Retro, Generations and more bitching from me

"Retro - defined as being involving, relating to, or reminiscent of things from the recent past."

But what does it really mean to us in the gaming communities. Retro graphics, retro games, retro styles and jokes, are they really being "retro" with new games designed to look like old games or are they just going for the cheap buck "ooh it looks so old" like some hipster pricks jumping on a bandwagon because they can't cope or manage to do current generation graphics and effects like their friends are doing from the same graduation school of game making. So do we judge by generation? But that itself is a tough one to define.

Is it anything on previous generation consoles? Do some consoles get to be called "retro" or having an interest and preference in such consoles, become a retro interest? Consoles are much easier to define in generation thanks to the improvements in bits from 8 to 16 to 32 and such. Or simply the consoles released close together defining them as a generation of consoles. Easier but still some gaps in the net slip through there. While PC gaming is still PC games but do we judge them on how old the game is? The style of the game? Whether it uses the latest bollock-crushing graphics card capabilities? Or if the internal programming architecture uses specific graphic libraries or not?

It's a bit of a conundrum and no amount of debate and rationalisation is going to fix it for the masses, there will always be ill-informed opinions, people supporting those with even less knowledge on the subject and then it becomes accepted as truth within that community which then clashes with another community when the two become aware of each other.

Taking consoles into consideration, one could argue that various consoles pair up with each other to form "generations", an example being the 8bit era of NES and Master System, 16bit having the SNES and Megadrive, 32bit having the Saturn and Playstation and so on. However the pairings and groups fall apart when there are inequalities in power under the hilt. Such as the involvement of the N64 against the Playstation, do they get accredited as being the same generation? Are they grouped as being the similar time span or should they be separated on account of being 64bit and 32bit respectively. The lines begin to blur with the release of consoles being intermittent and jumps in technology taking different routes and directions.

If one were to say that generations of consoles are taken as the next sequential console for a company, then we could argue that Famicon and NES are 1 generation, SNES is another, N64 is next, then GameCube, Wii and Wii U. Comparatively PSX, PS2, PS3 and soon at the time of writing PS4 would only be 4 generations of console assuming we're looking at this like some technological family tree. It doesn't match and it doesn't pair up comfortably with newer consoles like Xbox, Xbox 360 and soon the Xbox One, 3 generations but nobody is going to say that the NES and Xbox are the same generation.

Sega doesn't help matters by having released a 32X add-on for the Megadrive, to then release the Saturn before bumping up to 128bit with the Dreamcast before the end of SEGA's home entertainment career in consoles, arcades however still thrived for significantly longer and software began developing on other consoles but I digress. The timing of such releases stopped the synchronicity of generations and threw a lot of it into disarray, grouping consoles into generations would be more an arbitrary process determined by one to two individuals with pandering groups following their decisions. Much like fashion, one or two pricks determine what is in fashion, but rather than ridiculing these people, flocks of sheep bray praises and hand over money to them. Not quite the same situation here, but people are enabling this kind of decision making.

Consoles can be grouped in the means of processing power, or in terms of technology, which is ease with the 8bit era, 16bit era etc, though lines blur with the 32bit and 64bit tech before it steps up to the modern tech where diversification has made it almost impossible to compare consoles because of the differentiation from one console and another. While I also admit that discussing 8bit consoles and talking from the 1980s point of view is easy enough, I'm neatly sidestepping Colecovision, Atari 2600, 5200, C64, ZX81 and now throwing home computers into consoles/game machines. While I'm at it, let's discuss Jamma boards and arcade technologies from late 70s to mid 90s and lump the Neo Geo into the discussion for someone to organise and determine which generation matches what.

How would we go about that?

Home consoles started as lights on a screen before catching up and surpassing arcade technologies. Eventually getting to the point where you could put a credit in a machine for 10mins of amusement or go BUY the game in a store for your home console and play it for as long as you want with likely, more content. Which generation of console pairs up then with various makes and models of arcade machine? Some will prefer to keep them distinct from each other but then consoles like PSX and Dreamcast seemed to have direct 1 to 1 conversions of arcade games, while the Megadrive port of Bubble Bobble is almost indistinguishable from the arcade.

