Gaming Confessions & Blasphemy

hbi2k, I've often considered that titles that were revolutionary or just flat out best in class in their time simply don't translate to gamers who experience them for the first time years or decades later. When you consider the foundations that they may have laid, it can still be hard to appreciate when one has reared themselves on evolutionary and increasingly sophisticated versions that flowed out of these early templates.

Yet for those who had no template to compare these vintage titles against, it was nothing short of a revolution, as primitive as they may seem now.

My closest touchstones of this nature would be Atari's Night Driver and Intellivision's AD&D: Treasure of Tarmin. Modern gamers who enjoy Forza or Skyrim may not understand the big deal with these older counterparts, but to me they're timeless classics.

Aaron D. wrote:

hbi2k, I've often considered that titles that were revolutionary or just flat out best in class in their time simply don't translate to gamers who experience them for the first time years or decades later. When you consider the foundations that they may have laid, it can still be hard to appreciate when one has reared themselves on evolutionary and increasingly sophisticated versions that flowed out of these early templates.

Yet for those who had no template to compare these vintage titles against, it was nothing short of a revolution, as primitive as they may seem now.

My closest touchstones of this nature would be Atari's Night Driver and Intellivision's AD&D: Treasure of Tarmin. Modern gamers who enjoy Forza or Skyrim may not understand the big deal with these older counterparts, but to me they're timeless classics.

For me, I think of 2 titles; FF7, which I adore, and Bioshock, which I couldn't even finish due to how bored I was. Many consider its story-telling through ambiance, setting and recordings to be groundbreaking and amazing. I played it 6 or 7 years after release, and didn't do squat for me. So I see your point, and in part, agree.

hbi2k wrote:

I think I've said it before in this thread, but... I don't get the Super Metroid love. At all. I mean, it seems like a fine enough game compared to what else what out at the time, but every time I try to play it, I eventually end up wandering around areas that I've been through ten times before, not sure where I need to go next. And due to the open nature of the game, it's not the simplest thing to get on GameFAQs and figure out exactly where I'm at and what I need to be doing, so I get bored and quit. When does that get fun?

I kind of have the same problem when it comes to Super Metroid. The first time I played it it was still relatively new, so it wasn't a big deal to play through the whole thing and enjoy it quite a bit, because it was the best of its time. But even though I enjoyed and played the game a lot, I found myself growing bored of navigating the same map over and over again, so I started to get into Super Metroid hacks. Many of them are absolutely fantastic, but sometimes you end up with some devious hackers that think its "fun" to hide items in increasingly obscure and hard to find spots. Wandering around the same rooms over and over again without progress is no fun, so I can only get through a hack only once a year or so.

However, once I discovered speedrunning, the game turned around entirely for me. Now it is no longer about wandering around from place to place, combing block by block in hopes of finding a way to progress. Instead, now it is all about the moveset, and about optimization. You already know what to do, but the goal is to do at as well as possible. And as far as platformers go, I think Super Metroid has the most intricate control scheme that goes layers and layers beyond what normal everyday players would encounter. I suppose that is why it has such long legs regardless of its age, because of the high skill ceiling.

Anyway, don't feel bad that you aren't having fun being lost in it. It is rewarding to figure it out on your own, but it can be hard to justify the time investment that will take. If you ever pick it up again I'd recommend closely following a video tutorial just to help you keep on track.

A lot of people have said that Super Metroid holds up, but I have played Symphony of the Night, and I have played Shadow Complex... It's difficult to go back after that, and I have just accepted that I missed the boat on it, having never owned a SNES.

JillSammich wrote:

A lot of people have said that Super Metroid holds up, but I have played Symphony of the Night, and I have played Shadow Complex... It's difficult to go back after that, and I have just accepted that I missed the boat on it, having never owned a SNES.

I love how people's tastes can differ.

I played Super Metroid for the first time after Symphony of the Night and (I think) after Shadow Complex. And while I didn't think it was the best thing ever, I thought it was somewhat better than the sprawling but unfocused SotN.

And just about anything is better than the dull, uninspired Shadow Complex. Except maybe Bugs vs Tanks and Final Fantasy 6.

ClockworkHouse wrote:
JillSammich wrote:

A lot of people have said that Super Metroid holds up, but I have played Symphony of the Night, and I have played Shadow Complex... It's difficult to go back after that, and I have just accepted that I missed the boat on it, having never owned a SNES.

I love how people's tastes can differ.

I played Super Metroid for the first time after Symphony of the Night and (I think) after Shadow Complex. And while I didn't think it was the best thing ever, I thought it was somewhat better than the sprawling but unfocused SotN.

And just about anything is better than the dull, uninspired Shadow Complex. Except maybe Bugs vs Tanks and Final Fantasy 6. ;)

Dang, you really didn't like Bugs vs Tanks.

I'm in a competition with Blind Evil to see if I can hate something more flagrantly than he hates the Vita.

