Thoughts on the classics of video gaming and their evolution over time

I am just writing this rant just to see what others opinions are on the actions that game developers pursue in the creation of remakes, or sequels of video games which were originally wonderful in their time. By the classics of video gaming I mean games such as the original Mario series prior to its 3D appearance N64, or the Sonic the Hedgehog series (again pre-3D). While some games have benefited from numerous next generation tweaks and upgrades, others have either failed in trying to create a totally next generation game. An example of a game series that has succeeded in bringing a classic video game into the next generation scene in my opinion is the Final Fantasy series (from tiny 2d blocky sprites all the way up to the amazing 3D character models featered in FFXII and soon XIII). Some games even are still pretty successful without even changing too much of the dynamics of the game. Examples of this would be Kirby (always a great series imo), or even the Castlevania series (despite adding rpg elements, and intensely impressive 2D graphic work). Examples of games that are hindered or dying due to their intense graphical overhauls are as previous mentioned the Mario and Sonic series.

Yes I know that Mario usually achieves incredible scores on the video game ratings, but seriously don't you find yourself wondering if they will ever take another crack at creating another 2D platformer? Where are all of the suits? Old Mario never punched but he got the job done? What ever happened to the mushroom kingdom? Although the current games tend to score very well (as I mentioned earlier), a look into the past may help create an even larger or revamped following in the future.

Sonic the Hedgehog, a success of the past, a failure of the present, and possibly a long gone relic of the future. Sega, imo, had a great game with the Sonic series when they were still 2D. They were fun, music was great, challenging, and at the time graphically beautiful. What happened? Graphical upgrades, shoddy gameplay, deviations from the story that are so out there that it generally just doesn't make sense. I think (just my opinion) that if the developers of the sonic games (Sonic team i believe, not sure though) wish to see an old series be revamped, they should stop with the 3D versions of the game, and go back to its 2D roots. Sure graphical upgrades would be nice (smoother sprites, or even cell shading, but go back to the original formula of racing to the end goal while conquering obstacles and enemies. Obviously the choppy camera angles, physics problems, and graphical problems aren't helping the series out.

These are just my thoughts, what are yours? Sorry for the length.

I just don't see why Sega is trying so hard to force Sonic into 3D. The original games were about speedy platforming and that just doesn't translate too well when it comes to 3D. They should stick to 2.5D, make budget titles and get rid of the loser cast of side characters they created.

I think Castlevania has missed the bus when it comes to making the jump to 3D. If they were smart, they would have went the Devil May Cry route but now if they try that they'll probably be called rip offs. I really didn't mind LoI and Curse of Darkness had some good ideas but both of them fall short when you think back on how great the 2D castlevania's were.

Mario made the jump surprisingly well and what caught me off guard even more was that Metroid made the jump almost perfectly.

I think FF's and Square's biggest mistake was the success of FFVII. It's almost like every title after that has to have better graphics, longer and better cutscenes while some of the problems that plague the series pop up again and again. games like Persona 3 & 4, Dragon Quest VIII and LO show that games are becomming more impressed by solid gameplay and story rather than CGI and the same old settings over and over again.

For the most part I agree. Video games have certainly come a long way graphically; from, near unrecognizeable, 8-bit shapes running from point a to point b to the cinematic spectacles that they've become today.

But, I don't think the evolution in gameplay has come as far as the graphics. With the graphical limitations of the past game designers were forced to think of new and endearing ways to make each new game exciting. This is not to say that all classic games are great, but there were so many games for the NES, Snes and Sega that I still have very found memories of, and still find myself replaying from time to time. But as far as new games go, the experience is, typically, forgettable. Games have become extremely deriative and sacriafice substance for flash and pomp (i.e. graphical improvements, CG cutscenes). There are still some good games out there, but they aren't as abundant as they were fifteen years ago.

Also, with game companies trying to appeal to younger audiences games seem to have gotten easier and easier to the point where they're just not fun anymore. These younger audiences didn't grow up with systems like the NES and never experienced how rewarding beating a really hard, and often frustrating, game could feel.

Of course there's the argument that this is just the natural evolution of games and that to appeal to a greater audience then the gamer niche and be recognized as viable medium games had to become more visually stimulating and less structually and interactively complex. Though, I wish game designers could find some middle ground between these two extremes, combine the best of both worlds.

Oh well, I suppose that's the tragedy of getting older, you have to see the things you cherished in your youth evaporate.

