gaming Should Game consoles go back to the 1980's?

[long gone 8,929]

I grew up on popping in a game, flipping a switch and going straight from BIOS to the game (or even POST to the game), and most of my dissatisfaction with the "next-gen" consoles comes from how they have clunky main menus to navigate through before you can access your game. They're not a PC lol stop giving them multimedia and social functionality. Okay, online multiplayer, friends and chatting can stay (especially if it's made free, like it should be... this is 2013 going on 2014, online services are not a premium service anymore), but integration with services like Netflix, music services, TV, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube? No, just... no, I don't want any of this on a GAME CONSOLE, I want games. If I wanted any of that I'd just use my PC.

 

Of course, I game on the PC more than consoles nowadays, but I'm still holding onto my Nintendo 64 and Game Boy. They were what I grew up on, and consoles like that is what I stay true to.

[Mutemutt 773]

No, that's quite alright. I play some of my older games (along with remakes) and, let me tell you, they are not nearly as fun as I remember them being. I can't even be bother to finish them most of the time :/ . No, in general, I'm enjoying the current gen console games leagues more than the older gen games.

[Gone Airborne 22,007]

I do like the systems that I grew up with being the ps1, genesis, n64 and ps2 those generations much much more than what we have now to be honest with you. Some people like the old classics better and then some like the newer ones its all on personal preference. 

[PurplePony 484]

Personally I love the old games. Yeah I have a Ps4 but man I still try to kill that duck hunt dog (one day). I swear by the old games, they in my opinion are best, not graphic wise but game play and nostalgia, yeah. OLD games will always be numero uno in my heart. Plus those old mario games, who doesn't love them???

[Shanks 10,817]

 No, just... no, I don't want any of this on a GAME CONSOLE

You just took the words right out of my mouth with that, as I have said briefly earlier they just seem to throw all these bells and whistles into consoles which drags down the consoles full potential by tacking on crap it dosen't even need and is completely pointless because as you said "if I wanted any of that I would just use my PC." Extras are great so long as they don't go so overboard that they forget that the games should always come first no matter what.

[long gone 8,929]

You just took the words right out of my mouth with that, as I have said briefly earlier they just seem to throw all these bells and whistles into consoles which drags down the consoles full potential by tacking on crap it dosen't even need and is completely pointless because as you said "if I wanted any of that I would just use my PC." Extras are great so long as they don't go so overboard that they forget that the games should always come first no matter what.

Exactly, they're called game consoles for a reason. They should be dedicated gaming devices, not wannabe "all-in-one" entertainment systems or Facebook machines.

[PurplePony 484]

Pluss i found out that toad guy has been flipping people off for YEARS! gives me motivation to beat the game and one day kick his smartass, you flipped off the wrong gammer for too long toad! :S

[Tech Pony 64]

You guys are still missing the point of this thread. This thread isn't about transplanting us back to the level of technology of the 1980's rather transplanting a part of the 1980's in today. Specifically the mindset of developers in the 80's and 90's. The mindset that they don't want to gouge their customers at every corner and the want to provide quality products. 

 

Please correct me if I'm wrong Hyper, but I'm pretty sure we're on the same page here. :3 

[Koelath 445]

Absolutely NOT. Backwards progress is not PROGRESS.

 

BUT we are due for another video game industry crash ala 1983. The same uninspired shooters keep being recycled because people keep buying. And with game budgets *ballooning, the developers literally cannot AFFORD for people NOT to buy. They HAVE to churn out the safe stuff to SURVIVE.

 

And that's a terrible way for gaming to go. They can't risk creativity or innovation because they can't risk a game failing with the kind of budgets they have now.

 

(In the 90s, a few hundred thousand got a game made. Now? Million minimum in many cases.)

 

Some developers take the risk...But many don't. On top of that, the people in charge of the industry are money people, not game people. Some gamer who has a job at a big studio can have an amazing idea, and it'll get trashed because the douchebag in charge doesn't care about innovation or the gamer's enjoyment. He cares about his bottom line, and that means more Call of Duty.