I could argue the same distinctions for mobile phones. If I JUST look at Apple and its series of pods, touches, phones and pads, each one has several generational iterations with usually little difference between each stage of "evolution" for want of a better derogative term. Few would argue the differences between iPhone 3 and iPhone 4 but the differences between iPhone4 and iPhone4S however, are they worthy of being similar generation or next generation and to which generation of iPads do compare or even iPods for that matter. Then take into account the other smart phones such as Samsungs, Blackberries, Androids and the organisation becomes less apparent and clear. Given some of the apps and games available out there, such as Infinity Blade when it was first released and was mind-blowing to be shown working on apple machines, where do we place the machine in the generational divide?

Would it perhaps be better to say that a Game or Software is retro when hardware becomes too awkward to determine it as such?

Does a game become retro because it uses less advanced technology than the games available at the time? Some would argue that with flash games being made that are more in focus with using limited colour ranges, blocky graphics but are superseding the retro framework by having advanced effects and calculations in the game that wouldn't have been possible at the time when the game appears it COULD have been made. Does that still make it retro?

In a games market of First Person Shooters, does having top-down shooters make you retro? The uses of sprites over polygons make you retro? Not really, no. Given some of the hand held games consoles are still using sprites to make games, allowing companies that don't want to utilise 3D graphics the chance to make sprite based games instead, letting them get a foothold in the industry with the ability to draw instead, cannot be a bad thing and doesn't decry it as retro. Merely as a sensible alternative choice.

Taking a step back, looking at the PC generation of gaming. It could be considered easier to determine generations of games by the Operating Systems on which they're programmed. But that falls apart for the Linux systems and not everybody wants to discuss Dos and Windows even though they're at the forefront of most Personal Computers in the home. Though even with DOS, games from Space Invaders to Doom have been programmed for it, up to Duke 3D and Blood. Are these retro by definition of the engines they use in their games or that they're run on DOS? So do 3D games like Quake, which run through DOS primarily before we even start talking about ports to later OS's, still count as retro or just "old".

Going further into issues, do 3DFX games count as retro, compared to OpenGL or DirectX backing libraries? What of games designed to run on DirectX 6, or 8? Or 9? Before we get into the field of DirectX10 and DirectX11 and beyond? At which point does a game become retro there? And furthermore, if a game is taken such as Doom, is modified with custom made files that give it 3D rendering, light sourcing, pixel shading effects and so on, does it cease to become old and retro in the new light? Assuming it was sufficiently retro in the first place.

Some will argue, some will debate but there's always going to be loopholes and differences in understanding and appreciation. Some will happily determine that their favourite old game is "retro" because they think that's what it means, and will debase older games as being too old and new games as "not retro".

Is there a time limit on games and consoles before they become old/retro? Does it mean that it has to be a game or machine that's between x and y years old? Or something modelled on the style of x and y years old? But if Retro is reminiscent of something old, could all modern FPS being retro imitations of games like Doom? Or is doom too far gone to be considered retro in the fast moving pace of progression in technology these days?

Would a round number be sufficient? For example, retro in gaming and technology is any tech that was made more than 10 years ago? So for any modern games and machine to replicate styles of gaming and designs of hardware, from 10 years back, are retro in consideration of today? Or is it just old shit that needs to move the fuck along?

But then, there's the problem. Retro is to be styled on something that is old. Not to BE old in itself. Retro fashion is modern fashion designed and based around old fashion, it is not in itself, OLD, but new designed to look old.

