by Devil_Rising » 26 Mar 2012 09:52
All the HD and AAA budgets and hollywood name actor voicework and big movie type scores, etc., in these games nowadays, is ridiculous. To look back and think that a surprise blockbuster game like Mortal Kombat was made by FIVE guys, most likely on a pretty small budget, and yet it looked, sounded and played fantastic for it's time, that is really something. To look at a game like Cave Story, which is a "modern retro" masterpiece, and a true testament to (in my mind) what gaming was and SHOULD still be, was made by ONE guy, in his spare time, and practically no budget at all. Yet it's a thousand times more entertaining, appealing, and fun to play, at least to ME, than a vast majority of these "blockbuster" titles that comes out on the HD twins this generation.
I'm not AGAINST big budget games, per say, nor am I AGAINST 3D games. But obviously, looking at my avatar, being familiar with my comments, I'm an "old school gamer". My first system was an Atari 2600. The first game I ever played was Pac-Man, in an actual arcade, at the age of like 3. My first "true love" of video games was Super Mario Bros. I think that pretty much says it all, as far as where my gaming views and tastes lie. But regardless, you look at games LIKE Donkey Kong, or Pac-Man, or Super Mario Bros., or Sonic the Hedgehog, or Double Dragon, or Mortal Kombat.....those games are classic for a reason. They're fun to play. They're entertaining in a way that is both simple, yet elegant unto itself. And you can go back and play them, and enjoy them, any time. How many modern games can most gamers honestly say that about? For all the bloated Hollywood-size budgets and HD hoopla, how many of these big releases are really fun to play through, enough to want to pick them up and go through them again, any time? I'd wager, for most, the answer is "not many".
I've thought since the PS2 generation, maybe starting even as far back as the PS1/N64 gen, that video games were starting to get away from what they originally were. It was becoming more about presentation and flash, than it was about gameplay and substance. I know some folks have gone round and round about this very subject on here before, but really, you can't say it's NOT true. As much as I've personally enjoyed some modern 3D games of this gen, I cannot honestly think of a single title that I would hold up to the likes of Super Mario Bros. 3, or Mega Man 2, or Castlevania, or Kirby's Adventure, as far as being FUN to play. For all the flash and dazzle that a wannabe playable movie like FFXIII had, to me, it doesn't hold a candle to FFIV, or Chrono Trigger, or Breath of Fire, because those games had great story, AND great gameplay.
I don't even think it's a case of, as many try to argue, "nostalgia". I just honestly think developers used to make better games back in the day. I think every generation since the N64 onward has gotten further and further away from what games WERE, to what we have now, which is, in large part, playable movies and quicktime events. That certainly isn't to say that there haven't been some great games this gen. There have. Super Mario Galaxy, for example, was amazing. But there's a reason, to my thinking, that New Super Mario Bros. Wii sold over 25 million copies, while SMG sold "only" 10 million. And that is, even though polygons cannot truly replicate the tight and precise controls of sprites, that people love that old school 2D Mario platforming. There's just something about it, the simplicity of it, it's just fun. And I think that while not EVERY game certainly needs to be 2D, I also certainly wish more were. Or a good old fashioned overhead Zelda, let's say, or things along those lines.
Game developers are driving themselves out of business these days. Look at Factor 5, or Free Radical. They each were known for great games, and then after one flop each, bam, out of business. Why? Because the money they spent pouring into the crap they made, wasn't made up in the amount of copies sold. That didn't happen, back in the day. Not because game budgets were too bloated. Sure, some companies went under, perhaps because their games just weren't that good, or just weren't well known. But to think that a long time ago, if a game sold 10,000 copies, that was considered a great success, and 100,000 was considered a runaway hit. Now adays, you hear people talking about selling a million not being enough for some games. And that, to me, is ridiculous. Mind you, I'm not complaining about the gorgeous graphics or wonderful soundtrack of a game like Mario Galaxy. I thought it was great. But I also got a lot more play out of NSMBWii, and it was for the reasons I mentioned.
Sorry to rant at length, but I really feel it all ties together. Overpowered consoles that cost too much to make, overpriced games that cost to much to make and even if they sell half a million, sometimes they're considered failures? That, to me, is just about unacceptable, and I think the entire industry really needs to rethink itself, and re-evaluate what made games of the past so great. It certainly wasn't HD graphics, or orchestrated soundtracks, or online deathmatch modes, or achievement trophies......