[Koelath 445]

I don't think that he meant go back to the 80's hardware wise rather as a process of thought. However, I think late 90's to early 00's would be better. That's the golden age of gaming in my book. However I'd support moving back to the mindframe of the 80's simply because anything is better than today's game devs.

 

The devs aren't the problem, necessarily. The publishers largely control the industry because they put up the money for development. The devs are forced to concede to the publishers if they want to make a product. And publisher studios are run by corporate suits, not gamers, so they often shoot down creative ideas from the designers and devs rather than risk their profit potential. CoD, Battlefield, endless gritty cover shooters - This is what sells.

 

Really, consumers are a HUGE part of the problem. Consumers lap up these gritty samey gray-brown shooters EVERY YEAR so they keep getting made because it's guaranteed profit. Consumers constantly demand greater graphics and realism (many of the most expensive parts of a game lie in these areas) so budgets skyrocket out of control, literally forcing the industry to avoid trying new things because they cannot afford a flop.

[Tech Pony 64]

No... developers are just as much the problem, indie developers are pushing just as much crap as the big names are. 

[Dddrgn 450]

The games in the 1980's had their gems, but there were just as many HORRIBLE games, as many as there are today! Games have gone towards a graphics over gameplay mindset, but there's a reason indie developers exist, and even so there are many great games that are only improved upon by a great graphical environment. Mirror's edge would not have been breathtaking if it's gameplay had remained the same but the graphics looked like the n64. A step back would not help, although the game developers do need to remember that gameplay should always be more important than graphics.

[Tech Pony 64]

Sure there were horrible games, there always have been. What there wasn't was a pervasive attitude to push out crap and the have it playable just in time for the next release. It's even becoming more pervasive in the indie game scene. I know a lot of people who are refusing to take part in crowd funding because you never actually know what you're getting, and a lot of the time it turns out to either be crap or not worth what you're paying for. 

[FirestormCAN 246]

The last thing I want is the see the entire gaming industry devolve all the way back to to an era long since passed.

 

Regardless if we we're in the past, present, or future of gaming, there's always going to be at least one game that's an untested, unoptimized, forgettable, or downright broken mess. Some people in this industry just do not learn from past mistakes, regrardless if it's a publisher, an indie developer, or half-assed studio. Be it on a PC or console, it does not matter. There's good games, there's mediocre games, and then there's shitty games. That's not going to change.

 

At least nowadays game consoles have the ability to allow patches for games instead of forcing you to buy a replacement unit. We go back to 80s-style attitude, what's the chance that games are never going to be patched, even the ones with serious problems?

 

The problem the industry has been seeing over the past decade is not only are they focusing more on graphics than gameplay, they're falling into the same traps as the ones from the Atari and NES days: trying to cash in on a fad. Take Microsoft and Sony for example. They tried to catch up with Nintendo after the Wii took off with tens of millions of units, so they made their own motion controllers, the Kinect and Move, respectively. While they sounded great on paper, they couldn't get the developer support they were hoping for and they just couldn't match up with the Wii remote. Ironically, Nintendo's running into the same problems with the Wii U, they're not getting the support they need to push more consoles. And don't get me started on the software. Some people just don't learn from past mistakes.

 

You wanna go back to the 80s? Find a DeLorean and hook up a flux capacitor, then tell me how much better it would be if the whole industry went back to the attitudes they had back then. Until then, I'll just enjoy the games I play as I see fit, no matter what system they're on.

[Tech Pony 64]

Well there's something we can all agree on... there was more cocaine in the 80's and everything is better with cocaine.

[Koelath 445]

No... developers are just as much the problem, indie developers are pushing just as much crap as the big names are. 

 

...And? The problem isn't that lousy uninspired games exist. The problem is that thanks to massive budgets and profit-obsessive publishers, lousy uninspired games are mostly all that's allowed to exist. Indie developers generally lack giant budgets and are often gamer types themselves, dodging these faults and resulting in a better product.

