Death to modern video games! (898 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.19 on 26 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by <fadetoyellow.at.graffiti.net> (View user info) at 2006-08-12 22:37:54 EDT
"Minimum rules, maximum richness." That's the motto of Nolan Bushnell, the founder of Atari, the first video game company. More than that, it's the key to games in general—not just video games, all kinds of games: board games, table games, sports, puzzles, you name it. Or to put it the way the Othello box puts it: "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master." The best games of their respective sorts—Poker, chess, foosball, cryptograms, etc.—even some of the better sports (although it seems particularly hard for anyone to restrain themselves in simplicity when it comes to sports)—tend to share this principle. You can learn to play chess in a couple of minutes, if it even takes that long. To become really good at it takes years. Complexity from simplicity is the key.
The early video games tended to abide by this golden rule of games (This was probably often because of the memory restrictions the early video games had, but the reason for it doesn't matter.) Take the Atari game Adventure, for example. You had a labyrinth, a grail to find, keys that unlocked castles, dragons that looked like duck-seahorse hybrids, a sword to kill the dragons which looked like an arrow, a bridge (really a pair of purple brackets) to get across labyrinth walls, a magnet (which looked like a horseshoe) to pull other objects across the walls, and an irritating, poorly designed bat that swooped in randomly and flew off with what you were carrying. That was the whole game. That one sentence tells you how to play it. But there were infinite possible games, and no matter how much you played it you could still be surprised by what happened in each individual game. Brackets, duck-seahorse hybrids, a horseshoe, an arrow, a little square that represented you, and a moving black blotch, was all you needed for endless gameplay potential that took much practice to get good at.
I guess it was sometime in the mid-to-late-90's when videogamedom began the downwards spiral into its modern fatal case of DADS (Dungeons & Dragons Syndrome). I've never played D&D in my life and will always refuse to play it on principle, on pain of death. It's an affront to humanity to have a game that you have to read about a bookshelf of instruction books to know how to play. Now every video game controller has at least a dozen buttons on it (the unusually complex 4-bit game Solaris worked wonders with a joystick, a fire button, and the switches on the Atari console); every game is about as easy to learn as, say for instance, how to drive; and The Onslaught of Clueless Programmers from Hell are absolutely hell-bent on squeezing every ounce of entertainment possible out of every game so they can focus on meaningless shit like the graphics of the mountains in the background, realism of the movement of midgets dancing, etc.
I don't remember for sure what the last straw was that made me sell my Playstation 2. It might have been that Spider-Man game that actually *advertised* having six hours of tutorials. Mmm-mmm, six hours to learn how to play a game! Yummy! Almost as much fun as studying for a Latin American History test! Once we had Pitfall, Joust, Haunted House, Dragonfire. You learned them in five minutes and spent five years playing them constantly. The way things are going now, within a few years we'll have to take classes to learn a single game that will be about as fun as a root canal and an ape fist up the ass. Honestly, we've gone from minimum rules, maximum richness to maximum rules, minimum richness so fast and so thoroughly that I wouldn't blame an alien civilization for blowing up our planet in spite using modern video games as a prime example of the willful stupidity of the human race. ("Look, Glooberflek, they gather eagerly to spend six hours learning to play a game that lasts two! Destroy them!")
I play the old games. With each new pointless advancement in technology being used for nothing more than polygon improvement or some shit like that, I weep for humanity. (Of course I weep for humanity over everything and anything, but that's beside the point.) What makes people play this shit? I just want to know.
User Reviews
Submitted by paint_it_black (user info) at 2006-08-26 23:42:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-08-14 18:40:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
+1 for Atari 2600
Submitted by Gargamel (user info) at 2006-08-13 23:25:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Just to spite you, Butcher, I'm going to post more stupid shit now. :P
Submitted by SweatyButcher (user info) at 2006-08-13 21:18:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
That's just fucking stupid.
D&D might be a lifestyle but that's 1 insane game, and thousands upon thousands of games that take about2 minutes of reading to get the basics, and the rest you learn on the way.
