Another reason why the series has been so successful is because once you defeat a Robot Master you acquire its weapon which you can turn on the next RM you face. This brings me to two things. The first is that the creator likened the process to Rock, Paper, Scissors. He stated that no one thing is stronger than everything else, everything has a weakness, but if Mega Man acquires all the weapons, what is his weakness? Easy.. You and your decision-making abilities. The second is the simple fact you take the weapons. While it may be a stretch this reminds me of how there is always something you can learn (or quite literally take away from) every relationship/person you have/meet... including your enemies. We are social creatures with an uncanny knack for sharing information and if you pay attention even the crazy alcoholic hobo at the bus stop can teach you something.
The game consists of a little blue robot who in order to save the world must destroy 8 (except in the first game, only 6) "Robot Masters" and eventually capture their creator, Dr. Wily (which he does over, and over and over again...). The Game debuted way back in the mid 80's and became an instant hit. In trying to find out why the game is/was so popular expert offer the great music (for 8-bit beeps and boops anyway), graphics and the FREEDOM to choose your own path as the reasons why. This last one is the one I'd like to focus on. Mega Man all of a sudden is a microcosm of the free will vs. predetermination dilema. You have 8 robots you have to defeat, and you can choose which one to face 1st-8th, but no matter in what order you beat them you are destined to fight Wily. Kind of like no matter what path you choose in life you'll die eventually...
In the 90's Capcom gave the little blue bomber a face lift (along with a new identity) in Mega Man X. "X" is the first conscious robot, it has the ability to feel and make it's own desicions. Dr. Light is no longer living, but has left X several pods with enhancements to help him on his quest. When you find the first pod Dr. Light says that he created X with the ability to make up his own mind and he had hoped he would have chosen a peaceful existence, yet it seemed that he was destined to fight.... Something Dr. Light doesn't mention, but the booklet does hehe, is that the current robots were made off of X's source code and X feels somewhat responsible for the mayhem. Thus, could X simply have chosen a peaceful existence? Was he "destined" to fight? Or was his desicion an obvious one? In other words how "free" are we in our desicion making?
Another reason why the series has been so successful is because once you defeat a Robot Master you acquire its weapon which you can turn on the next RM you face. This brings me to two things. The first is that the creator likened the process to Rock, Paper, Scissors. He stated that no one thing is stronger than everything else, everything has a weakness, but if Mega Man acquires all the weapons, what is his weakness? Easy.. You and your decision-making abilities. The second is the simple fact you take the weapons. While it may be a stretch this reminds me of how there is always something you can learn (or quite literally take away from) every relationship/person you have/meet... including your enemies. We are social creatures with an uncanny knack for sharing information and if you pay attention even the crazy alcoholic hobo at the bus stop can teach you something.
Midnight
The Ever-Present "It"
It's a rather well-constructed take, though I feel like you're reading a bit too far into it.
If you were planning to take it further, you could say that the portrayal of the year in the games as 20XX represents the view that human nature and the ways of the world stay more or less constant, no matter what the time period is.
If you were planning to take it further, you could say that the portrayal of the year in the games as 20XX represents the view that human nature and the ways of the world stay more or less constant, no matter what the time period is.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
I'm definitely reading a lot into it lol. Mega Man isn't my go to for a well thought out plot. But the fact it has a very slim plot allows for this type of speculation. As for the years, whether 200X or 20XX, not so much that HUMAN nature stays constant, but what about AI? X and Zero have emotions, hell Zero FALLS IN LOVE. Is this the advancement of AI, the future of singularity? etc. Again... fun speculation as they are video games at the end of the day, but no reason it shouldn't be my fall back topic for a potential Master's thesis hahahaha.
Midnight
The Ever-Present "It"
Well, that's why it's 21XX, isn't it? More time for AI to develop.
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Finished Halo Reach. It was really cool. I had read the novel already so much of it wasn't a surprise. It was refreshing to play a game in which even if you win, you lose. What I mean is, for every minor victory there is always a major setback. Normally there is some progress, here you just keep drowning. I like the variety in settings and gameplay. The dogfights in space were interesting as there was no real "up" or "down" as was the mission in which you alternated between areal combat and dungeon storming essentially.
In previous Halo games you can normally strong arm your way through, get the right weapon, execute a strategy and that's it. Here I constantly had to switch up my approach mainly due to the frequent lack of ammo. I used all sorts of weapons and I did something I never did before, simply charge an enemy and smack him with the butt of my weapon. Also, not bother with enemies if possible. I usually like to clean the map, but here, between the lack of ammo and high number of enemies, at times I just snuck through. There was one particular level where I had to shut down... something, can't remember what exactly, but in one particular building this thing was guarded by six hunters. These guys are a pain, they have powerful one shot kill plasma cannons, heavy armor and a giant shield. The two ways to kill them are to make them lift their shields and shoot their torso or get them to rush you, evade and shoot them in the back. Also... they're always in pairs.