 

Just saying "Indies push out a lot of crap." doesn't mean anything. 99% of everything is crap. That's not the problem. The problem is when the samey uninspired stuff is the only way to keep the industry afloat which is exactly why the big names are such clone-happy killjoys. And that's largely caused by the budgets, which are a result of increasing consumer demands. The rest is caused by publishers who refuse to risk their profits on new uncertain ideas.

[Flutter's lover <3 8,210]

Yes, because there are very few games out there that focus on story. Everyone is trying to push for the best graphics and 1080p. Sure the game may look pretty, but doesn't it play well? Graphics aren't everything.(Which is one of many reasons for these lame fanboy "console wars") A lot of them are missing the fact that FPS is a factor. I'd rather have lower quality graphics and better FPS because  a higher FPS means the game will run smooth. I've heard the new consoles run at 60FPS. Which is cool.Back to story, a lto of devs hardly put any effort into the story of games now..it's usually "Go here find/kill this guy/thing" No effort put into it.

[Nerdy Luigi 2,065]

Nope.

 

Nintendo never left the 80's, Sony left and never looked back, and Xbox wasn't even available then.

 

Why can't we just look forward to the future, rather than moan about how great the past was?

Never left the 80's? Dude, play the Wii. They never left it in the dust, but they changed their consoles big time. Why I will not buy any Wii. It's bucking trash.

Because at this rate, future games will be only as good as AVA, if you played that crap you'd probably understand my point. Or you aren't blind and can see COD going down the drain, or see that consoles are turning into TVs and... FITNESS PROGRAMS?!?!?! What. The BUCK?!?!?!?!

[PoniesPlease 365]

I agree with everything you've put.

 

The Wii, whilst a great concept, was delivered poorly and supported by trashy fitness programs and the usual releases like Zelda, Mario (neither of which are bad games!).

 

CoD has been in the drain since World at War.

 

Never played AVA.

 

________________________

 

IMHO, PC is, and always will be the way to go for simple gaming, be it hardcore or casual. Consoles have their great points, sure, but there's too much that a PC offers for them to be a realistic alternative.

[Celtore 2,770]

No, we shouldn't move backwards.

 

Games wouldn't sell if the developers were doing something wrong or making things people are bored of. Personally, I grew sick and tired of FPS games ages ago, but the market hasn't. If you don't like something and want design to shift a different direction, vote with your money. Buy the game genres you like and the market will adjust itself accordingly to the mass' consensus.

 

I want to move forward with all sorts of new ideas, but I feel that we've somewhat hit a temporary impass.

[aoEAF2FBvC0MIo2Q 3,676]

@@Koelath, you pretty much hit the nail on the head with the budgets and publishers issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong but can developers bypass publishers by selling their games digitally as opposed to creating physical copies? Look at the game Nano Assault developed by Shin'en. For the 3DS physical cartridge, you see the developer as well as its publisher; Majesco Entertainment. However, for the digital titles Nano Assault EX and Nano Assault Neo, Majesco is absent and in its place you see Nintendo eShop.

 

Though right now, I don't know the processes that take place between a developer and getting their game on Nintendo eShop. I'd really appreciate it if someone could fill me in at least on the difference between dealing with a publisher for releasing physical copies and dealing with Nintendo for digital release.

[Chacobos 160]

Not by a long shot, the problem with the 80's is the same issue today is experiencing, every dev wants to be on the same level as the AAA companies so they copy paste the similar formula or the game was just a one time experience to where it felt null as if it was shovelware. If anything the early 2000's and late 90's would be a better point for many obvious reasons. It still had its fair share of problems but the diversity and love for gaming was something no other generation of deva can compare to.

 

Tl;dr, 80's is the 8-bit of today minus the DLC.

[Koelath 445]

@@Koelath, you pretty much hit the nail on the head with the budgets and publishers issue.