You actually saying that a fucking dot is fun? The only fun dot was in pong. Play FFX. Easy to play, fun, and very long. Maybe long enough to stop you from posting more shit for a while.
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2006-08-13 12:14:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Alien Hominid.
Any of the Resident Evil series, except for the arcade shooter set.
State of Emergency.
Any of the Metal Gear Solid games.
Nothing requires a pulse to play, let alone brain activity, but still very fun.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-08-13 11:10:46 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I forgot to mention Kaos, back in the days when Microsoft hadn't QUITE YET completely crushed Apple out of the gaming market, most game discs came as a hybrid Mac/PC download on them. A disc of Myst would probably load onto your Mac so you should give it a try. For nothing else it's a rare game to get now, I still got my copy.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-08-13 11:04:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Myst is an older game, probably a 1998-1997 game that was (at the time) supposed to have the best graphics of any game ever made. It's a puzzle game where you walk your character through these different lands in a world called Myst trying to find (I know this sounds weird) pages to two books that contain the souls of this man's sons. You are the man's wife, though it really doesn't tell you that and you never interact with characters (the only "people" in the game are the sons in the books who, when you put a new page into their book, try to communicate to you ways to get them out of their book which imprisons them) so I assume the wife/mother has some mental disease and doesn't love her kids. Anyway you start to realize that something horribly wrong happened to your husband (the guy who "made" the world of Myst) and chances are one of the sons did something. So you have to choose which one to release with a little twist at the end.
It's a huge puzzle game and will take a long time to beat, buy a notepad, pen, and a calculator to play it as you'll need them. But very good.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-08-13 10:42:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Hey HV900...
What's MYST like? A lot of people tell me I would really like that game.
*grumbles because HV900 assumes everyone is on a PC*
**hugs his E-Mac**
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-08-13 10:28:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
You know what dude, you don't need to take a "The ignorant masses aren't getting my message" attitude. We get it, but as I am a self-described hard core gamer I feel that you are missing out on things. Granted most of the recent games I have played ARE of the "Okay flick the analog stick 30 degrees on the Y axis to change weapons, and 25 degrees to open doors, and 20 degrees to see your inventory" variety, I just don't feel you should give up without trying them. The PC has many great thinking games on it that you should give a shot (and I know you have a PC obviously).
Play "Myst", play "Legacy of Time: Journeyman 3", play "Prince of Persia" (albeit a bit more complicated game but worth it).
There is an industry out there to give you the best you can possibly play, it'll help you out.
Submitted by kaos-king (user info) at 2006-08-13 09:32:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
No, I understand...
I remember having my Atari 2600 and various games on a Comodore 64 back in the day. I enjoyed those games. They were simple and yet fun. You could play them for either 10 minutes while dinner was getting ready or for all afternoon on a rainy Saturday. I had a decent amount as I recall. I remember Raiders Of The Lost Ark for the Atari as having horrible graphics and being particularly difficult. There was a game for the computer called Mail Order Monsters that I was quite fond of.
Then came Nintendo and Sega Genesis. I had an okay time with a few of these games. I could never beat the boss right before Dracula in Castelvania, and I almost defeated the first X-Men game once. I was terrible at Sonic and I got sick of Mario real quick. I think the first TMNT was a cool game along with Mega Man 2. That's about all really pop out in my mind. Oh, and Altered Beast.
I guess I just don't see how people can devote so much time, effort and energy into these new games. They seem to take a lot out of the player. This isn't an ADD thing either, because I'm very likely to crash on the couch with a book for eight hours. A few years back, someone told me I would really dig Final Fantasy VIII. I started playing, and indeed, I enjoyed it very much. I ran around spastically through the first disk, absolutely clueless. At the beginning of the second, I got totally stuck. My brother told me I could find cheats online, so I found out how to pass. (it was something stupid, like you had to have a certain character hold a certain item in front of a mirror or some dumb shit) I flew through the second disk, only to discover at the end of it that I had not accumulated enough points or some such nonsense to defeat the boss. My level of skill or aptitude didn't matter. I've never bothered with a modern game since.
