Where did we lose it?

nerd_boy · 2006-01-26T17:16:50

First off, let me get the disclaimer out. I've not programmed/designed advanced games(Asteroids and Breakout are about the most advanced I've gotten). I have done a great deal of research on current and past games and their designs. And this is not meant to be a rant about current day games or start a flame war. Now, even though modern day games are still fun and whatnot, many people will(and have) admitted that they still enjoy the old games, often over current ones(not sure if that applies to MUDs and MMORPGs). This includes people who didn't really grow up with many, if any at all, of the older games. By older games, I mean the ones that ran on extremely limited machines, with such consoles as the SNES and the SEGA GENESIS being in the grey area, possibly included in the old moreso than the new, and everything before them, obviously, are 'old'. One could theorize that this is because the game ideas are all used or beaten to death. While this does have elements of truth in it, I personally don't feel that this is the whole reason, but possibly a small facet of the problem. Others could argue its because games are now made by large corporations, and most important decisions are made by 'suits', or people who don't really know all that much about games and programming. Again, this does have its merits. But the reason, in my mind, that is largely overlooked is LIMITS. And yet, I feel, it plays an equal, if not more important, part in the problem. Back with the old games, if you've done the least amount of study in that area, they were extremely limited. There were only so many colors you could use, and of that you could only pick from the ones provided. The sound, when there was sound, was pretty basic, for the most part. The amount of space in there was so small, that I highly doubt all the text in this post would fit in some of the machines, even if you didn't have to have the text graphics as well(required by some consoles). And the programming was, well, assembly. I doubt that some programmers today, and so called computer-scientists(the ones that graduate yet don't know jack squat about basic stuff, such as hexa-decimal and important 'basics' of computer programming) would be willing to even look at the code, let alone code it to begin with. Before I get on to why these limits made games better as far as graphics/sound/gameplay, I'm going to go into the programming bit(perhaps not wholey suitable for the game design foroum, so you can skip on down to the next paragraph if you like). There are limits today imposed upon programs that would have probably killed, literally, many games for those machines. Granted, there are reasons these days for some of these, such as security for computer machines and what not, although these were usually done by hardware in the large cartridges(NES) and such. Take modern day APIs. Granted, they have 3D capabilites(some argue that 3D helped with the downfall, but that is another argument, much more flame-war-ish, altogether). But to make a 2D game, you have to do tons of stuff, often depending on the API. But with the consoles, you were given almost, if not total, complete control over the machine. Granted, one mistake could cause problems, but the way they were designed it wouldn't be permanent(as far as I know). All sorts of tricks were pulled using these lack of limits to make the machines do more than they were intended, even thought to be able to do. And these were clever tricks. Back then, you used your brains, and learned almost everything through trial-and-error with, possibly, the list of commands by your side and maybe a few snippets of code. Nowadays, I will grant that there is much benefit to be gained from reading tutorials and books, etc., but I personally feel that there are people who are becoming 'addicted', if you will, to books partly, and mostly to tutorials. People read these tutorials, and continue to glean most of their knowledge from these, often practicing cookbook programming and voodoo coding(look in the Jargon File for definitions). They then use only what they learn, not trying to find why it does what it does, etc. I believe this is detrimental. Sure, tutorials and such are great when your starting out(perhaps a new language or concept), but you should be able to use what you learned, and what you've learned from other things, to expand upon it without always trying to find out how someone else has done it, or get someone to do it. I'm not saying that it is bad practice to see how someone else has done it, but in the least you should outline, perhaps in psuedo-code, how you would do it, and don't just copy/past or look/type the other's work in. Put your touch to it. Try to perfect it, make it faster or smaller or whatever your needs are. As for the actual components seen by the player, art/music/gameplay, these too were 'enhanced' by the limits. For the most part, with the art, the colors you had to choose from were selected pretty well, particularly with the machine's limitations. And artists squeezed every detail they could into the work. I'm not here to denounce non-pixel artists, indeed I'm impressed by much of the work out there, but pixel artists are something different altogether. Many of them worked hard and redid an 8x8 many times, I'm sure, along with putting up with programmer's requirements, at times probably thinking programmer's were just trying to be mean. The gameplay was much better as well, in my opinion. For starters, due once more to the limited space, instead of getting lengthy replies on where something you needed was, you got short answers that were at times, granted, insanely difficult, but actually made you use your brain. And for the adventure/action genres, it was by far more fun, due in fact to the difficulty, and the inability to save every 5 seconds. Plus, people bragged about finishing a game or completing a certain level or quest. And when they did that, they would go back and try to see how fast they could do it. It was an additional element of fun. True, you can still do the samething now-a-days, but cut-scenes do kinda add to the time. Anyway, now that I've told you where I think we lost it, I'd like to A)here other opinions and B)try to find possible 'solutions', since I don't want to present the problem without the solution. Granted, the solution wouldn't be all that popular, I'd imagine. I doubt that anyone is going to make/sell a 'limited' console now(except for LaMothe's, but that was kinda expensive and non-standard from what I've heard). I suppose that we could emulate an imaginary machine(which wouldn't be breaking any copyright laws, then), but it would have to have a large backing to be pretty commonly used. Self-imposed limitations are always an option, but they require self-discipline, and also take the fun and point from limits, which is too work around them as much as possible, and even push them. Quite a few special graphics techniques, to my understanding, were derived from breaking so called limits of the machine or manipulating the machine in such a fashion that is not allowed by the compilers today, let alone trying it on the hardware. This has turned more into a rant, it seems, than what I meant it to be. If so, I apologize to the moderators, and also, if it is deemed that this is not for the Game Design foroum, please move. Thanks, and thanks for reading as well. Note: In the time that it took me to write this, apparently I forgot to put what the problem was. Replayability. And, no, this wasn't a post/rant about how old games are superiour to new ones. I apologize if it seemed that way, although now that I reread my post, I can see how it could be derived. [Edited by - nerd_boy on January 26, 2006 10:27:27 AM]

