I always found it strange that when a series has a rough time changing to 3d or just modernizing, that the devs dont make more "classic" style games. Sonic would have been the best example until sonic colors, which seems to attempt this with a debatable amount of success. Another one is final fantasy, where they have been putting out sub-par spin off games for years. Rather than another crystal chronicles I would like to see a good snes era jrpg with modern graphics. Four heros of light seemed to be an attempt to answer that desire, but that game is not very good. Strangely a series that has done this for a while is mario, with the classic mario side scrolling games. I say strangely because the 3D mario games have been very good. There are other games that would benefit from returning to their roots, but I cannot think of them at this time. My question is; why havent developers capitalized on this idea. And when they do, why do the games usually suck. Here are my thoughts; the market has changed too much for devs to make truely classic games. Would todays gamers enjoy a game like zelda? A huge map with no direction or guide to hold your hand, and difficult combat. I have recommended games like this to people and they usually dont make it to the first dungeon without giving up. Games have largely moved toward flashy and simple games in which the goal and the path are laid out plainly for the player, with very little challenge. Even a sandbox or open world game has more direction than zelda did. Another question I have is, do developers just suck now? Have many developers lost the ability to make a classic game that would stand up to the oldies? I would hate to believe this to be true. Do not take this as an attack on the video game industry. I am just as much an avid gamer today as I was playing zelda and mario years ago, I just think that this is a missed opportunity for developers. I am also aware that many indie and small devs make classic style games, and I have been very pleased to see them not only be awesome, but successful as well. Sry this ended up so long, but I would like to hear what other people think.
It's mostly because a lot of mainstream gamers want fully 3D games, or at least that's how it was when we were first transitioning to 3D. People wanted the new thing.
Take a game like Bionic Commando Rearmed, it was just a remake but wasn't a huge success, and you wouldn't get away with selling it on a disk. Same for Shadow Complex or Pac Man CE DX or many other games. They may be great, and hardcore gamers buy them up, but mainstreamers would only buy them cheap if at all.
@KaosAngel: We're talking about game markets, not our history or the quality of games. You're confusing the issue and being annoying.
There are clearly casual markets, mainstream markets, and hardcore markets.
If you made a new 2D Castlevania in the style of the old NES and SNES games and sold it in stores for $60, you probably wouldn't get many sales even with a strong marketing push.
Yes, yes, we get it. You have Phoenix Wright as your avatar. That doesn't give you license to impersonate him and bellow his catchphrases with impunity.
I think that remakes are part of the problem. They spend time making old games with new graphics but most people that already played that game dont care. Look at final fantasy. The 2d games have been released a few times each. That might be cool for people who did not play them or want to replay, but I would rather a new game. I think that the only thing that held shadow complex back from being a boxed game was is short length. I would not be surprised to see the sequel come on a cd, I just hope they stick to the same gameplay. I def. know what you mean that people like 3d but old style game can have 3d graphics, like shadow complex or final fantasy 3 ds.
Yes, yes, we get it. You have Phoenix Wright as your avatar. That doesn't give you license to impersonate him and bellow his catchphrases with impunity. "
I also go to law school here in the East Coast. So yes, I can do this in person in 2 years from now.
Yes, yes, we get it. You have Phoenix Wright as your avatar. That doesn't give you license to impersonate him and bellow his catchphrases with impunity. "
I also go to law school here in the East Coast. So yes, I can do this in person in 2 years from now. "
I really don't care. Your being obnoxious has nothing to do with your education.
I also recognise that some games do benefit from being in 3d, I am talking about ones that either didnt, or could benefit from going both ways. And I dont think that these games should necessarily be $60 titles. They could be downloadable or portable games.
While I try to figure out what exactly the question here is, consider this: Super Mario 64 and Sonic Adventure (or Sonic 3D Blast if you are being uncharitable and slightly inaccurate) create a nice clean comparison. The fundamentals of what Sonic is are trapped forever in 2D, and in the gaming mindset of the 80s and 90s. Mario's core being is much more modern in scope, because it depends on more complex interactions from the player (which is ironic considering that classic Sonic requires one more button than Mario). I think that this can be extrapolated to pretty much all of Sega's classic franchises, but that's a bit of a digression. The point is that if you can't boil a game down to its core mechanics and philosophies, then build it up again in 3D, you are relegated to the realm of 2D, and probably did not create a very flexible franchise.
That said, games don't HAVE to be 3D to be good. 3D is simply an evolutionary step that should be possible within a series that has built-in room to grow.
Log in to comment