I take that back... when ever I get REALLY bored, I play Tetris. That game will always rock.
Submitted by OneCheapGeek (user info) at 2006-08-13 09:30:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Video games are too complex now? That's the point of your rant? You can't wrap your mind around the controls system?
Sad.
Submitted by stok (user info) at 2006-08-13 08:37:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"things were better in my day"
i bet you hate cameras on mobile phones too. get wit da program pops.
Submitted by professorfuckface (user info) at 2006-08-13 05:32:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The last video game I liked was half life 2, the only other games I've ever liked were vice city (riding a motorbike through little haiti), gta3, empire earth, goldeneye, and leisure suit larry series, when I add that all up I think I've put a lot more effort into video gaming that it was worth, and I've all but given up on it, when total emersion systems come out and I can see tanks driving around my living room floor I might give it another go
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2006-08-13 02:52:08 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I used to play the RPG's where you had to break out some graph paper and draw your own maps. Ultima I-V, Might & Magic (The original game), Bard's Tale... The classics. Now, they are outdated and old and the new RPG's have lost the intelligence and the feel you'd get from the originals as your passed through different parts of the game.
One of my favorite old games was a kick ass RPG called Questron.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questron
And it rocked.
I have not purchased a console since the S-NES. I wish I could.
The only modern game I like is Diablo II and it is freaking old. That's sad. There are some decent FPS games on the PC... FPS games on consoles are shitty.
Submitted by ess2s2 (user info) at 2006-08-13 02:28:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Gargamel, I wasn't addressing you in particular, I was really addressing Saffron as he was the one who stated Bushnell created Pong. I was also addressing the original post along with the fact that "retromaniacs" like to vaunt that the older games were all shining examples of the ultimate gaming utopia, which simply isn't true as I'm sure you will agree. The fact that retrogaming really only focuses on the cream of the bygone crop is one reason why so many have a skewed view of the gaming days of yore.
I remember having first a 2600 and then the ill-fated 7200, and the fact that when you tried to reset certain 2600 games on the 7200, the game's colors would change instead.
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2006-08-13 02:20:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Atari was not the first videogame company, other company's such as Bally's had hands in the arcade business.
Submitted by Gargamel (user info) at 2006-08-13 01:44:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
*sighs deep in spirit*
(1) I never said that Bushnell created Pong himself.
(2) I never said that all Atari games were minted gold either. That's just plain unrealistic for any company at any time.
I don't know why I bother.
Submitted by ess2s2 (user info) at 2006-08-13 00:36:03 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Nolan Bushnell actually did not create Pong. The very first computer which ran a version of Pong was an enormous o-scope in a U.S. government computer lab in 1958. The head lab technician, William A. Higanbotham whipped up a quick program called "Computer Generated Table Tennis Simulation" or later, "Tennis for Two" and displayed it during lab tours. Visitors could play it using two potentiometers hooked up to the machine, and the attraction became so popular, the lab eventually had to stop tours because so many visitors were going in and out each day, important things started coming up missing.
The table tennis simulation was barely a game though, it lacked scorekeeping abilities, and had no decisive end, two people could play indefinitely.
In 1966, a man named Ralph Baer devised a way to computer games on a television, his ideas were patented, and he came up with a complex, earlier version of Pong, he presented the idea to Magnavox, and they bought the rights and presented the table tennis-type game along with their new home console in California, where Nolan Bushnell was in attendance. This was in 1972, right before the creation of Atari.
Later, Bushnell founded Atari with a friend, recalled the table-tennis-like game at Magnavox's demonstration, and instructed his programmers to create Pong. It would be a couple of years later before the public saw a home version of Pong though, in addition to manufacturers being wary of the product, an infamous on-site test where the machine stopped working because it was jammed with too many quarters, and a copyright infringement lawsuit between Bushnell and Magnavox, who legally held the rights to the game, the first official home version of Pong wasn't released until Christmas 1975. The rest is history.
