Kiddy factor

[The TJT]

What is your favourite arcade videogame era?

This is like 80's vs 90's poll, but more precise
Poll runs for 2 days only

[LN2]

In case they don't read any posts, perhaps the question should be reworded so it's clear you are asking about best arcade game period only.

...not console or PC games....just arcade.

[tar]

tough choice

i like 1978 - ' 82

[The TJT]

Hi, thanks for voting in this poll.

Results were surprising: 80's - 18 votes, 90's - none!
So 90's were so bad...
Those votes that I was expecting to go for 90's went for 85-89, I think.
I was expecting allmost all 80's votes to go for 80-84.
Thinking about popular games at 85-89 era, there are some Atari ones for me, maybe some shmups and fighters for others.

Next logical step would be to make a poll about age of Marpers...Or maybe it's just true what designer/programmer of Defender,Stargate,Robotron,Smash TV, Blaster, Cruis'n series programmer said:

Was/is originality in game design important to you?

To me, if you have nothing new and cool to bring to the table, then there is no sense in designing a game. Regrettably, about 80% of the video game business involves clone products and cheesy licensed titles. These are the too-numerous to mention titles that no one remembers once the ad budget runs out. Life is too short to waste on me-too efforts. If you are just doing it for the money, and you can't get even get yourself psyched about your project, then it's time to move on to something fresh. Why waste irreplaceable time in life just making money, when the alternative is having some fun exploring the unknown? Money can be made later, but time is lost forever.

Excitement can be a new character, a new game genre, a new camera angle, a novel playfield, a better display engine: color vs. black & white, texture mapping vs. flat shaded polys, 3-D vs. 2-D, better frame rate, awesome AI, etc. The huge megahits never are strictly a graphics upgrade, but involve fundamental gameplay paradigm shifts: "Mario," "Doom," "Space Invaders," "Tetris," "Pac Man," etc. The latter three involved no real improvement in graphics, they were just awesome games.

Word!

And he continues:

Do you see retrogaming as just a fad or do you think it will in some way have an effect on the types of games being written?

For me the retrogaming movement is more than just nostalgia of misty eyed Gen X'ers. It's a reaction to the current graphical overkill, the simulation obsessed gaming environment of the late 90s. In our quest for absolute graphical realism, we have forgotten the basics of gaming. Look at "Virtua Fighter 3" vs. "Virtua Fighter 2." Unless you are a proctologist, you can't find a dimes' worth of difference in the gameplay. It is clear that the design team focused on the beautiful water effects, facial expressions, awesome backdrops, and 400 polygon, fully rendered loin-cloth animations. Have we as game designers become mere interior decorators, spending months on the reflection mapping of candlelight, or loin-cloth motion capture? Have we forgotten the essence of gaming which is to present the player with novel and original challenges? Once you've seen the interior decoration, there's no need to come back. You need a game in there.

So a game with better graphics does not win. Gameplay is king. If you have simple graphics to play with, as a game designer, you'll just have to make gameplay damn good.
Yet, surely many marpers like playing 90's + games also...We just know the fact that they are copies from 80's(or 70's), which explains the results of this vote a bit.

To say something postive about 90's + games....Some driving games are more cool and nowadays there's the consoles and netplay thingy for those kiddies who did not vote.

[BBH]

well of course a poll like this on a site more suited for retrogaming is going to skew 80's... I didn't know what to vote for since I enjoy games from all different eras.

You're way too harsh on newer games. In my opinion, shoot-em-ups in particular have evolved quite a lot and are a lot more enjoyable. I'm not the only one that would take Strikers 1999 over Galaga any day.

The bit about comparing Virtua Fighter 2 to Virtua Fighter 3 is particularly retarded. I'm not a huge fan of the Virtua Fighter series, but even I know that besides adding extra characters, they added an extra dodge button, lots of new moves for every character, and completely different backgrounds that factor in slanted floors and walls (in VF1 and 2, no backgrounds have walls and it's always possible to win by Ring Out). The Virtua Fighter series is pretty much regarded as the deepest fighting game, by the way... the level of skill that one can attain is pretty much limitless.

Because like I've said on the Funspot forum, even if you hate fighting games, you have to respect the fact that they introduced a whole new level of competition. You weren't competing against the computer all the time, you were competing against another human. The level of depth in Street Fighter II was insane, there was so much to learn, and so much motivation to do better so you could stay on the machine longer.