The very argument that old consoles are "retro" is entirely backwards, they are just OLD. Retro games would be modern games that look or are styled on old games, rather noticeable on the indie development scene where a lot of games are made with more fresh looking graphics and slight game play modifications, but ultimately are new games that look old. Whether intentionally looking that way or through limitation of the programmers abilities (not to say they're incompetent, but just lack the resources to produce their vision). Few games these days ARE retro, these are games made in recent memory that deliberately use old graphics, audio processes etc, to make an old looking, old styled and old ambience within a game. These games are the true retro, not banding around the word like it's some sort of fashionable shield to defend that these people don't have the current systems and games and claiming that liking old stuff makes them "retro". It doesn't. It makes you someone who likes OLD stuff.

Retro City Rampage, is a game that is just as retro as you could actually get. A modern game, using antiquated graphics imitation (new but looks old). Plays like an old game, looks and sounds like an old game but was coded and produced recently, is the exact definition of Retro in gaming. Anybody claiming retro for old games, is claiming it incorrectly, they're just old. That's not a bad thing in itself; liking old stuff isn't an issue (unless you're into granny porn but that's another problem in itself) and shouldn't be shunned or hushed down because it's old. But calling old stuff "retro” is just a smack in the mouth waiting to happen.

And before anyone asks, no, Duke Nukem Forever is not retro, it just took a long time to make and looks old.

Things games should not do, part 2

More gripes coming up


Ultimate versions of games:

Setting: You spend £40 on a game, you get it home and play it, it's fun and fast paced, you're enjoying it and after a while you hear they're releasing new characters for the game which will be (assumedly) moderately priced, new people to play as with new move sets and new tactics to learn and discover. THEN, a month or so after you bought this, you hear they're releasing an ULTIMATE version of the game that has all the stuff you bought and bought extra of, in one game with MORE things to buy and download that will only work for the ultimate version.

This is one big dick-slap to the face for all players out there. You blow cash on a game, then the DLC THEN have to blow cash on the new game, thus negating your original purchases, followed by MORE cash on the DLC that will only function on the new game.

This is not the first time this has happened, but back when it began, it wasn't such a concern because of the manner in which games were being made and distributed. Years back we had similar with Street Fighter 2. First was SF2 sporting 8 chars, 4 bosses. Then came Street Fighter 2 Turbo, faster, 8 chars AND bosses to select from, some key differences between fighting and moves (i.e. Ken and Ryu being functionally different). Then came SUPER Street Fighter 2 Turbo, with more differences, 4 extra characters not seen before, spruced up graphics and refined engine for combat.

Each game was released full price. Back then, at least you got the extra stages for the 4 characters added, use of bosses, new characters and so on with the games that were released and the advent of super moves and power bars etc. Back then you couldn't download the games or install updates, there was no other way to release the extra characters other than to have a new game (or some odd mix up with connecting cartridges and I'm only really looking at Sonic and Knuckles here).

THe problem with this is that today, you CAN get new DLC rather readily online for people to download and install and don't have to buy games. Which does make the football/sports games redundant as you can download lists of players for teams and perhaps likeness of players instead of buying a new game. Keep the machine online and you can change the stats on the fly or even if they're injured in real matches, keep them off the game at the same time. Potentially, just ideas here.

But to release an "ultimate" version these days when DLC can be installed and updated, is only a means to rip off customers and force them to spend more of their hard-earned (or easily pocket-monied) cash. The only way this is viable is if there's people that cannot, for whichever reason, gain online access to the game and its functions and would have to purchase the ULTIMATE version, although other games sell the DLC as a cheap off-set anyway... Fallout 3 did it... Why not here? I'm guessing it's because of a want for cash after some other games by the same company didn't quite perform as adequately as they'd originally thought that they had.


Restarting the skill set:

Setting: You've been playing the game for a while, gathered the weapons as you've gone, powered up your character, levelled up through the systems and amassed a wealth of cash and abilities the likes of which have taken you a considerable amount of effort and difficulty. You move onto the next chapter but that's when it happens. Your powers are gone, your weapons removed, your levels reduced, your bank account bankrupted and you're back to square one in the game as if you'd never even played it in the first place. Frustration sets in, the futility of everything hits hard when you realise that the hard work you just put in, has been abitrarily removed.

