If you ask people on the internet
what they think of the differences between old games and those
of today, you'll typically find very polarized opinions. Some
will act like cranky old men, complaining about how much they
hate the gaming industry of today, before beginning an untirely
unrelated tirade about how much they miss casette tapes and
vinyl records. Others will refer to everything from older
generations as childish, before going back to their praising
of the latest Grand Theft Auto clone.
But opinions aside, which games are in fact
better? Since this is a NES site, it would make sense to observe
the differences between NES games and those found on the Playstation2,
which is currently the most popular console on the market.
At least for the next five minutes, until it becomes considered
'obsolete' by modern standards.
For people who like to play games for only
a few minutes before they get bored and move on to do something
else (otherwise known as the shallow consumers that make up
the majority these days), the first thing they look for is
great graphics. Needless to say, the most horrible looking
Playstation2 game ever made blows away any NES game easily
in this category. Except maybe Atari compilation games. One
can argue all day about how graphics don't matter, but old
games' graphical inferiority is ultimately undeniable. Just
compared to it's successor, the Super NES, the graphics on
the NES look ugly and vastly outdated, though by no means
to the point of being unplayable. However, the superior graphics
grant modern games with something that NES games could never
accomplish, true 3D gameplay, which ultimately affects the
gameplay. However, one can point out that this has led to
the PS2 completely lacking in 2D games as a result, especially
with Sony's American branch and it's anti-2D policy. In the
end, this isn't something that makes NES games any less fun,
though it does make it hard for a player to forget how incredibly
dated the visuals are by today's standards.
Music is another area where new games' dominance
seems unquestioned. The technology they use in modern games
are as realistic as those you can find in films, while the
NES uses various cheap sounds. This has allowed modern games
to create some truly epic soundtracks by using full orchestras,
as well as letting them include authentic music. You know,
the same stuff you hear on the radio. All the time. From those
overrated popstars and gangsta rappers you hear all day...endlessly...even
if you just heard the same song less than an hour ago...okay,
so this may have resulted in some of the worst 'game soundtracks'
ever made. I sure as hell won't deny that. But forgetting
the licensed garbage, another interesting feature of today's
gaming music is how it can change from being calm or suspenseful,
to fast-paced and dramatic once an enemy is encountered, something
Nintendo fans first witnessed with Zelda: Occarina of Time.
Though this has resulted in a lot of games that only have
one battle tune, with all the music that's played outside
of battle being a bunch of ambiant crap. Even with the vastly
superior technology, a large amount of video game soundtracks
today are, uh...shit. Thanks, Tommy Tallarico. At least old
games had catchy music, you annoying, forgettable-soundtrack-making
bastard.
It's no question that games have gotten much
longer, with many reaching into over 50 hours of length before
reaching completion. In fact, some games for the NES can be
considered essentially mini-games to today's games, and in
some cases, such as with Animal Crossing, they actually are.
One could say, however, that length doesn't matter if the
game's not even fun enough to keep playing. It's also true
that just because a game has been completed, it doesn't mean
it can't be played again. However, it seems most people these
days feel a game's only worth playing one time before they
sell it, which could be attributed to the quality of modern
games' replayability...but most likely it's because people
have a very short attention span these days.
With the drastically increased length of games,
it makes sense that saving became easier. Many NES games required
you to sit through the entire game before you could quit,
preventing you from being able to just enjoy it for a short
period of time. It's nice when you're a kid, but you don't
often have 2 or 3 hours in a row to spare when you get older.
Most NES games that do have save features often come with
the dreaded 'password save system.' So if you have to quit
and you're in a hurry, all you have to do is just look up
the password, which usually can be found within a few minutes,
find a pen (preferrably, though any writing utensil will do)
and a piece of paper you don't mind writing on, then you write
down the password, which can often be quite lengthy, and you're
done! A lot simpler than choosing the 'save game' option.
Fortunately, there are NES games that allow you to save directly
to the cartridge, though they generally had a small problem
with the data getting erased all the time. The Playstation2
doesn't seem to have a problem with data getting erased, but
it requires a memory card in order to save in the first place,
though this only applies to some consoles, since the ability
to save directly to the system has become something more consoles
have been using recently. As for how reliable those systems
are in not erasing every one of your saves, I can't personally
tell you, because I don't have hundreds of dollars to spend
in order to find out. Especially since I don't care.
Then there are, of course, the movies. As
classic as the opening to Monster Party is, it can't compare
to those used in the current games being released. The movies
shown in games these days are...well you know what they are.