I have a lot of respect for Eugene Jarvis for creating Robotron 2084, but I'm sorry, the Cruis'n series sucks. I find it hilarious that he is dissing newer games for not bringing anything new to the table, when the Cruis'n games are mediocre driving games. I believe Eugene Jarvis' newest game is a gun game called Target: Terror or something... I read an interview where he was hyping it up like it was going to be a huge deal. Screenshots of it surfaced and it looks like the Area 51 / Maximum Force formula all over again... what a hypocrite.

Of course games from the 90's on are going to be "copies" of earlier games, because it's hard to do anything completely new. Back then, nothing had been done yet so of course games were more innovative... I think the best new genre of games is Konami's Bemani series (DDR, Beatmania, etc.). It's something that hadn't been done before and has addicted people worldwide.

Oh, and for the record, my favorite game of all time is Shock Troopers, which was released in 1997... if you say that game is devoid of gameplay, I'll lose all respect for you.

[The TJT]

Ok...ok...calm down dude
My intention was not to make statement against 90's games. Or to diss games you like. Did choose a bit provocative quotes though. Vote result intrigued me.

well of course a poll like this on a site more suited for retrogaming is going to skew 80's... I didn't know what to vote for since I enjoy games from all different eras.

Noted. Yet, we can play 90's games with mame quite well.
Perhaps there should've been an option "I like all eras equal". Then again that would be too easy.

You're way too harsh on newer games. In my opinion, shoot-em-ups in particular have evolved quite a lot and are a lot more enjoyable. I'm not the only one that would take Strikers 1999 over Galaga any day.

Yes. It's a matter of taste. You can't arque constructively about matter of taste. Atleast now we're talking.

I do enjoy shmups of nineties, I don't think they're very groundbreaking though. Also don't like bosses. I think that adding bosses to a game is simply a try to cover up bad actual gameplay, or to make overall easy game more difficult.

The bit about comparing Virtua Fighter 2 to Virtua Fighter 3 is particularly retarded. I'm not a huge fan of the Virtua Fighter series, but even I know that besides adding extra characters, they added an extra dodge button, lots of new moves for every character, and completely different backgrounds that factor in slanted floors and walls (in VF1 and 2, no backgrounds have walls and it's always possible to win by Ring Out). The Virtua Fighter series is pretty much regarded as the deepest fighting game, by the way... the level of skill that one can attain is pretty much limitless.

Because like I've said on the Funspot forum, even if you hate fighting games, you have to respect the fact that they introduced a whole new level of competition. You weren't competing against the computer all the time, you were competing against another human. The level of depth in Street Fighter II was insane, there was so much to learn, and so much motivation to do better so you could stay on the machine longer.

I trust your insight on gameplay.
I liked graphics of VF2 really much when saw that at arcades, that was really groundbreaking then.
Human opponent is allways interesting.

I have a lot of respect for Eugene Jarvis for creating Robotron 2084, but I'm sorry, the Cruis'n series sucks. I find it hilarious that he is dissing newer games for not bringing anything new to the table, when the Cruis'n games are mediocre driving games. I believe Eugene Jarvis' newest game is a gun game called Target: Terror or something... I read an interview where he was hyping it up like it was going to be a huge deal. Screenshots of it surfaced and it looks like the Area 51 / Maximum Force formula all over again... what a hypocrite.

Also he said that the huge megahits "involve fundamental gameplay paradigm shifts" ...Yet I don't see such between Defender and Stargate...Or Robotron vs Smash TV.

As a side note, it's quite rare that sequel is better than original. So Stargate was a nice exception.

Smash TV pales in comparison to Robotron. But that is simply because Robotron is such a perfect game. If I'd have to choose a greatest game ever, Robotron would be a close call.

To defend Jarvis (not my business anyway), let's say that Cruis'n games sold a lot, and if it's bad, mediocre, or great, is personal taste.
That Terror game...Well, when have you heard a singer answer to "which is your greatest album" something like: my first one was great, nowadays I push this shit for just to cash my fans... Latest one is allways the best movie, record, book, whatever. Understandably, yeah, sure...

Of course games from the 90's on are going to be "copies" of earlier games, because it's hard to do anything completely new. Back then, nothing had been done yet so of course games were more innovative... I think the best new genre of games is Konami's Bemani series (DDR, Beatmania, etc.). It's something that hadn't been done before and has addicted people worldwide.

I agree. Just forgot to mention dance games.