Oh, and Smerlus, I definetly agree with you about Castlevania. I did enjoy LoL and CoD, the latter more then the former, but you are right, both had a great deal of room for improvement. The fighting is very stiff, as you pointed out, and the boss battles were way too easy, especially considering the long legacy of extremely hard bosses in the Castlevania series. But I also felt that the games were too linear; I was expecting them to adopt a method of game progression closer to Simon's Quest and Symphony of the Night with the end result being similar to the 3d adaptation of Metroid. The games are open world exploration, kind of, but your options as to where to go next are always pretty limited, and at no point while playing either game was I scratching my head wondering what to do next. I don't know, did anyone else feel this way?

I found that the 2d castlevanias were the best ones. I mean look at symphony of the night, portrait of ruin, and dawn of sorrow. All 2D castlevanias who take an rpg aspect, have a semi open world aspect about it, and were both visually appealing as well as entertaining. This is a series that I feel has gotten the formula right, and should stay away from another full 3D game. Don't get me wrong, i'm like the only person in the world who enjoyed castlevania 64 and legacy of darkness, but I strongly feel that if they were to ever do another 3D convert, a lot of time would have to be invested into the development in order to polish the combat aspects, areas of exploration and such.

I some what agree on Squenix and the FF series in how they are doomed to produce flashier games, but I also believe that they are improving the story as well imo. If the cutscenes are getting longer, it just helps immerse you into the storyline even more after having a long dungeon crawl and such. A game which I felt that cutscenes hindered the game were the scenes from Xenosaga. FF may have some long cg scenes, but normally the only long ones are at the beginning and the end while ones in the gameplay usually last at the max of maybe 5-7 minutes. Xenosaga's scenes were so long that you could literally put the controller down, go cook dinner, and come back to a movie. Another long one was probably the full ending sequence (yes sequence starting from when you are going to destroy the patriot system and the walk through the microwave corridor, all the way to the end of the credits). I swear that was close to 2 hrs of movie with little interactivity.

Castlevania: Went uphill with the PS1 but started to drip downward again over time.

Metroid: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Zelda: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Final Fantasy: Went significantly downhill after the SNES era.

Sonic: Went significantly downhill after the Genesis era.

Mario: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Mortal Kombat: Went abysmally downhill after the SNES/Genesis days.

...I'm noticing a pattern here...

Castlevania: Went uphill with the PS1 but started to drip downward again over time.

Metroid: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Zelda: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Final Fantasy: Went significantly downhill after the SNES era.

Sonic: Went significantly downhill after the Genesis era.

Mario: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Mortal Kombat: Went abysmally downhill after the SNES/Genesis days.

...I'm noticing a pattern here...

Zweihand

I think in reference to sonic, it should have said "died" after the sega genesis era. Also i believe that the metroid games that came out on the gamecube really put an interesting spin on the series but it did take away from the awesome side scrolling platforming shooter. Also MK always sucked imo (i'm a street fighter person). Also as I probably stated before, the castlevanias that appeared on the gba and ds were pretty good imo as well. They were along the lines, if not surpassing Symphony of the Night.

Castlevania: Went uphill with the PS1 but started to drip downward again over time.

Metroid: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Zelda: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Final Fantasy: Went significantly downhill after the SNES era.

Sonic: Went significantly downhill after the Genesis era.

Mario: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Mortal Kombat: Went abysmally downhill after the SNES/Genesis days.

...I'm noticing a pattern here...

Zweihand

Metroid Prime, Ocarina of Time, Super mario 64, and Mortal Kombat: Deception were all in way superior to their past counterparts and in a way redefined their particular franchises for a new generation. I guess it all comes down to personal opinion.

Castlevania: Went uphill with the PS1 but started to drip downward again over time. TRUE

Metroid: Went downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Zelda: Went downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Final Fantasy: Went significantly downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Sonic: Went significantly downhill after the Genesis era.TRUE

Mario: Went downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Mortal Kombat: Went abysmally downhill after the SNES/Genesis days.TRUE

...I'm noticing a pattern here...

Zweihand

we still love our old games. I am even talking back in Ms Pac Man and Galaga games.

JYoung103175

I was visiting my parents and was trying to get my youngest sibling (11) to download Galaga on his Wii, but he said the game looked crappy :(

I felt so old trying to explain to him why that game was so cool. The funny thing is that with all the hours he's wasted playing that Wii he probably still couldn't last 5 seconds in Galaga. Say what you want about game evolution, but I think it's safe to say, without dispute, that games have gotten a hell of a lot easier since the 80's.

For the most part I agree. Video games have certainly come a long way graphically; from, near unrecognizeable, 8-bit shapes running from point a to point b to the cinematic spectacles that they've become today.

But, I don't think the evolution in gameplay has come as far as the graphics. With the graphical limitations of the past game designers were forced to think of new and endearing ways to make each new game exciting. This is not to say that all classic games are great, but there were so many games for the NES, Snes and Sega that I still have very found memories of, and still find myself replaying from time to time. But as far as new games go, the experience is, typically, forgettable. Games have become extremely deriative and sacriafice substance for flash and pomp (i.e. graphical improvements, CG cutscenes). There are still some good games out there, but they aren't as abundant as they were fifteen years ago.

