Jeff Minter On Retrogaming

[WarmFluffyUK]

I don't think Jeff Minter's view on retro gaming is a global one. It certainly does not echo my own feelings of the subject. His attitude towards MAME completely sucks, what did he say:

QUOTE

"fire up MAME or your favourite emulator, and have a trawl around and you’ll see it’s true. Probably 95 per cent are rubbish!



Er right, considering I have thousands of MAME ROMS and 95% I haven't even played yet and I am still discovering games I think are really fun to play. I seriously doubt with his attitude he has played even 5%. I reckon it's more like he played all the games he remembers and based his opinion on them.

Reading that article I seriously couldn't believe the chip the guy had on his shoulder about the retro scene. Whow not just a chip, but a whole bag of potatoes!
His remark about loading times etc made me laugh. Sometimes my boyfriend and I will drag out the ole' speccy just so we can be back in the old days with all the loading times. It's fun, oh and even funnier with a glass of wine .

I guess he is one of the people who will never get the point of emulation and will never see why we love the GP2X and emulation in general.

Sorry guys I found his attitude a little annoying.

 

[Sphinxter]

But yes they are still addictive today, and they play and look great on the GP2X in MAME. Rotate the unit and play un-scaled for best results.

Arcade Defender is probably my favorite game of all time. I have tried some recreations of those games on various devices but I personally think they suffer greatly from not having the cabinet they were designed for -- especially games like Missile Command, Centiped, and Tempest, which were very physical interactions with a particular controller type not generally available.

Despite their simplicity and ability to be mostly programmed by an individual or small team, a game like Defender was state of the art, carefully considered, and hardly comparable to the "average" C64 or Amiga game of later years... Williams built about a hundred million dollars worth of Defender units.


I thought Bill Kendrick really did Defender justice but then I know him so that might affect my judgment. Don't forget the sequel, "Stargate", a real contender too.

 

[telengard]

Yeah I don't agree with him that much either. The ratio of good games for the era compared to now is much higher IMO. Lots more variety and creativity. DaveC's list has just a fraction of the great games that came out. Reactor is one of my favorites as well as Robotron and Defender. Games now are either FPS, puzzle, RTS, or platform.

I will say that Jeff Minter's Gridrunner for the Vic-20 is *excellent*.

~telengard

 

[Axeman]

I'd say that Mr Minter, formerly a great exponent of retro stuff, has decided that he's sick of being associated with the scene. I think that there's a possibility that this is more down to the fact he has a new game coming out, and doesnt want people to think it's going to be a retro-fest, than anything else.

Thing is, I suppose that if you are associated with something for that long (and remember, it's been two decades!), then in the end it may get a little tiring. It looks like he wants to move on, though I'm suprised he's done it in such an agressive way.

Ah well...

To each their own eh?

I definitely agree that there was a lot of crap around, though the percentage he quotes is a little extreme to say the least. People do tend to see it through rose-tinted spectacles, but hey! Aint that what nostalgia's about? And nobody ever started a world war with nostalgia....

 

[TheMinder]

It's odd because it also coincided with a discussion I was having earlier this week with someone at work about Xbox360 games, and how they are basically all the same.

I know that's a bit of a sweeping statement but one of my kids was playing at weekend and my dad walked in and said "WHOA games have improved a bit since the Spectrum haven't they" because the gfx/sound were a surprise to him. I watched my child play Shrek III, Fantastic Four 2, some Sonic game, and a couple more I can't remember and it struck me that they were that similar in format they could have been made using the same Universal Game Creator.

 

[LHC]

Yeah I don't agree with him that much either. The ratio of good games for the era compared to now is much higher IMO. Lots more variety and creativity.

Are you sure this is true? I'm not convinced. I haven't played too much from that era, only the classics so I don't know that much about it really.