When I first enter the building I see two, I dispatch them with grenades and range shots to the back as they're attacking other humans. Then two more show up, then two more! I was able to kill 3 of them before realizing It would be impossible to kill the other three as I was running low on ammo. I said, fuck it, and just ran to my objective, evaded the hunters and just ran out.
Also got some Shantae Half Genie Hero DLC on sale. I thought I would have to wait a while before being able to get it, but it went on sale for insanely cheap. It has 3 DLCs each going for about $105 pesos or about 5 dollars. Doesn't sound like much in dollars, but 300 pesos is a lot of money, it's more than what I pay in electricity every 2 months. Well, 2 went on sale for 30 pesos or about US$1.50. THAT, I can do hehe. In one you play as the antagonist, Risky Boots, the other gives you three new costumes that changes the level design and game play. In every single one you play through the same levels the only difference being slight changes to the design depending on the mode. Only missing one last mode of the ones I currently have.
Also went back to Gone Home. Even though I already know what happens, the story still got to me and I still like how everything is revealed to the player and how you get to see what each member of the family went through simply through letters, journals, post-it notes and the like. I focused on getting certain achievements and exploring the whole house. I only have a few speedrun achievements left, but I'm not interested in those at the moment.
I'll go back to the last of KOTOR next week hopefully.
In previous Halo games you can normally strong arm your way through, get the right weapon, execute a strategy and that's it. Here I constantly had to switch up my approach mainly due to the frequent lack of ammo. I used all sorts of weapons and I did something I never did before, simply charge an enemy and smack him with the butt of my weapon. Also, not bother with enemies if possible. I usually like to clean the map, but here, between the lack of ammo and high number of enemies, at times I just snuck through. There was one particular level where I had to shut down... something, can't remember what exactly, but in one particular building this thing was guarded by six hunters. These guys are a pain, they have powerful one shot kill plasma cannons, heavy armor and a giant shield. The two ways to kill them are to make them lift their shields and shoot their torso or get them to rush you, evade and shoot them in the back. Also... they're always in pairs.
When I first enter the building I see two, I dispatch them with grenades and range shots to the back as they're attacking other humans. Then two more show up, then two more! I was able to kill 3 of them before realizing It would be impossible to kill the other three as I was running low on ammo. I said, fuck it, and just ran to my objective, evaded the hunters and just ran out.
Also got some Shantae Half Genie Hero DLC on sale. I thought I would have to wait a while before being able to get it, but it went on sale for insanely cheap. It has 3 DLCs each going for about $105 pesos or about 5 dollars. Doesn't sound like much in dollars, but 300 pesos is a lot of money, it's more than what I pay in electricity every 2 months. Well, 2 went on sale for 30 pesos or about US$1.50. THAT, I can do hehe. In one you play as the antagonist, Risky Boots, the other gives you three new costumes that changes the level design and game play. In every single one you play through the same levels the only difference being slight changes to the design depending on the mode. Only missing one last mode of the ones I currently have.
Also went back to Gone Home. Even though I already know what happens, the story still got to me and I still like how everything is revealed to the player and how you get to see what each member of the family went through simply through letters, journals, post-it notes and the like. I focused on getting certain achievements and exploring the whole house. I only have a few speedrun achievements left, but I'm not interested in those at the moment.
I'll go back to the last of KOTOR next week hopefully.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
I finished the Ace Attorney HD Trilogy and finally started on Horizon: Zero Dawn. It’s a well crafted game (no pun intended), but I definitely have some open world fatigue. Tired of all the thinly veiled fetch quests and collectathons — at this point it just feels like padding that wastes my time.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Good phrase. After playing Zero Dawn, Red Dead 2, God of War and Wild Hunt back-to-back-to-back (albeit over a very long time, 2-3 years or so), I’m ready for another Uncharted-type game that is more linear. Planning to go with an old Madden or other sports game this weekend. Bring back sports!!
Last edited:
Saapanael
Ancient Mariner
Diablo II has possibly the greatest video game soundtrack I've ever heard. It's not as bombastic as modern soundtracks but the instrumentation is so atmospheric and so...right. Take this theme of a desert town, for example. I'll never get over the genius of this game's soundtrack.
Jer
'Til Tomorrow
I liked it a lot, though it ultimately boils down to clicking on everything in an investigation, pressing on everything in court, and then paying attention enough to know what evidence or person to challenge statements with. Usually this was pretty fair, but there were a few times in Trials & Tribulations where you could know exactly what point to make, but finding the exact combination of testimony statement and evidence to trigger the right response was overly narrow.
I would definitely check out a follow-up HD collection of the more recent games if they decide to do one.