It's a simple and quick way to pad a game out. Falsely pad up the game to get the player to work a little harder because as a game, it's run out of ideas and the only route now is for making it more difficult to the player by limiting the very skills and strengths they've been able to win and learn. Games will try to justify it "you got captured and all your gear is removed" or "your life is over, now your son/daughter takes up the mantle" or "you awoke from the dream and none of what you did actually counts or matters" or even the more insidious "You had to drop your weapons to run through a desert and carry the bare minimum". In some cases it would make sense, but then why have that whole situation before this event if you're only going to drop stats, weapons, skills and send them carrying on into the ever increasing, exponentially curving, difficulty? To make the game last longer.

Most annoyingly (And I'm citing Fallout 3 add-on, The Pitts) when you're high level, wearing the armour of a TANK in bipedal form, you've gone toe to toe with hundreds of enemies, many larger and more powerful than yourself and you've come out wearing their skulls as an ill-fitting hat. To then go to a new place and meet people that DECIDE to capture you while armed with nothing more than a few ill-fitting jeans and t-shirts whilst wielding a few iron bars. People and enemies you've obliterated in droves were stronger than these munchkins and you've been accosted by far worse, carrying far more powerful weapons while you yourself were armed with less deadly weapons and armour than you have at this current point in the game. It's like taking on the entire enemy army, complete with tanks, choppers, jets, boats, nukes etc, surviving it like a bad-ass only to return back to your own team and get mugged by someone holding a fish as an offensive weapon.

This is just how it is done badly and something like this is just arbitrarily shoe-horned in like this.

In a storyline setting, it's feasible to see WHY it would need to be done if moving from one character to another, but then why not have that story as another game? Or reassure us that the new character won't be all we have next and we'll be moving back to the other, the original character, in the near future?

Yet games like Infinity Blade do the generation game/cross over and has the stats of the character move with the new character (The game does explain the situation in a roundabout manner but until THAT point, it's all about generations and kids coming along to kill a dude)

Gripe: Achievements, Trophies and other such "carrots" of gaming.

In an age of gaming where the current generation consoles are lining up to be online, where games are expected to have some form of online mode (or a good excuse why not, in some cases it doesn’t NEED the online mode but many of the whining public won’t accept that) It has become a standard to have a means of saying “Hey look, I managed to do this in a game, am I not awesome?” 

No, no you’re not.  But more about that later.

Unless corrected, this all began back in 2005 with Microsoft and its Gamerscore implementation. But over the years it has seeped into Windows games, Playstation with its Trophies, Flash games with their own achievements (satirised fantastically by the flash game Achievement Unlocked), to various mediums in the digital age including smart phones and apps.  A lot of these achievements are utterly pointless or diverge from the key focus of a person playing a game.

Some may argue, some may disagree, to state that Achievements and such Tasks are a good way of increasing a games’ longevity and reward the players with recognition for their skill and ability in the game. For some achievements I can agree with that, such as for perhaps “Beating the game” and awarding the player a suitable moniker for such. However when it comes to “Beating the game” then “Beating the game on Hard” and “Beating the game on Hard while using one hand and punching yourself in the face repeatedly” we’ve struck upon an issue of mindless repetition just to get players to keep playing.

The premise is a good one, get people to play the game, reward them with a big fat ego boost for playing it in specific ways, once they’re keen to boost that score and their ego, the games can put in whatever ill-conceived achievements they want to keep poor saps going and claim to make their game last longer. No, it doesn’t last longer, it becomes a painful chore after a while and once the player has gotten all they can or even all the achievements, they will never touch the game again. Good achievements can boost a game, bad achievements will bury it in a bargain bucket.

But it’s all very well me just stating that, but let’s take a look at such aspects.

