Are games becoming too advanced?

[Gunmetal]

In recent years, I've found myself enjoying modern games less and less, and on occasion, booting up an emulator and downloading some old favourites, or games I missed out on back in the day.
I've been contemplating this attraction to the older generation of games, and I think I've got a theory.

New games have all the technology: They can show the expression on a character's face, synch their lips to the words that are played, rather then displaying text on the screen. There's very little limits on what they can do. But is this necessarily a good thing?

Older video games, much like books, had the attraction of allowing the player to fill in the blanks themselves. Like the book, they'd give you a basic glimpse of the character, a limited slice of their personality, and from there, the rest was left up to your imagination. The blank face of a character could be a contented look of serenity, a wide-eyed expression of shock, or a determined glare, dependant on the circumstance. The tone in which they speak isn't conveyed by the text popping up at the bottom of the screen: They could speak in any tone or have any voice you envisioned them having.

Newer games leave nothing to the imagination. They give you every gory detail in high-resolution graphics, and while being able to see everything exactly as it was intended to be seen is great in a movie, I'm starting to think the same may not be true in games.

I'm not saying there's not good games in this generation, but think about it. How many modern games would be considered 'Legendary' on par with classics like FFVII or Zelda: Orcarina of Time?

[Shadow Soldier]

Originally Posted by Gunmetal

In recent years, I've found myself enjoying modern games less and less, and on occasion, booting up an emulator and downloading some old favourites, or games I missed out on back in the day. I've been contemplating this attraction to the older generation of games, and I think I've got a theory. New games have all the technology: They can show the expression on a character's face, synch their lips to the words that are played, rather then displaying text on the screen. There's very little limits on what they can do. But is this necessarily a good thing? Older video games, much like books, had the attraction of allowing the player to fill in the blanks themselves. Like the book, they'd give you a basic glimpse of the character, a limited slice of their personality, and then, from there, the rest was left up to your imagination. The blank face of a character could be a contented look of serenity, a wide-eyed expression of shock, or a determined glare, dependant on the circumstance. The tone in which they speak isn't conveyed by the text popping up at the bottom of the screen: They could speak in any tone or have any voice you envisioned them having. Newer games leave nothing to the imagination. They give you every gory detail in high-resolution graphics, and while being able to see everything exactly as it was intended to be seen is great in a movie, I'm starting to think the same may not be true in games. I'm not saying there's not good games in this generation, but think about it. How many modern games would be considered 'Legendary' on par with classics like FFVII or Zelda: Orcarina of Time?

I agree, you summed it up. Newer games just don't let the player use their imagination as much as the old school ones. And don't get me wrong, it's nice not having to read a lot of text, but sometimes, that could make all the difference. Like personally (not because im a fanboy), I would rather play OoT (<3) any day over the newer games. Or Chrono Trigger. EPIC, because the imagination factor was included.

[Gunmetal]

Originally Posted by Shadow Soldier

I agree, you summed it up. Newer games just don't let the player use their imagination as much as the old school ones. And don't get me wrong, it's nice not having to read a lot of text, but sometimes, that could make all the difference. Like personally (not because im a fanboy), I would rather play OoT (<3) any day over the newer games. Or Chrono Trigger. EPIC, because the imagination factor was included.

Oh man I'm gonna go download Chrono Trigger right now.

But I digress, we need more games that encourage creative thinking or imagination. Take a look at Little Big Planet. Simple idea, simple graphics, simple system, amazing game that's great fun to play.

Yet developers keep making more and more complex and confusing games, when really, all the 'great' games do have a simplistic element to them.

[Shadow Soldier]

Well frig, Super Mario is a prime example of that. Nobody really knows how he talks or anything like, and the simple mechanics of the game, jump on the enemies head. That's it.

[Gunmetal]

As with anything, there's gotta be balance. If the game is too simple, it becomes monotonous. It it's too complex, it becomes confusing. Imagine a sliding scale, where being in the exact midpoint is the ideal game. We're all the way up the 'Complex' end of that scale. Maro Bros. is all the way at the other end.

[Shadow Soldier]

It proves that 2 buttons, is all you need. Not 17.

[Ventux]

I think you're suffering from nostalgia, but I will agree that there is seemingly less effort put on certain aspects of games as the technology improves. Whether or not that's just my mind defocusing, I don't know. Emersive versus imaginative.

[Macabre]

When I was little playing Pokemon games I always imagined the character I'm controlling as exactly like me but cooler and able to command monsters of various kinds to battle with others. Haha.
As much as I enjoy being able to imagine/customize a blank main character in any way I want to I prefer being able to control a cool or interesting main characters like Snake from MGS, Dante from DMC, Cole from InFamous and so on.

[Square Ninja]

Originally Posted by Gunmetal

In recent years, I've found myself enjoying modern games less and less, and on occasion, booting up an emulator and downloading some old favourites, or games I missed out on back in the day.
I've been contemplating this attraction to the older generation of games, and I think I've got a theory.