Oh, and for the record, my favorite game of all time is Shock Troopers, which was released in 1997... if you say that game is devoid of gameplay, I'll lose all respect for you.

Wow! Respect is easy to lose

I like the controls of ST, have played it only couple games.
Generally at games, I like strange controls and hard games that take long time to learn.
Something about old graphics in videogames fascinates me. I don't like if game looks too close to reality, then it looses some VG-feel imo. If it's a colour vector game, things are perfect for me.
I'm a 80's games freak! And proud of it!

TJT

P.S. Interesting Jarvis interviews at
http://www.wayoftherodent.com/bob_ejinterview.htm
and
http://www.dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/JARVIS.HTM

If I was a great player, I don’t think I could design good games – I’d end up making ‘em too hard.

Yeah, Robotron and Defender sure are easy to learn

[BBH]

just going to say this since it seems to be a hot topic now...

Also he said that the huge megahits "involve fundamental gameplay paradigm shifts" ...Yet I don't see such between Defender and Stargate...Or Robotron vs Smash TV.

As a side note, it's quite rare that sequel is better than original. So Stargate was a nice exception.

Smash TV pales in comparison to Robotron. But that is simply because Robotron is such a perfect game. If I'd have to choose a greatest game ever, Robotron would be a close call.

My problem with Robotron (and a lot of the older games, for that matter) is that they're too repetitive. There are no extra weapons, no new enemies, nothing new ever happens on Robotron. You just keep playing and playing until you get bored and quit, because on default settings, Robotron is a much easier game than Smash TV (in the arcade, anyway. MAME is more difficult). There's a lot more challenge in Smash TV, and a lot more techniques to learn... it's a much deeper game than Robotron. I think the variety more than keeps it from "paling in comparison" to Robotron.

I know a lot of the people that prefer old games also love marathons, but I can't stand them. I don't enjoy playing the same game for hours and hours without stopping... it just shows that you've pretty much mastered the game, there's nothing left to do but try it at harder settings... or start playing something else.

(by the way, that question on the TG forum wasn't really necessary, it looked like you were trying to start a debate on the two games... and the whole "sequel" argument doesn't really work since Smash TV is never officially classified as a sequel to Robotron.)

[LN2]

As a side note, it's quite rare that sequel is better than original. So Stargate was a nice exception.

perhaps..but not quite as rare as you might think.
mspac as a sequel to pacman.
Millipede as a sequel to centipede.
Hyper Sports as a sequel to Track-n-Field. I had to mention HS...hehe

I am sure I could think of another 5-10 but those 3 quickly popped in my mind.

For console games, it seems more often the sequel(s) is superior to the original.

ie. SMB was great...SMB2 then semi-sucked...but then SMB3 kicked butt.
The original Zelda was great...Zelda "2" sucked...but then Zelda "3"...the SNES-Zelda...owned!!!

pc games too...

quake as a sequel to Doom...

although then we had quake 2 and quake 3-a....then back to Doom as Doom 3....which overall seems disappointing. I guess all those effects and graphics mean little there. Not many have $2000+ to spend on a new PC just for that game.

Most sport game sequels were improvements over their predecessors.

Smash TV pales in comparison to Robotron. But that is simply because Robotron is such a perfect game. If I'd have to choose a greatest game ever, Robotron would be a close call.

hehe... I wouldn't put it that high..but it definitely would be in my top 25.

My problem with Robotron (and a lot of the older games, for that matter) is that they're too repetitive.

yep...only so much you can do with 4k RAM or 8k etc. with a 1 or 2 MHz CPU hehe

There are no extra weapons, no new enemies, nothing new ever happens on Robotron.

well, beyond the 7th wave...correct. You don't see any tanks until wave 7.

yeah, many of the older games could have been improved with a few powerups here and there...and with the monster/enemy AI increasing somehow on later levels. The grunts would move faster...so those waves definitely get tougher...but that's about it.

Games then didn't have the RAM or storage capacity to have various bosses after a set of levels and/or then a new set of enemies for the next wave of levels. That really didn't start until arcade games like Rastan and Gladiator or console games like NES-Zelda.

I know a lot of the people that prefer old games also love marathons, but I can't stand them. I don't enjoy playing the same game for hours and hours without stopping... it just shows that you've pretty much mastered the game, there's nothing left to do but try it at harder settings... or start playing something else.

yep....once you have mastered a game where you can play it as long as you can stay conscious, that's it for that game. It then is just a contest of how long can you stay awake....not based on the skill of playing the game at all.