Correct me if I'm wrong but can developers bypass publishers by selling their games digitally as opposed to creating physical copies? Look at the game Nano Assault developed by Shin'en. For the 3DS physical cartridge, you see the developer as well as its publisher; Majesco Entertainment. However, for the digital titles Nano Assault EX and Nano Assault Neo, Majesco is absent and in its place you see Nintendo eShop.

 

Though right now, I don't know the processes that take place between a developer and getting their game on Nintendo eShop. I'd really appreciate it if someone could fill me in at least on the difference between dealing with a publisher for releasing physical copies and dealing with Nintendo for digital release.

 

I dunno about any of that. All I know is studios just out for money ruin it for everybody. Now, every studio's bottom line is profit because that's necessary to sustain the studio but you can tell which ones actually care about their work.

 

Rockstar's latest (GTA5) is stuffed to the gills with all kinds of tiny details that absolutely weren't needed to sell the game...But they included them anyway because they care about the world they've built. Hell, they've got a golf minigame in there that bests any actual golf game ever made, including real golf.

 

Volition's worlds lack the detail but their latest entry has been the ultimate tribute to their fans, with the next one planned as a reboot after their last big title was heavily decried by fans despite massive sales. And Platinum Games basically does whatever they want, money be damned. They're the creative force that Nintendo fans incorrectly claim Nintendo to be.

 

But then you've got CoD and EA and the people behind Resident Evil...Yes, Resident Evil guys, CoD sells well. No, it wasn't a good idea to remodel your franchise as a soulless action title because we have enough of those. Capcom's also a terrible company, probably the worst in gaming.

 

Then you've got the three big names in gaming: Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo. Sony actually appears to care about the games and supporting smaller studios, Microsoft blatantly only has a mind for money (their massive PR fiasco with the Xbox One proved as much, even if they retracted it later), and Nintendo likes to look like they care but really just exists to cash in on bizarrely unending nostalgia. And the competition among the two (because nostalgia has no competition) also helps to drive up budgets and demands, further damaging the industry.

[SomariFeyWright 776]

Absolutely not. Something a lot of neighsayers overlook is that while we are getting a lot of rehashes and the like, the games we play today are some darn quality games. They don't focus nearly as much on graphics as we make the situation out to be: Graphics are worked on, certainly, but I've played many games that combine both excellent graphics AND excellent gameplay.

 

And yes, the modern generation has some pretty crappy games. You know what else had some darn crappy games? The NES. The SNES. The PS1. I think you get my point. The NES, which we look at as the pinnacle of gaming, was especially guilty of having some REALLY bad games. It had a library of who-knows-how-many games, and we remember very few of them. Why? Because most of them really were terrible. I can't think of any examples at the top of my head, which only goes to show that we don't go back and remember the bad games... only the good ones.

 

And like it or not, there is a much different ratio of bad-to-good games today than there was in the past. Sure, there are many awful games that nobody looks at, along with many that are focused on, as well as there are great games that are ignored. And why do we have so many more better games? Because we have improved upon everything from the bottom up. Graphics, music capabilities, story-telling elements, character development... modern technology allows much better quality games than anything of the past.

 

And don't get me wrong: I love many retro games. I play the heck out of Donkey Kong Country 2 and Super Mario World to this day. I like to go back occasionally and play some Super Mario Bros., despite it honestly being needlessly floaty and a lot more flawed than people say. My favorite kind of music is chiptune and 8-bit (tied with many Japanese/Vocaloid songs, but I digress), and the graphics of days past are actually quite charming, even for someone who didn't grow up with them like me.

 

So, in conclusion, no, we should not go back. We will continue to make mistakes and overshots with our consoles, even in the future. But you know what? We will learn from these mistakes. Because in the end, it's what the gamer wants. As long as we ask for improvements, we'll get them.

 

So don't ask to take a few steps back. Keep walking forward, and pick up whatever trash is in your path. That's my two cents.