To get a better understanding of what the movies in games
are capable of, look at the Metal Gear Solid games, which
embody the best and worst of them. They can entertain the
player, improve the story significantly, and help break the
monotony of the gameplay, which is important for games where
the gameplay sucks. However, it can also mean numerous, endless,
and just plain pretentious movies that make you want to stab
a fork in your eyes. Most games allow you to skip them ('most'
being an important word), but if you do you'll often miss
important information on what to do next or how to perform
an important technique. I suppose this area is strictly a
matter of taste, since those who like compelling stories with
their games, in particular RPG fans, have reason to be interested.
However, for those who simply like to play video games, movies
just get in the way. Besides, everyone knows that Madden 2004
had a really weak story.
The environments have changed entirely as
well, with the leap from 2D to 3D being the biggest difference.
With stages no longer being nothing more than a backround,
but rather something that entirely surrounds the player, the
stages have become much more immersive. However, it seems
that with the new worlds they have been able to create, many
game makers have lost their creativity when it comes to devoloping
environments. Instead of unique worlds that were exciting
to look at, most games these days have nothing more than dull,
dreary stages that are completely lacking in detail or originality.
Exactly how many games have come out lately where the environments
are nothing more than boring city streets? This isn't something
you can really blame on the technology, it's just that many
developers today haven't an original bone in their body. Which
explains why so many games are exactly the same. I'm talking
to you, SAINT'S ROW.
The controls have also changed significantly,
and today it's not unusual to have to remember what 8 or 10
buttons do. This has given players the ability to perform
many more moves than were ever possible with the simple NES
controller's A and B buttons. Of course it also means having
to spend a ton of time figuring out what the hell to do before
you can even start. Many gamers won't have a problem with
it, as it will give them a lot more to work with, though it
will obviously scare off casual players.
Even the difficulty of games has changed.
When people think of hard games today, they bring up Devil
May Cry or Shinobi. But those games are easy. Come on. There
are tons of NES games way harder than anything considered
challenging by today's standards. That's not to say today's
games are too easy. Many games these days allow the player
to make the difficulty as challenging as they want, so the
lack of a challenge isn't something one has much to complain
about. However, many NES games don't have any variable difficulty
settings, which is unfortunate, considering the amount of
them which would be considered impossible to today's players.
In fact, it could be argued that older games were too hard.
Games like Ghosts N' Goblins are nice for hardcore gamers,
but for anyone less skilled, they'll be found to be completely
unplayable.
Of course, the most important aspect of video
games is gameplay Unless you're a gaming magazine editor,
since you'll never actually play the game for more than the
few minutes necessary to write a review about it. It's hard
to say whether older or newer games have 'better' gameplay,
as that's something that comes down to the individual games
themselves. I can't really say much here, despite what you
may have expected, because it seems insane to even put Castlevania
and Bible Adventures or Resident Evil 4 and State of Emergency
in the same categories. The individual games are what really
determine the quality of gameplay, not a console. And they
also determine the greatness of a console, so even if a system
isn't very good on a technological scale, if it has plenty
of great games, then it's good. And those systems know who
they are. PS2.
Up to this point, it'd appear I was basically
beating up on older games, because in terms of technology,
modern games are much, much better. Not that it means that
the games themselves are better. I'd rather be stuck with
Bionic Commando for a month than the entire Def Jam Vendetta
series for an hour. That'd be 60 minutes of agonizing hell.
I don't have a good recollection of what NES
games sold for back when they were being produced, but they
probably went for about the same price of modern games, regardless
of how cheap they seem today. Sort of like how a calculator
the size of a cereal box used to cost hundreds of dollars.
Granted, if you had a choice between NES games decades ago,
and buying new games today, the modern games would be a much
better deal. But we don't live in a world of time travel.
Or someone's keeping the technology to themself. So we have
to go by NES games' current prices. Their very, very cheap
prices. So you can always choose to get a Playstation game
for 20 to 60 dollars, or a NES game for a few quarters. Most
people, the kind who view anything released over a year ago
as outdated, won't even touch older games, so they prefer
to blow their money on one new game when they could get around
30 NES games for the same price. If you want to follow that
logic, it's your choice.
So what's my point? None, really. I just felt
like writing this. It's ultimately your choice whether you
want to play older or newer games. Or both. If you want to
get new games, but don't want to buy a new 50 dollar title
every month or two, you can always play classic NES games
on the side. Whatever your choice, don't become one of those
hacks who's out to get the most up-to-date crap on the market.
Then you're just pathetic. And stop buying half-assed licensed
games. You're just encouraging EA.