Game Design and Theory Game Design

Started by nerd_boy January 26, 2006 09:14 AM

11 comments, last by Spoonbender 19 years ago

remigius

1,173

January 26, 2006 05:08 PM

Quote:
You are attempting to relive/capture your childhood experience, which is impossible because your smarter and more aware now now.

Exactly the statement that woke me up from my biased view of the gaming industry and pretty much my crusade against high level programming I felt compelled to undertake some years ago [smile]

Seriously though, the claims you make against these "so called computer-scientists" is a bit of a narrow view. While it may be true that CS graduates now-a-days know less about low level programming, has it ever occurred to you that this might be because the high level programming fields have become so vastly broad subjects that it is impossible to maintain your knowledge of these, let alone all the lowlevel stuff?

I used to pride myself on my hardware knowledge, but I safely bought my last computer at Dell so I did't have to worry about that. I used to pride myself on my knowledge of the Java programming language, but I am realistic enough to leave certain aspects to the experts in those fields. And the list goes on and on. Some 15 years ago, you would simply have to write a basic windowing system for your Dos-based game. Today, the API for working with application windows alone probably contains more functions that an entire operating system back then.

As Promit pointed out, the challange lies elsewhere, the focus has shifted. Today, it is no longer an issue of what you can do with your limited hardware, out of which you had to squeeze every last clock-cycle. It has become an issue what you can do with your limited time, the huge API's and the enormous content demands.

Rim van Wersch [ MDXInfo ] [ XNAInfo ] [ YouTube ] - Do yourself a favor and bookmark this excellent free online D3D/shader book!

Spoonbender

1,258

January 26, 2006 05:16 PM

Quote:

Also granted some of my sources were slightly old, and I can't really deny that part of it was more "I-didn't-really-study-in-depth" deal(although I did do it somewhat). So now I look like an idiot. [grin] Nothing unusual there.

Hey, nothing wrong with looking like an idiot... I do that all the time. [wink]

Anyway, everyone occasionally thinks thing were better back then. It's just important to realize that 95% of it is just nostalgia. But only 95%. There were some brilliant games being made back in the "good old days", and some of them did have qualities you don't see often today. But there was also a hell of a lot of junk being made. And countless clones of the same 3 games.
And moreover, there are still great games being made. But they tend to be different from the ones we had 20 year ago. And isn't that a good thing? Personally I'd be sick of puzzle games by now if the industry still hadn't moved beyond those. [lol]

Quote:
But I still hold my ground on the replayability(not so much playable now vs the new ones, but still enjoyable after just finishing it)

I know what you mean, and in some ways you're right. But keep in mind there are loads of different games being made today. Some of them might be as replayable as anything you've ever played. Others are, as you've noticed, only fun to play once. Again, variety. Isn't it a wonderful thing? [smile]

Or to put it another way:
We've already got Tetris and other replayable games. Why not keep playing them then? I mean, that's what replayable *means*.
Only the non-replayable games need constant reinventing. Only the games you play once or twice max have to be expanded with new features, different gameplay, new storylines and better graphics.
The games that are all about replayability don't need that, so why try to add it?

[Edited by - Spoonbender on January 26, 2006 5:16:51 PM]

Where did we lose it?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Where did we lose it?

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines