10 ms·

It is always amazing for me to read about Nintendo's history, especially during the 80s and when they released the NES. It is even more amazing when you think a

• zobzu 11y ago
  i find graphics and environment are actually much nicer in games with "no 3d engine". they're not nearly as detailed, but they're just more artistic/pleasant, as if more time was spent in that direction to "compensate" for the lack of detail
  • digi_owl 11y ago
    the whole 3D thing also seems to complicate controls to all hell.
    • agumonkey 11y ago
      Part of the reason Nintendo was not hungry to jump on the 3D bandwagon. Most of the 3D games on PS1 launch were very hazardous, messy and bland. If it wasn't for the technology prowess of the day nobody would have bought them.
      • hartator 11y ago
        Mario Kart N64, Super Mario N64 and Goldeneye N64? All 3D game not made by sony at the time of the PS1? Maybe the best in the world? 3D is awesome when made correctly and not trying to reproduce a movie.
        • agumonkey 11y ago
          Come on the N64 came far later, and that was my point. And it was all over the place how Mario 64 gameplay was tailored, camera viewpoint and everything. Many games at the PS1 launch had the cam lost in translation somewhere between polygons, or just point at a weird angle.
        • serf 11y ago
          It's somewhat amusing to think of the N64 being cited when the parents replied to are about 3D environments complicating the control schemes. Most of the people who encountered the N64 did not know how to hold the controller at first glance. This was made worse by the fact that practically every game has a different idea about how the controller was to be used. Nintendo had to settle a court-case by distributing gloves to players complaining of friction injuries.[0] . This was mostly because developers didn't know how to deal with the control schemes of 3D environments very well, and Nintendo was planning for what they considered to be needed in the future : more controls. There's very likely a reason that the M shape was never used for controllers again, however it did leave a lasting legacy in the form of trigger buttons (not shoulder buttons), which are now practically a universal controller feature. [0] : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64_controller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64_controller
          • mcphage 11y ago
            > it did leave a lasting legacy in the form of trigger buttons Also analog sticks, which are even more important.
          • david-given 11y ago
            I really liked the N64 controller --- I still think it's one of the most comfortable ever. The asymmetrical shape when using it analogue mode felt really nice in the hands. I've never felt happy with the dual-stick PS ones. I'm pretty sure I saw someone being vapourised by one in an episode of Lexx, too.
            • nsxwolf 11y ago
              I've always felt like I need 3 hands to use it. It is like 2 controllers welded together. In more complex games I have to constantly change my grip from the outside left to the middle position and I've just never gotten used to it.
      • eatfish 11y ago
        Actually, Nintendo were releasing 3D games even before the PS1. Starfox was the first poly 3D game from Nintendo and was released in 1992, at least a year, maybe more, before the PS1.
        • mreiland 11y ago
          I also recall a 3D pacman game on the SNES that was hella fun.
        • digi_owl 11y ago
          Lets not confuse a 2D game using 3D models with one that allow free(-ish) movement in 3D space. Starfox was a rail shooter that used 3D models rather than scaled sprites. the more complicated stuff came with third person shooters and similar. Where you either had fixed cameras, thus having the controls shift between "cuts", or the camera on its own control (tap your head and rub your tummy style).
  • jonkratz 11y ago
    What are some good examples of games without a 3d engine? Your comment makes me feel like I'd like to check them out.
    • greyskull 11y ago
      Usually smaller scale indie games are the ones doing it, big shot studios feel the need to go ham on graphics. Here's a handful I managed to scrape together from memory and quick searches, but it's easy to find more. - Shovel Knight - Dust: An Elysian Tail - Hotline Miami - Don't Starve - Spelunky - Braid - Papers, Please - Sunless Sea There _has_ been quite a few retro-style, pixelated graphics style games to come out of that sector for one reason or another, but ignoring that, the games tend to have a more stylized feel to them. Limited fidelity means the games need to more creative, but I think that tends to just come with works of passion from smaller studios.
      • DiabloD3 11y ago
        Let's throw in everything Way Forward is doing as well, such as the Shantae series of games. It's been awhile since I've played a sidescroller that warranted multiple playthroughs, but I picked up Shantae: Risky's Revenge up in one of the HumbleBundles, and I loved the hell out of it. One part Castlevania, one part Megaman, one part Metroid. It was so good I went out and bought an XBox One controller to play it further, even though I don't own an XBox One. Side note: apparently its the best PC gamepad you can find that has a good D-Pad; the D-Pad is probably the best one I've used since my childhood.
        • TJSomething 11y ago
          Oh wow. It's actually plus-shaped. I've been looking for a PC controller with a plus-shaped D-pad for a while. They've been rare for a few years, due to Nintendo's patent on plus-shaped D-pads, but that expired in 2005.
          • DiabloD3 11y ago
  • TeMPOraL 11y ago
    2D games are usually more detailed than their 3D counterpart. I was thinking a long time about why I prefer 2D games to 3D ones, at least in terms of visuals. The conclusion I reached is that it's because technological limitations you get to see in graphics. Models are made from low-poly meshes, and you can (still) see the straight edges where you know they should be curved. Textures are too low-detail; stand next to a wall or close to any entity in a 3D game and you'll always see the texture upscaling, lack of detail. Most of 3D games try to go for "realistic" visuals, but they never cross the uncanny valley. 2D games seem to look prettier to me because they don't set up expectations - so as long as they have consistent art style, the brain doesn't complain much. Moreover, in 2D productions artists usually have full control of every pixel displayed on screen, so the art can be (and usually is) very detailed. The limits that 2D environment places are more strict than limits of available technology, so your experience doesn't get ruined by jagged edges and texture upscaling. That's why I still like the original StarCraft more than StarCraft 2 and think that introducing 3D graphics was a bad decision - the original art style looked serious, dark, had an atmosphere. SC2's style is dominated by clunky 3D models which look more like child's toys than serious hardware. But then again maybe this was made on purpose - the plot of SC2 seems about as serious as the graphics, which is not at all.
    • chopman 11y ago
      On the other hand, 3d games that don't try to go for the realistic visuals like Okami or Mario 64 itself look gorgeous.
• sneak 11y ago
  > It is kind of sad to me that the newer generation does not get to grow up playing old school games like Final Fantasy and Zelda. What makes you think they don't? http://www.amazon.com/Classic-USB-Super-Nintendo-Controller-PC/dp/B002JAU20W http://www.amazon.com/Classic-USB-Super-Nintendo-Controller-...
  • eswat 11y ago
    They have access to the games we played but that doesn’t mean they actually will. Many of these have “not aged well” and it’s really hard for the newer generation to look past the graphics, sound and gameplay and have fun with them compared to what you can play today.
    • deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    • joshschreuder 11y ago
      I do somewhat agree, and the trends in modern gaming (generally speaking, making games easier or hold the player's hand more) make older games a tough ask for today's generation. I'm susceptible to this myself, I played through the Resident Evil 1 remake on the Gamecube when I was probably 12-13 and managed to beat it a couple of times. I tried to pick it up again recently with the newest remaster and found it brutally difficult (as I suspect it always was, but I feel sensitive to it in an age where CoD regenerating heath and cover systems make games very easy)
      • bphogan 11y ago
        When the Ducktales Remaster came out there were so many younger reviewers that were giving the game low scores because it was hard. And it is hard. But then, let's see these kids play the NES version of the Ninja Turtles game. You know, the one with the dam level where you have to diffuse the bombs.
        • Bahamut 11y ago
• toyg 11y ago
  "Games back then were much harder and more unforgiving"? Man, most modern blockbuster games require marksmanship skills way beyond what '80s games ever demanded. Open world, nonlinear plots... You just can't compare recent stuff with side-scrolling shoot-em-ups or roguelikes. Some games might have felt unforgiving because technological limitations (no saves) or commercial considerations (coin-op first, home later) forced players to repeat procedures over and over again. This is not something to celebrate. I hope my kids will never have to spend the same amount of time and money I wasted on the first 8 levels of WonderBoy II.
  • striking 11y ago
    > Man, most modern blockbuster games require marksmanship skills way beyond what '80s games ever demanded. Like, which ones? Triple-A FPS games that actually have players that require marksmanship? I don't know of any.
    • epmatsw 11y ago
      Battlefield?
    • jimmaswell 11y ago
      Any modern FPS played competitively definitely takes a lot of skill for sure
      • Retra 11y ago
        The card game "War" takes skill if you play it competitively. That doesn't mean it's a hard game. If you play a game competitively, you play against other people. That will always take skill. The conversation going on above is about playing against the game itself, not other people.
        • jimmaswell 11y ago
          An FPS is certainly more technically demanding than War.
• bdcravens 11y ago
  The gameplay on mobile games mirrors many of those older games, and I think eventually Nintendo will give in and start publishing their catalog there. I think if Super Mario was released on iOS and Android, it'd blow Angry Birds numbers out of the water. (though maybe I'm just hopeful)
  • onedev 11y ago
    If either Mario or Pokemon were released on iOS or Android, they would blow every single mobile game out of the water EASY.
    • drrotmos 11y ago
      Perhaps. Would you be willing to pay ~$40 for it though? I don't believe the profit margins are high enough on mobile games to be interesting for productions like Pokémon or Mario. More likely, the mobile games will be free-to-play crapware utilizing existing Nintendo trademarks.
      • bdcravens 11y ago
        No, but I'd be happy to pay a subscription fee.
        • grogenaut 11y ago
          Sure, That'll be $40/month. Seriously, most games are finished in a month if they're good and maybe 2 if they're not. So lets go with $.99/Month on the mobile model. Unless it's one of the endless time suck games like current mobile games, eg dudes fighting castles, or some big online multiplayer on PC you're not really getting a multi month subscription out of it. The poster boy in this thread, any mario game, is maybe 2 months, 3 in spurts. That's 3 @ .99, 6 @ 1.99, or 9 @ 2.99. None of which gets you even close to what they were making. And none of those games will hit the same scale as the dudes n castles games will because those games are simple time wasters with little barrier to entry, eg no skill required. You have to limit max players BEST CASE for your great yester year at the same for any console game, eg maybe 10M players max. If they all played for 3 months at max price your best case is 100M, but more likely 10-30M best case. And likely lower. Eg console numbers is console numbers. These games cost 10M + to develop these days even great 2d ones because they're still modelled in 3d for parts of it. This isn't the multiple order of magnitude payback the mobile folks are getting on their hits with their quick iterate and the dogfight for the winner.
• jimmaswell 11y ago
  >It is kind of sad to me that the newer generation does not get to grow up playing old school games like Final Fantasy and Zelda They're on the e-shop on the 3DS and WiiU, as well as sold in game stores, just as game cases that are for download codes. I'm pretty sure the newer generation is exposed to them.