Word!Eugene Jarvis wrote: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.
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.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.
Noted. Yet, we can play 90's games with mame quite well.BBH wrote: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.
Yes. It's a matter of taste. You can't arque constructively about matter of taste. Atleast now we're talking.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.
I trust your insight on gameplay.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.
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.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.
I agree. Just forgot to mention dance games.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.
Yeah, Robotron and Defender sure are easy to learnJarvis wrote:If I was a great player, I don’t think I could design good games – I’d end up making ‘em too hard.
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.The TJT wrote: 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.
perhaps..but not quite as rare as you might think.BBH wrote:As a side note, it's quite rare that sequel is better than original. So Stargate was a nice exception.
hehe... I wouldn't put it that high..but it definitely would be in my top 25.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.
yep...only so much you can do with 4k RAM or 8k etc. with a 1 or 2 MHz CPU heheMy problem with Robotron (and a lot of the older games, for that matter) is that they're too repetitive.
well, beyond the 7th wave...correct. You don't see any tanks until wave 7.There are no extra weapons, no new enemies, nothing new ever happens on Robotron.
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 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, I never looked at that game as a sequel.since Smash TV is never officially classified as a sequel to Robotron.)
Yeah, congrats about new record!BBH wrote:just going to say this since it seems to be a hot topic now...
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.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.
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.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.
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 orI 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.
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.(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.)
hmmm....I don't think the same here. although what do you mean by "those" games?!?The TJT wrote:Those games should be played using settings at 50k extras and hardest difficulty. (5 man rules are not enough measure of skill for those)
Ok, now you just contradicted yourself. You are stating here exactly what I stated above...in different words.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.
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.The TJT wrote: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.