New games have all the technology: They can show the expression on a character's face, synch their lips to the words that are played, rather then displaying text on the screen. There's very little limits on what they can do. But is this necessarily a good thing?

Older video games, much like books, had the attraction of allowing the player to fill in the blanks themselves. Like the book, they'd give you a basic glimpse of the character, a limited slice of their personality, and from there, the rest was left up to your imagination. The blank face of a character could be a contented look of serenity, a wide-eyed expression of shock, or a determined glare, dependant on the circumstance. The tone in which they speak isn't conveyed by the text popping up at the bottom of the screen: They could speak in any tone or have any voice you envisioned them having.

Newer games leave nothing to the imagination. They give you every gory detail in high-resolution graphics, and while being able to see everything exactly as it was intended to be seen is great in a movie, I'm starting to think the same may not be true in games.

The imagery only a small part of why you might be enjoying those older games more, but that's an entire discussion all together not exclusive to video games. I'd argue that the real reason you want to keep playing old games is because they much simpler in nature. Buy a new game today and look at the control scheme, then compare that to something from the NES days. The gameplay of old NES games was kept rather simple, yet many of them took a long time to master. That is the real draw of titles from generations past, simplicity. That's not to say that every game needs to operate on three buttons, but I think "modern" developers often forget what qualities old games used to draw players in in the first place.

Originally Posted by Gunmetal

How many modern games would be considered 'Legendary' on par with classics like FFVII or Zelda: Orcarina of Time?

:|

[Prajna]

I've always loved classic gaming like your Zelda's and Mario's. Just the way you play them are so much fun, nowadays people way to much emphasis on the graphics and all the other little bells and whistles of the game. A game with good graphics and a good story is alright but playability is the most important to me overall.

[Dogenzaka]

I like them advanced, though it shows games now need 3-4 years for development instead of 6-12 months. It asks developers to seriously polish every aspect of their game, and so far only Naughty Dog have been able to harness quality like that IMO.

Personally I think too many of you are drunk off the nostalgia of old games. I don't WANT my games to devolve into 3 hours of gameplay, 2 buttons and pixelated models looking like chopped up staircases in 5 different colors.

I think some games should embrace the old formula, though, like the new Project Needlemouse game. I think it should embrace the old 2D sonic gameplay but with the lush capabilities of the next-generation.

[Square Ninja]

Originally Posted by Prajna

I've always loved classic gaming like your Zelda's and Mario's. Just the way you play them are so much fun, nowadays people way to much emphasis on the graphics and all the other little bells and whistles of the game. A game with good graphics and a good story is alright but playability is the most important to me overall.

The "emphasis" on graphics has been there for quite some time. There have been plenty of bad games that got by on their visuals alone. Just look at Altered Beast. The phenomenon is not exclusive to the past two console generations.

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

Personally I think too many of you are drunk off the nostalgia of old games. I don't WANT my games to devolve into 3 hours of gameplay, 2 buttons and pixelated models looking like chopped up staircases in 5 different colors.

Many of those old games with "3 hours of gameplay" were designed like that because they only need to be that long. Developers chose not to make them artificially longer because that would detract from the game.

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

I think some games should embrace the old formula, though, like the new Project Needlemouse game. I think it should embrace the old 2D sonic gameplay but with the lush capabilities of the next-generation.

You're missing the point. It's not about being exactly like those old games. There are certain qualities those old games have that have been lost over the generations. Developers become too wrapped up in making these technical feats to remember the stuff that brought them into gaming in the first place.

[Dogenzaka]

Uh well I disagree.
Unless you're talking about Nintendo.
Because no games had magic like old Nintendo's games.
They of all people shouldn't have lost it.

[Gunmetal]

Originally Posted by Dogenzaka

Uh well I disagree.
Unless you're talking about Nintendo.
Because no games had magic like old Nintendo's games.
They of all people shouldn't have lost it.

Nintendo would be the one who's kept things mostly intact, in my opinion, if not for one thing: The Wii.

Yes, they made a console with a sensor remote instead of a controller. Does that mean that they have to force a remote-waving minigame into every six seconds of gameplay where it really dosn't fit and comes off as useless and gimmicky?

Apparently, yes it does. But games by nintendo that ignore the remote gimmick seem to end up turning out well. I would of course quote brawl, but I think in this circumstance, a better example is Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn or Super Mario Galaxy. (Galaxy actually did use the remote, but they only used it in appropriate situations, such as firing mario from a cannon, rather then overusing it.)

[Shadow Soldier]

Originally Posted by Gunmetal

Nintendo would be the one who's kept things mostly intact, in my opinion, if not for one thing: The Wii.

Yes, they made a console with a sensor remote instead of a controller. Does that mean that they have to force a remote-waving minigame into every six seconds of gameplay where it really dosn't fit and comes off as useless and gimmicky?

Apparently, yes it does. But games by nintendo that ignore the remote gimmick seem to end up turning out well. I would of course quote brawl, but I think in this circumstance, a better example is Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn.

Metroid Prime 3 Corruption... best use for that controller I've seen to date.