From: jonke@kong.gsfc.nasa.gov (Stephen Jonke)
Newsgroups: rec.games.video
Subject: Re: Old games for today (was Re: Old games on new systems)
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:45:08 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

In article <mdelaney.715559620@helios>, mdelaney@informix.com (Unix Dude) writes:
> 
> In <1850ugINN7gk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bs066@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jeff D. Scott) writes:
> 
> >Notice that most of the classic versions are for hand-held systems.  Of
> >which the majority of the owners are over 21 (Gameboy at least).  This
> >shows that at least the companies bringing out these conversions are
> >going for the nostalgia factor...
> 
> I would think that this is more of a reflection on the limitations of
> the hand-held systems that is similar to the limitations of the older
> home consoles (and some of the arcade machines).  I mean, Space
> Invaders, Asteroids and Pong were designed to run on B&W systems.
> Games like these translate well to a machine like the Gameboy.

The Lynx now has a version of Steel Talons that is more complex then most
games on the Genesis.  Still, it is pushing the limits of the Lynx's
capabilities.  Some of what you say is true, but just look at the Nintendo's
ads for gameboy -- who appears in them?  Older people waiting in line at
an airport or whatever.  Their ads for NES and SNES are only shown during
cartoons and other kids shows and are oriented towards kids.  Clearly
Nintendo believes that adults make up a large part of the hand held market,
but don't make up that big a part of the home console market.

> 
> It seems a shame to bash the new games since they are derivatives
> of these classic games that you are drooling over.  I have an SNES,
> and this holds true... kind of; aren't the following newer versions
> of classic games:
> 

(deletetions)

> 
> Defender (or Cobra):    Darius Twin, Gradius III, Super E.D.F., 
>              U. N. Squadron, Super R-Type
> 

Of all these games, ONLY Defender is not pattern based.  The game
play involved is completely different.  For Super R-Type it's a matter of
remembering that enemies appear here, here and here and DO (absolutely) this.
In Defender, you try to learn how enemies tend to move and what they tend to
do, but you never know where they will be or what exactly they will do.  It's
different every time.

> 
> Donkey Kong: Actraiser, Lemmings, Super Castlevania IV, 
>              Super Ghouls 'N Ghosts, Super Mario World 

Basically true.  Donkey Kong still has some degree of variability in it, but
basically it is pattern based like the rest you list.  In many ways, Donkey
Kong was the beginning of the end!  I should say that I was really into
D.K. when it first came out, because at that time it was really different,
but hundreds of thousands of pattern based games latter, I look back on it
as a sour note.

> 
> Robotron:  Super Smash T.V.

Smash T.V. is Williams' Robotron 2.  I actually enjoy Robotron
on the Lynx more then I enjoy Smash TV in the arcade.  Why?  Partly because
there are none of these cliche'd bosses and also because Smash TV still comes
across as a game you simply try to "finish", while Robotron is a game in
which you try to get a higher score.  Games of the latter type are more
lasting and appealing (to me).  Are there ANY new games that are NOT games
you simply try to finish?

> 
> For the most part, these newer games are just a more complex version of
> the same theme set by the classic game.

I disagree competely, here.  Superficially they are more complex, but when
it comes to what really is involved in playing the game, Defender is much
more complex then Super R-Type or any of the modern shooters.  In modern
pattern based shooters (or other pattern based games) the only way to do
well is by memorizing what killed you the last time you went through.  Then
you play again and get a little farther until you die.  Take note of what
happened and go back again....  It's entirely one dimensional.  Defender
requires learning how enemies tend to act, but you never know where they
will be or what exactly they will do, so you need to adapt to the situation.
That's a multidimensional challenge.

Basically, the problem is that their use to be a lot of innovation in video
game design, but the video game industry has been stagnating for years.
Atari is the only sign of hope in the entire v. g. industry.  They
at least try to be innovative.  Often they succeed.  Too bad other game
companies don't do the same.  At least pinball machines still seem to be
changing in innovative ways.

Steve
Newsgroups: rec.games.video