From: marms@python.cs.unm.edu (Mike Arms)
Newsgroups: rec.games.video
Subject: Re: Old systems vs. New (was: Re: Sonic The Hedgehog -- More question)
Date: 3 Oct 92 21:47:01 GMT
Reply-To: sandia!marms@unmvax.unm.edu (Mike Arms)
Organization: Dimsdale Brothers Extortion Agency

grover@emunix.emich.edu (Grover Thomas) writes:
>sandia!marms@unmvax.unm.edu (Mike Arms) writes:
>>
>>I understand why you complain about modern video games, James.  But
>>both Sonic and SMW are excellent games.  They beat to hell pretty much
>>any of my many Atari 2600 carts (not saying much I suppose).  I'm kind
>
>When you look at the level of affordable technology, though, many of the
>old Atari games were state-of-the-art.   Yes, there are some games that
>stink, but the same can be said about Nintendo, even with the flashy
>graphics and sound.  It's really just how you use the available equipment.

I own and still play a lot of my old Atari 2600 games.  Some are extremely
good given the limitations of the system.  Stargate, Millipede, Joust,
Robot Tank, and Adventure are all great games (there are some more, too).
BUT, most of the early Atari 2600 games really stunk!  I mean awful
games.  And of course there was the flood of really stupid games by 
flash in the pan non-Atari developers (these do not include Activision, 
Imagic, and Parker Bros games which were almost all some of the top games).

>>"firsts" and that Pitfall was the earliest scrolling platform game, I
>>don't know about you but I did not care for that game much even back
>>then.  It was too simplistic; note not simple as it was very easy to
>>die.  There just was very little to do and fewer actions to master.
>
>I don't agree.  Sure, you didn't run around a bunch of screens killing
>multitudes of bad guys, but was that really the point?  To me Pitfall
>was a grand adventure, which you needed not only to survive the traps,
>but finish within a given time.  I have an extensive journal that documents
>all the tunnels and the best paths to get the most treasures.  Much, much
>more engrossing than "punch all the enemies."  I seem to remember it being
>the #1 best-seller in 1982.

No, to me, Pitfall was one long boring run and jump game.  As you pointed
out, the only interesting thing was the mapping the tunnels, but I found
that exceedingly tedious.  It's not a awful game, just not a good one (IMHO).

>>Compare this to SMW or Sonic.  Worlds better IMHO.  These two games are
>>real "games" in my mind.  They have depth.  There are puzzles.  They
>
>These are also fun games (I have played them both).  But they are different,
>and make good use of the hardware.  I'm surprised you don't think Pitfall
>had depth or puzzles... Did you ever find ALL the treasures?  You can't
>unless you make good use of the tunnels.

No, I did not find all of the treasures.  As I said before, it was just too
boring to me to try to do that.  If mapping the tunnels is the only item
of depth in that game, then I say it contrasts very poorly to most modern
games and even poorly to the top 50% of old Atari 2600 games.  The speed,
skill, number of types of differing enemies, and graphics of Stargate
put Pitfall to shame.  Even Yar's Revenge, a very enjoyable little shooter
for the Atari 2600, had a nice system of increasing difficulty; the
enemy would change abilities at specific points in the game requiring you
to master a new survival skill.  Millipede is a trip trying to survive
4 spiders, effects of inchworms, the ladybugs, diagonal fliers, and of course
the usual millipede (this is in later levels).  For lots of fun, play this
with the trackball.

>Other games I enjoy from the Old-days are: Berserk, Missile Command, HERO,
>Adventure, Ms. Pac-Man, Jr. Pac-Man, Private Eye, Starmaster, Star Raiders,
>Solaris, Reactor, Frogger, Robot Tank, Tennis, and RealSports Football.
>
>C'mon, Mike, I think the ritzy graphics have just stunted your memory a bit.

Nope, like I said, I still do play the good Atari 2600 games.  I agree with
most of the games you list above (except Missile Command which was way too
easy).  Reactor is a blast.  Activision's Freeway is a great chicken crossing
the road game (literally) for very young kids (or those of us who are young
at heart :-) and non-gamers.  Lots of laughs.  Crystal Castles is also fun
although the controls could be better.

But as good as some of those games are, they are (IMHO) not as good a game
as 16-bit games.  Let's compare: 

Pitfall         vs Sonic, Super Mario World, Kid Chameleon
Yar's Revenge   vs MUSHA, ThunderForce II III or IV, Elemental Master MD
Pinball         vs Devil's Crash MD
Adventure       vs Zelda III
Enduro          vs Road Rash, F-Zero
(no rpg)        vs Final Fantasy II
(no fighting)   vs Street Fighter II, Streets of Rage
RS Football     vs John Madden '92
Ice Hockey      vs NHL Hockey
Chopper Command vs Desert Strike

Now I know the above is not an exhaustive list of comparisons, nor was it
meant to be.  I was just selecting some of the best in each category to
show comparisons.  There are some genres of games for the Atari 2600 that
have never appeared on modern game systems and vice versa.  Maybe you don't
agree with my choices for old games as standards.  Then propose some old
games that you consider good, and I'll come up with modern counterparts
for comparison.  

No, I don't think that the "ritzy graphics have just stunted my memory
a bit".  I know and still own most of those old games.  In fact, I'm
still buying them for my collection.  I dropped out of video gaming for
about 7 years.  But the quality of the 16-bit systems and great games
for them brought me back "out of retirement".  [Note: I try to avoid the
modern games that are only bad to fair.  To paraphrase a bumpersticker
that I saw recently, "There's not enough time to play bad games."]

-- 
Mike Arms
Sandia National Laboratories
uucp:      ...{ucbvax | gatech}!unmvax!sandia!marms
InterNet:  unmvax.unm.edu!sandia!marms   or   sandia!marms@unmvax.unm.edu