JillSammich wrote:

A lot of people have said that Super Metroid holds up, but I have played Symphony of the Night, and I have played Shadow Complex... It's difficult to go back after that, and I have just accepted that I missed the boat on it, having never owned a SNES.

Well, define "holds up". Does it mean "still the greatest game ever"? Or does it mean its still enjoyable despite its age? Or does it simply mean that the game is still playable compared to modern standards?

When I think of whether a game holds up or not, I immediately think of games from the PS1 era. At the time many of them were fantastic. But if you go back to play them now, all of them are chunky, awkward, and definitely unplayable. Many of the games from that era do not "hold up", because there is no possible way to enjoy them now.

So now take Super Metroid. Is it still playable? Yes. Do the graphics hold up? I would say yes, as far as the SNES is capable. Is it still enjoyable? I would definitely say so.

But is Super Metroid going to be better than two decades worth of games afterwards that have perfected the formula that it helped create? I would say, probably not. I can't think of a single game in existence that would hold up under that criteria. So if that is what you are expecting, of course you are going to be disappointed.

Zudz wrote:

FF7 was so bad, I'd rather replay Final Fantasy: Mystic Quest. I've got a copy right here! I'll do it!

You know FF:MQ is a hell of a lot shorter than FF7 and the story doesn't fall apart at the beginning of the third act so as someone who owns both I might almost agree with you.

Isn't there a "Final Fantasy is great/ Final Fantasy sucks big hairy balls" thread anywhere else ?
I come here to read about Gaming Confessions & Blasphemy, but am having trouble finding the stories through the quagmire.

pinkdino99 wrote:

Isn't there a "Final Fantasy is great/ Final Fantasy sucks big hairy balls" thread anywhere else ?
I come here to read about Gaming Confessions & Blasphemy, but am having trouble finding the stories through the quagmire.

Apologies. A good deal of that content is actually inside jokes and meta-commentary. They're not really serious if read literally. In that sense, the meta-commentary and friendly ribbing does belong here and maintains the friendly atmosphere.

Feel free to post your own Blasphemous content.

Here's more:

Dragon Age 2 was awesome and it's a damn shame that they're pulling all that back to make Dragon Age 3: Wanna Be Skyrim.

I much preferred DA 2 to DA:O, and I don't care who knows it.

davet010 wrote:

I much preferred DA 2 to DA:O, and I don't care who knows it.
:)

WOOT!!! High five!!!!!

IMAGE(http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2013/157/c/3/i_like_big_boats_by_agarthanguide-d681caq.jpg)

Eleima wrote:
davet010 wrote:

I much preferred DA 2 to DA:O, and I don't care who knows it.
:)

WOOT!!! High five!!!!! :D

Dead to me!

jamos5 wrote:

Well, define "holds up". Does it mean "still the greatest game ever"? Or does it mean its still enjoyable despite its age? Or does it simply mean that the game is still playable compared to modern standards?

When I think of whether a game holds up or not, I immediately think of games from the PS1 era. At the time many of them were fantastic. But if you go back to play them now, all of them are chunky, awkward, and definitely unplayable. Many of the games from that era do not "hold up", because there is no possible way to enjoy them now.

So now take Super Metroid. Is it still playable? Yes. Do the graphics hold up? I would say yes, as far as the SNES is capable. Is it still enjoyable? I would definitely say so.

But is Super Metroid going to be better than two decades worth of games afterwards that have perfected the formula that it helped create? I would say, probably not. I can't think of a single game in existence that would hold up under that criteria. So if that is what you are expecting, of course you are going to be disappointed.

I've met people that still claim that it's nearly a perfect game, and I don't bemoan them for it at all. I just don't think that it controls all that great, and I can't get into it despite the fact that it has everything that I really enjoy in one of those types of games - exploration, the grid map, upgrades, interesting character designs... I really like the SNES graphical style as well. I just think that there are some things that I don't think I can go back and play because I never played them when I was younger. That's not to say that it's not still a great game... I just can't get into it.

I am totally with you on most of the PS1 era stuff though. Maybe things like FF9 and Lunar are still enjoyable. Actually, I would say most of the sprite-based stuff is still good to go, but I would be hard pressed to go back and play anything fully polygonal on that system. All I'm saying is that, by 'holds up', I mean holds up for me enough so that it hooks me. If Nintendo ever brings SNES games to the 3DS, I'll probably buy it on there and give it another shot, but I've tried a couple times and I just can't get into it.

As someone replaying Dragon Age: Origins and enjoying it, I, too, am upset at the Skyrimjobbing of Dragon Age 3. But who knows? Maybe it'll turn out good and different.

jamos5 wrote:

When I think of whether a game holds up or not, I immediately think of games from the PS1 era. At the time many of them were fantastic. But if you go back to play them now, all of them are chunky, awkward, and definitely unplayable. Many of the games from that era do not "hold up", because there is no possible way to enjoy them now.

