.jayderyu said:
@OP
The judgment your making between Atari and NES is that we consider NEs games leap years ahead of Atari games by the wrong values. You are judging the games based on graphics rather than gameplay. Playing these Atari, Intellivision, Coleco, Gemini games I personaly know that the game play offered between the generation is vastly different.
Pre crash games were limited to a handful of levels 3-5 that generally just repeated and became harder by becoming faster. We didn't have epic stories in rpgs. We didn't have simple physics to support skate boarding games like Skate or Die. Or large number of levels in mario games.
The truth of the matter is that from NES to PS2 we haven't really seen much difference in game play. For the most part it's bean a linear graphical upgrade and limiting the scope of gaming genre rather than increasing the games we play.
The Wii software in question is expanding the gaming by offering "games" that are more like entertainment software that are less games and more experience.
So your posting is wrong and your direction of judgment is wrong.
|
I believe that I mentioned that the games on NES, etc. we're deeper than the pre-crash games on Atari. Of course when we were playing 2600 games, we did want games that looked more like the games we were playing in the arcades at the time and graphics was an important part of the evolution in gaming in those days. If you look at the 2600 version of Pac-Man, it didn't look anything like the arcade version of Pac-Man. The 2600 version of Ms. Pac-man looked more like the arcade version. But the reason that gamers wanted to upgrade to the the Colecovision or 5200 were that they had games that looked much more like the arcade versions and offered more of the arcade game's levels than the 2600 version. For example. Donkey Kong looked terrible on the 2600 but much more like the arcade on the Colecovision and the Adam version included many things that I don't remember in Nintendo home versions of DK. DK scaled the building with Pauline, then it asked "How High Can you Go?" in the Adam version. Actually, there was some evolution in these games just before the crash. If you've ever played Pitfall II on 2600 it did evolve into more of an object collecting, multi-level game like the later NES platformers.
However, games like the original Zelda, they seemed more like outlines for what we would see in the 16-bit era. Zelda I was like an overworld that was filled in with the story that we saw in Zelda II then even more so in A Link to the Past and the same with the other rpgs as storylines became more complex in the 16 bit era. What was added in the 32 bit and later eras was the graphics in these rpgs, but rather than being ancillary parts of the games they were essential parts in that they further added to the realism of being in the game and to the realism of the characters themselves. They were no longer just 2d sprites on PS1 and PS2 but they were becoming more and more realistic which in my estimation is the culmination of these attempts at game making to be able to enter actual virtual fantasy worlds as is done on the holodeck in Star Trek and of course that wouldn't be as realistic and therefore not as good without graphics that made Pickard actually be able to lose himself in the experience of being in Victorian London.
They're called video games which in my estimation means they are one half video ie. something you view that gets better as technology advances and one half games which means that the play aspect is just as important. So, I would think that each superior game that comes along is composed of pieces that include both improved graphics and improved gameplay and deeper immersion in the experience than what has been seen previously.