“Find all the collectables”

In some games you’ll be rewarded for finding and collecting all of a set number of items. Again, this can be positive and negative for a game. If the number of an item to collect is small, it should be something that might take a few “secret routes” or a few paths off the main track to find them, but not something that requires the player to be awake at 3am, their character to be dressed in a macaroni outfit while the feet and toes are indirectly dyed a rainbow spectrum helix that crosses over with their gloves and fingers, just to find a single item. Ideally the items to find should be part of side-quests or provide the player with a means of starting on a trail to locate them.

Alternatively, if the number of an item is huge, then there should be a map available IN GAME for the player to locate all the items, or a scanner, or search function of some sort. Hiding them away in something like a sandbox game, with no means to locate them or even to track how many they have, is a cheap and poor way of getting the player to cover every square inch of what the map-designers have made, this will usually be the last achievement gained from the player before the game is buried IF they bother to go that far.

“Fake longevity”

Games with an achievement for beating those games are perfectly fine (assuming you have a game that allows for that). An achievement that recognises a person has played the game, played it enough to warrant seeing the final boss, beating the last team to win the championship, figured out the last puzzle, are a positive side of achievements and EVERY GAME should have an achievement for beating it.

Where this has gone horribly wrong, is when achievements are provided for beating the game under specific conditions... Easy mode, Normal mode, Hard mode, Impossible mode, Even the Programmers Can’t Beat This mode... the list can go on forever (Playing badminton on the moon while engaging in a 72way porn film mode... actually I want to see that). It’s a fake longevity as you’re forcing the player to play through the game in a way they’re less likely to enjoy. Some games allow for beating the hardest mode to unlock all the easier achievements as well, but not everyone is going to be able to beat the hardest mode or have the time and patience for it. Have the game with Easy, Medium, Hard etc, but regardless of the difficulty the achievement should just remain for beating the game.

“Online achievements”

This is a trickier one to tackle. If a game has an offline and online mode, then any achievement that can be gained online, MUST be able to be gained offline as well. Achievements ruin a game when it’s demanded that not only must a player be able to meet the criteria but OTHER PEOPLE AS WELL must also meet the criteria, then you’re not awarding an achievement for playing but being in the right place at the right time.

If a game is fully online ONLY, then have online achievements that reflect the players own abilities (And not bullshit like become #1 in the world, or #1 rank in a game) but if it’s based on experience points gained, such achievements will be attained eventually by everyone, the better players getting them sooner rather than later. Games that have achievements for doing something once or a hundred times, as these are things a lot of people can still achieve (and NOT coming first a hundred times... dick move...), should be commended for encouraging people to play for the sake of playing and enjoyment, not overly brash and forced competitiveness. (It might also get some of those screaming kids off the mic)

“Lost Achievements”

Another tough one, this refers to any achievement that cannot be achieved for whatever reason. In some cases it could be because a player died during their game (not so bad on a short game but with some games lasting 25hours+ that’s a real headache to have play it ALL again just to get that achievement), not picking up an item right at the start of a game that was behind where you began, having to make a choice that takes the game in two different direction and each direction is laden with its own achievements (this can be done well if the diversity is LARGE, with many achievements on each respective path, but forcing players to play a game twice just to say either “yes” or “no” at one key point is another example of fake longevity).

Granted however, that players usually do not see everything on their first play through unless the game is VERY linear and forces them to do absolutely everything they must do, achievements can and will be missed by players not taking the correct route or such. This is easily rectified if the player has an option (usually at the end of the game) to go back and play key parts again, or pick specific puzzles, or some function of a game that permits them to return to an earlier point to try something again or try something new they didn’t or couldn’t try at the time.  It should be noted that such achievements should not require the player to have to play through 3-5 hours of a game just to get that alternative route/choice etc, because once again that’s the fake longevity. 

All in all, achievements can really add to a game and make it more fun if they’re thought out carefully and implemented with the right level of care and attention to the focus of making the game fun and enjoyable. Otherwise they could all just be removed. 

I still go back and play older console/computer games and they didn’t have achievements in them because, guess what, they’re still fun to play!