As far as substance in videogames is concerned, since videogames is a business, most game manufacturers and distributors have a habit of churning out one or two big budget titles and many smaller "me too" titles. The big budget titles are such a large investment that the developers are reluctant to innovate, fearful that the money will be wasted on a product no one "gets" and the me too titles are notable for the fact that not only do they not innovate, they don't even hold the status quo, since the game companies know that if 100,000 kids buy the game unknowingly, the game company has just made a free 50% profit, since very little resources went into creating the game, and nowadays, titles can't be returned just because they suck. Also, the assumption that all the games back in the day were minted gold right out of the stocks is false, the Atari 2600 versions of Pac-Man and E.T. were so terrible, they were major contributing factors to the great videogame crash of the early '80's.
Caveat emptor.
Submitted by Gargamel (user info) at 2006-08-13 00:33:43 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Just because a video game or two existed in the sixties doesn't mean that Atari wasn't the first video game *company*. As in a company that makes it its business to produce video games, and do pretty much nothing else. Can anyone say "anal semantic nitpicking"?
Submitted by wingester1 (user info) at 2006-08-13 00:03:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
FUCKING SHUTUP!
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-08-12 23:21:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Saffron, the makers who did "Ico" also did the game I mentioned "Shadow of the Collosus" If you liked Ico, check it out for a great experience.
Submitted by Saffron (user info) at 2006-08-12 23:15:12 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
Random Fact : Bushnell created Pong and founded Chuck E. Cheese as well. Genius ! I bet his basement has a Whack-a-Mole.
That being said, modern video games rock my socks off. You should check out Ico. Gorgeous puzzle game and you fight half the game with a 2x4. Simple controls, but way more immersive.
Submitted by Sinistral (user info) at 2006-08-12 23:14:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-08-12 23:10:37 (#)
Ranking: -2
First off :"Atari, the first video game company"
Wrong. Sanders Associates was the first company to manufacture a video game in 1967.
Second off, you need to play Shadow of the Colossus. Not every game is about 14 buttons and 6 hours of tutorials. SotC involves you, a sword, a bow/arrow, and a horse. You kill Colossi. Nothing extremely fancy, just a brilliant game. It was made in 2005 if I'm not mistaken.
"The Last Express", a game made in 1997 if I'm not mistaken as a Mac/PC hybrid where you basically never use your keyboard. One button, you're mouse button that you click in various areas. A game so good I nearly cried at the climactic ending.
Yeah there are games out there that I call "ADD games". They are games made for kids with ADD, or scourge possibly. They have no plot besides kill everything that moves. But if you really look at the games coming out (and I just popped two names off the top of my head) you will find a lot of great games to play.
Also avoid any game made from a movie.
Game on.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well hell.
He's right about everything, you know.
Submitted by HighVoltage900 (user info) at 2006-08-12 23:10:37 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
First off :"Atari, the first video game company"
Wrong. Sanders Associates was the first company to manufacture a video game in 1967.
Second off, you need to play Shadow of the Colossus. Not every game is about 14 buttons and 6 hours of tutorials. SotC involves you, a sword, a bow/arrow, and a horse. You kill Colossi. Nothing extremely fancy, just a brilliant game. It was made in 2005 if I'm not mistaken.
"The Last Express", a game made in 1997 if I'm not mistaken as a Mac/PC hybrid where you basically never use your keyboard. One button, you're mouse button that you click in various areas. A game so good I nearly cried at the climactic ending.
Yeah there are games out there that I call "ADD games". They are games made for kids with ADD, or scourge possibly. They have no plot besides kill everything that moves. But if you really look at the games coming out (and I just popped two names off the top of my head) you will find a lot of great games to play.
Also avoid any game made from a movie.
Game on.
Submitted by vettesrule88 (user info) at 2006-08-12 23:00:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: 1
+1 for effort
Submitted by darko (user info) at 2006-08-12 22:45:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
SNES FTW