Also, with game companies trying to appeal to younger audiences games seem to have gotten easier and easier to the point where they're just not fun anymore. These younger audiences didn't grow up with systems like the NES and never experienced how rewarding beating a really hard, and often frustrating, game could feel.

Of course there's the argument that this is just the natural evolution of games and that to appeal to a greater audience then the gamer niche and be recognized as viable medium games had to become more visually stimulating and less structually and interactively complex. Though, I wish game designers could find some middle ground between these two extremes, combine the best of both worlds.

Oh well, I suppose that's the tragedy of getting older, you have to see the things you cherished in your youth evaporate.

Oh, and Smerlus, I definetly agree with you about Castlevania. I did enjoy LoL and CoD, the latter more then the former, but you are right, both had a great deal of room for improvement. The fighting is very stiff, as you pointed out, and the boss battles were way too easy, especially considering the long legacy of extremely hard bosses in the Castlevania series. But I also felt that the games were too linear; I was expecting them to adopt a method of game progression closer to Simon's Quest and Symphony of the Night with the end result being similar to the 3d adaptation of Metroid. The games are open world exploration, kind of, but your options as to where to go next are always pretty limited, and at no point while playing either game was I scratching my head wondering what to do next. I don't know, did anyone else feel this way?

ShootTheCore

Castlevania: Went uphill with the PS1 but started to drip downward again over time.

Metroid: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Zelda: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Final Fantasy: Went significantly downhill after the SNES era.

Sonic: Went significantly downhill after the Genesis era.

Mario: Went downhill after the SNES era.

Mortal Kombat: Went abysmally downhill after the SNES/Genesis days.

...I'm noticing a pattern here...

Zweihand

Metroid: Kind of agree. I could care less about the Prime series. Metroid Fusion and Zero Mission are great though.

Zelda: Went downhill when Twilight Princess launched on Wii.

Final Fantasy: Don't know. Final Fantasy 10 did disappoint me. Still need to play XII.

Sonic: Yes, my favorite platformer series has gone downhill. I hear Sega is going to kill Sonic with a sword.

Mario: Definitely downhill. Could care less about Galaxy.

Mortal Kombat: Again definitely downhill. MK needs another title as great as the second one. Kung Lao for the Flawless Victory.

[QUOTE="Zweihand"]

Castlevania: Went uphill with the PS1 but started to drip downward again over time. TRUE

Metroid: Went downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Zelda: Went downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Final Fantasy: Went significantly downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Sonic: Went significantly downhill after the Genesis era.TRUE

Mario: Went downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Mortal Kombat: Went abysmally downhill after the SNES/Genesis days.TRUE

...I'm noticing a pattern here...

Ted_Zanarukando

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[QUOTE="Ted_Zanarukando"][QUOTE="Zweihand"]

Castlevania: Went uphill with the PS1 but started to drip downward again over time. TRUE

Metroid: Went downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Zelda: Went downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Final Fantasy: Went significantly downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Sonic: Went significantly downhill after the Genesis era.TRUE

Mario: Went downhill after the SNES era. FALSE

Mortal Kombat: Went abysmally downhill after the SNES/Genesis days.TRUE

...I'm noticing a pattern here...

Zweihand

Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

Yeah you have to understand that he doesn't like todays games cause they are too easy. At least that's what it seems like when he posted in another thread.

Yeah you have to understand that he doesn't like todays games cause they are too easy. At least that's what it seems like when he posted in another thread.

Nifty_Shark

I can respect that point of view, to a center degree, games certainly have gotten easier. However, many of the games that zweihand listed aren't particularly challenging. I mean it's not like Link to the Past, Super Metroid and Symphony of the Night were mindnumbingly hard or anything. I fail to see how Link to the Past is any more challenging then Ocarina of Time, or how Final Fantasy VI is harder then Final Fantasy VII.

You want a hard game, I've been trying to beat Einhander for the last two hours, my god; that game's just not far, but I love it anyway.

Yeah you have to understand that he doesn't like todays games cause they are too easy. At least that's what it seems like when he posted in another thread.

I can respect that point of view, to a center degree, games certainly have gotten easier. However, many of the games that zweihand listed aren't particularly challenging. I mean it's not like Link to the Past, Super Metroid and Symphony of the Night were mindnumbingly hard or anything. I fail to see how Link to the Past is any more challenging then Ocarina of Time, or how Final Fantasy VI is harder then Final Fantasy VII.

You want a hard game, I've been trying to beat Einhander for the last two hours, my god; that game's just not far, but I love it anyway.