In regards to some of the more action-oriented games, sure, I'll agree with you, but I see no reason a game like Final Fantasy Tactics (despite its translation), Breath of Fire 3, or Legend of Mana still cannot be fun today. They weren't going through the same experimentation with 3D that a lot of games at the time were, and even then, it all depends on the design and execution. After all, the original Doom can still be fun to this day, just as old arcade games can be.

Then again, I was pretty much exclusively playing JRPG's on the Playstation, with the exception of titles like Gex 2, Mega Man 8, and a pair of Aliens shooters that weren't all that good.

The only good Final Fantasy was the first one. Too much plot/melodrama spoiled the others.

Mayfield wrote:

The only good Final Fantasy was the first one. Too much plot/melodrama spoiled the others.

Here, you dropped something.

IMAGE(http://www.bazaared.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/nerd-hipster-glasses-oversized-5.jpg)

I am too old to be a hipster.

Mayfield wrote:

I was too old to be a hipster, before it became cool.

FTFY

I am impressed at how controversial the Final Fantasy games are. When a game is very polarizing, I think it has to be accepted they have done something very, very right, unless of course you want to say the people on the other end of the spectrum have no worth, which I hope is something I never see on this site.

I really liked some Final Fantasy games, and detested others. Something I can't figure out is how some people like some of the same ones I liked, then also really liked some I hated.

I think I've said it before in this thread, but... I don't get the Super Metroid love. At all. I mean, it seems like a fine enough game compared to what else was out at the time, but every time I try to play it, I eventually end up wandering around areas that I've been through ten times before, not sure where I need to go next. And due to the open nature of the game, it's not the simplest thing to get on GameFAQs and figure out exactly where I'm at and what I need to be doing, so I get bored and quit. When does that get fun?

LarryC wrote:
Mayfield wrote:

I was too old to be a hipster, before it became cool.

FTFY

Too princess to be a hipster

JillSammich wrote:

I've met people that still claim that it's nearly a perfect game, and I don't bemoan them for it at all. I just don't think that it controls all that great, and I can't get into it despite the fact that it has everything that I really enjoy in one of those types of games - exploration, the grid map, upgrades, interesting character designs... I really like the SNES graphical style as well. I just think that there are some things that I don't think I can go back and play because I never played them when I was younger. That's not to say that it's not still a great game... I just can't get into it.

I think that's why I feel so weird about not liking it and why I keep trying to go back to it even though I know I'm not going to enjoy it. Because it DOES have so much going for it. I love the graphical style, I love the music, I love the atmosphere, I think the controls are just fine (except for the wall jump which was just stupid). I WANT to like it. But around the 45 to 90 minute mark I always realize I'm not having fun.

MrDeVil909 wrote:
Eleima wrote:
davet010 wrote:

I much preferred DA 2 to DA:O, and I don't care who knows it.
:)

WOOT!!! High five!!!!! :D

Dead to me!

Hehe, I love you too.

imbiginjapan wrote:
ClockworkHouse wrote:
imbiginjapan wrote:

I lieu of a Game Boy, I had a Lynx. In lieu of a Playstation I had a 3DO (after a steep price reduction!). In lieu of an IBM PC, I had an Atari computer, then an Amiga... in lieu of a PS2 I had a Gamecube. Only in the past half-decade or so have I owned a machine that was not deemed a failure or worse, sent a company into bankruptcy. At some point in the past I even had a TurboGrafix 16.

How's that Vita/Wii U combo working out for you?

Part of the problem is I'm a sucker for a discount. I usually figure if I can get a half-dozen good games on a system and it's cheap enough, I'll get my time & money's worth. For example I think the Gamecube put me back 90 bucks new with 3 games. I'm not sure I ever paid full price for a single game on it. I picked up a Wii U bundle on the cheap a couple weeks ago. I haven't actually booted a game up on it yet, but I fully intend to take advantage of the discount game market when they inevitably pull the plug early.

TBH The Vita doesn't even meet these fairly generous requirements. A good-sized memory card runs 30% of the cost of the system and there are a total of two games I am interested in.

So it turns out I've gotten far more use out of my Wii U so far than my PS4. The Wind Waker HD and DK Tropical Freeze are just great. I had a bunch of eShop credit and got DK for next to nothing. Guess I'm always for the underdog.

It doesn't help that the PS4 is still in its first year. Consoles almost never have anything worth playing for the first year.

Eleima wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:
Eleima wrote:
davet010 wrote:

I much preferred DA 2 to DA:O, and I don't care who knows it.
:)

WOOT!!! High five!!!!! :D

Dead to me!

Hehe, I love you too. :D

Don't worry, Eleima, I got your back!

Quintin_Stone wrote:

It's got to be better than FF8.

Hell, even Beyond the Beyond is better than FF8.

I actually don't think FF13 is that bad.

The only real misstep the game is naming multiple races with names similar to "L'Cie" which made it hard to follow at times.

It is not the best FF, but it is not the worst and if you find it for 10 or 20 bucks, it's worth picking up.