I think there are a lot more rom sets that MARP can make special rules for limiting men or increasing the difficulty setting to make it a real competition again instead of it just being an endurance contest.

TG will certainly be looking into this more for its MAME division.

for example...Nibbler. many..including myself, have mastered this game where we can fairly easily marathon it(marathoning for this one meaning at least 12 hours)...

I think a track where it's only a 10 man game would be interesting. Notice I said 10 men, not 5...cuz for this title I think 5-men only would make the game too short. A contest that lasts only 5-10 minutes isn't long enough IMHO. ...or perhaps #men where the gametime of the masters would be something like 1-2 hours at least.

since Smash TV is never officially classified as a sequel to Robotron.)

yep, I never looked at that game as a sequel.

[The TJT]

Rick, check your quotes...Couple first are mine, rest are Matt's.

And hey...Both are great, but T&F is better than HS!!!

Joust-Joust2, blah
Starwars-ESB, blah
Movies...

[The TJT]

Wrote this earlier to reply BBH, forums were temporarily down:

just going to say this since it seems to be a hot topic now...

Yeah, congrats about new record!

My problem with Robotron (and a lot of the older games, for that matter) is that they're too repetitive. There are no extra weapons, no new enemies, nothing new ever happens on Robotron.

Exactly same reason I like Robotron. I don't like to build powerups and fight bosses. Gameplay should be progressively difficult without putting ingame too hard bosses. A matter of personal preference.
I've not reached skill level at Robotron with mame, where game doesn't keep getting harder. Hell, I wouldn't want anything MORE on the screen to shoot at me!
Robotron gameplay is also all random, no patterns at all!(Don't forget the sounds)

You just keep playing and playing until you get bored and quit, because on default settings, Robotron is a much easier game than Smash TV (in the arcade, anyway. MAME is more difficult). There's a lot more challenge in Smash TV, and a lot more techniques to learn... it's a much deeper game than Robotron. I think the variety more than keeps it from "paling in comparison" to Robotron.

At arcade, maybe harder difficulty would be proper. I only played few tries at arcade, and I'm pretty sure that normal settings will keep you playing for some time before mastering the game. I think there are loads of players who never can marathon Robotron at arcade. Then again you could challenge yourself playing hands crossed, and impress possible viewers, hehe.

I know a lot of the people that prefer old games also love marathons, but I can't stand them. I don't enjoy playing the same game for hours and hours without stopping... it just shows that you've pretty much mastered the game, there's nothing left to do but try it at harder settings... or start playing something else.

Yes, I agree. Especially if you can marathon Defender or Robotron or Joust or...type games, that give you so many extra men that a mistake or
sudden lack of concentration doesn't do any real damage.
Those games should be played using settings at 50k extras and hardest difficulty. (5 man rules are not enough measure of skill for those)

At games that give you limited amount of men, such as Tron, Phoenix etc...Games that I call semi-marathon games....It's quite a big challenge to try get game lasting as long as possible. It's not only a matter of playing skills, but also a matter of keeping concentration, nerves etc mental strength.
I do admit that playing Scramble a long time can be quite boring.

Playing Gauntlet whole day with friends, cool, and cheap...

(by the way, that question on the TG forum wasn't really necessary, it looked like you were trying to start a debate on the two games... and the whole "sequel" argument doesn't really work since Smash TV is never officially classified as a sequel to Robotron.)

I did not mean it any bad way, not trying to say that game is bad or player. Believe me. I simply wanted to know how YOU rate Smash TV compared to Robotron.
I think it's like sequel, not officially, but controls are same, and programmer is same.

Guess I should try some Blaster soon, maybe that has the same kind of old Jarvis magic.
Now didn't this topic side-rail a bit...

[BBH]

I guess my problem with the poll was the obvious bias and hatred for any recent games... calling it "Kiddy factor" and jokingly calling anyone who prefers games from 2000 on a kid.

I just think it's silly to automatically be biased against a game just because of the year it was released. No, good graphics do not make up for bad gameplay. But good graphics don't necessarily mean that the gameplay is crap. And vice versa, an older game with bad graphics can have even worse gameplay.

I think a perfect example of this is Outrun 2... in my opinion it perfectly keeps the traditional spirit of gameplay, while adding powersliding and new modes of play. And it certainly doesn't hurt that the graphics are beautiful. And hey, it's also a case of a sequel being better than the original (but I guess that also depends on whether you consider that or Turbo Outrun the first "true" sequel)

Just keep an open mind about things.

I can't honestly say which is better between Robotron and Smash TV, because they may have similar gameplay but at their cores they are very different games, and I enjoy them for different reasons. I don't consider either of them as one of my favorites of all time, though.

[LN2]

Those games should be played using settings at 50k extras and hardest difficulty. (5 man rules are not enough measure of skill for those)

hmmm....I don't think the same here. although what do you mean by "those" games?!?

I think limited #men very much separates one master from another even for easily marathonable games.

Many have mastered Q*Bert where they can marathon it....but give most a 5-man only game and they likely only get 300-500k....yet other masters are able to easily get beyond 1 million with only 5 men.

IMHO, you can confidently conclude those scoring higher with only 5 men are superior players.

I think the TG-Tournament settings for Robotron are not the best. The 5 men only is fine...although IMHO 10 would be better....but I think you didn't also need to set the difficulty higher than factory default. Wiuth only 5 or 10 men no one will marathon this title. However, it would be nice if the settings were such that the masters can at least get to the toughest grunt and hulk waves. With the current settings, the best aren't even cycling through all the waves. Something is lost there IMHO. Challenge each other at playing the entire game...not just the early levels.

You might have 2 games where one gets to that toughest grunt wave on their 2nd or 3rd man....loses the last few men on it...and have an inferior score to someone getting there on their last man that just strategically sacrified a couple men on brain waves to pig out on points....knowing they can't get past that level with only a couple men left. Again, something is lost there. That changes the game. It's now a skill of strategically leeching with potential suicides to assist that. That's quite different versus just surviving through all the levels.

Look at games like mspac. you gain little to absolutely nothing playing that game at the higher difficulty. All you do is reduce everyone's score a tad....actually giving a slight advantage to a player who isn't able to eat as many monsters on the early boards...since at hard difficulty there aren't as any boards where you can eat the monsters anyway.

Now yes...for specific games maybe a higher level of difficulty makes a difference. In most cases IMHO it doesn't though. All you have done is make the game tougher....which often still is marathonable if same extra men awarded. I give Nibbler again as an example. I can easily marathon this at hard difficulty and with that rom set that is harder where if you die you have to redo the entire level...instead of having eaten gems stay eaten. That makes a substantial difference for some that struggle to get past certain waves. It also makes it harder to score as you can't do the cheap kill just before ending a wave then cash in on tons of points finishing the level really quickly on that next man. It makes for a huge difference in scoring rate.

I have had stretches in Nibbler where I have gone for 50+ waves on 1 man! That means nothing in an endurance contest marathoning the game.

At games that give you limited amount of men, such as Tron, Phoenix etc...Games that I call semi-marathon games....It's quite a big challenge to try get game lasting as long as possible. It's not only a matter of playing skills, but also a matter of keeping concentration, nerves etc mental strength.

Ok, now you just contradicted yourself. You are stating here exactly what I stated above...in different words.

You don't need to set those games to highest difficulty to have that challenge. Just the mere limited #men is enough....even if you end up semi-marathoning it.

Someone able to play Tron for 5 hours vs 10 hours...both have clearly mastered it and have patterns for getting through all the levels...but one has clearly mastered execution better than the other...perhaps makes mistakes less often...which is definitely easy to do on the light-cycle wave.

..so it seems you think similarly to me here... I'm just confused by your top comment I quoted though.

[QRS]

I agree with BBH in general here... everyone should keep an open mind and at least TRY the new games before you diss them!

I don't agree about Outrun 2 though! Amazing graphics and a great game, but compared to the original.. nahh. Outrun is one of my alltime favorites though, so I MIGHT be biased here


QRS

[MJS]

I do enjoy shmups of nineties, I don't think they're very groundbreaking though. Also don't like bosses. I think that adding bosses to a game is simply a try to cover up bad actual gameplay, or to make overall easy game more difficult.

To me, bosses are the best thing in videogames. They make the game less boring (otherwise they would be repetitive) and often forces the player to concentrate harder.
And in many games, the music from the boss rocks!!!

[DRN]

Personally I think the general rule here is...

70's - 80's games : Generally crap but loved by a generation. True there were some classics but a lot are just shockingly bad games. They were never any good, you just think they were.
90's - 00's games : Better games with improved gameplay and graphics but some repetitive themes. Not as liked because they don't remind you of better times, when life as a kid was fun and more simple.

Nostalgia..it clouds the mind.