From the NES/SNES era which can now be considered 'retro' though, the ratio wasn't any better than it is now. I have a CD full of NES/SNES games for me to play on XBOX and the number of shitty product promoting platform games is incredible. And then there's hundreds of shitty health conscious ones about diabetes or teeth whatever. There was very little creativity by this point; do you remember the incredible numbers of formulaic side/vertical scrolling shooters (shoot, shield, upgrade weapon, clear screen with powerful attack, boss, repeat) or formulaic side scrolling beat em ups (3 characters, one is fast/weak, one is slow/strong and one is in the middle, kill shitty guys, pick up fruit to regain health, do a super attack but take damage in the process, beat boss with huge HP) or standard 2d platformers? In the 8/16 bit era this was all you got.

Of course the situation may have been different before this, but I suspect not massively.

 

[foleyjo]

Yeah I don't agree with him that much either. The ratio of good games for the era compared to now is much higher IMO. Lots more variety and creativity.

Are you sure this is true? I'm not convinced. I haven't played too much from that era, only the classics so I don't know that much about it really.

From the NES/SNES era which can now be considered 'retro' though, the ratio wasn't any better than it is now. I have a CD full of NES/SNES games for me to play on XBOX and the number of shitty product promoting platform games is incredible. And then there's hundreds of shitty health conscious ones about diabetes or teeth whatever. There was very little creativity by this point; do you remember the incredible numbers of formulaic side/vertical scrolling shooters (shoot, shield, upgrade weapon, clear screen with powerful attack, boss, repeat) or formulaic side scrolling beat em ups (3 characters, one is fast/weak, one is slow/strong and one is in the middle, kill shitty guys, pick up fruit to regain health, do a super attack but take damage in the process, beat boss with huge HP) or standard 2d platformers? In the 8/16 bit era this was all you got.

Of course the situation may have been different before this, but I suspect not massively.


So your bassing every thing about retro gaming on 2 consoles by the same company??? 2D platformers were not all you got at all you really should try researching more retro games and computers before making such a statement.
Go get yourself some Amiga or Atari games

 

[P-J]

People are forgetting that low budget games were much more readily available in the 80's and early 90's. Nowadays you have to have a huge budget just to get your product noticed.

So the market probably was quite diluted with shit back then

 

[LHC]

So your bassing every thing about retro gaming on 2 consoles by the same company??? 2D platformers were not all you got at all you really should try researching more retro games and computers before making such a statement.
Go get yourself some Amiga or Atari games

I said the 8/16 bit era, this includes any system from that era. I only said NES/SNES because I have been playing that within the past few days. And of course 2D platformers were not literally "all you got". There was the occasional interesting or novel concept, just as there is now.

I'm not saying "there were no good games in the 80s/90s", but if 2 generations of consoles from 15 or more years ago (which everybody looks back on and masturbate furiously) were in the same position as we are now, then "things were better in those days" is not really a valid statement. Some games from that era were timeless, but I suspect some from this era will be the same.

 

[TheMinder]

QUOTE
Some games from that era were timeless, but I suspect some from this era will be the same.


Completely true in my opinion - I might hold something like Manic Miner as being the greatest game ever, but you would also find Tomb Raider 1 or 2 in the top 10 as well.

A good game is a good game is a good game, regardless of when it was made and on what platform (that's taking it that a version on a different platform is a completely different game if you see what i mean).

/me pootles off to try to make sense of that last sentence because i've even confused myself :blink:

 

[foleyjo]

The 8 Bit and 16 Bit era gave us much more interesting or novel concepts than now because it was all new. Nowadays its just the same games using new technology to make them look and act better.

i remember people getting excited with GTA Vice City because you could drive boats and fly helicopters . Well I remember when that was a new interesting novel concept in a game called Hunter.

See I have no problem with people saying games are better now what i have a problem with your comments that there was little creativity because I saw more different style games and storylines on my Amiga and C64 than ive ever seen on any modern computer.

 

[Alex.]

People back then sure lacked creativity. I mean, fire up any relic-retro title, and you'll instantly realize that crucial gameplay elements are completely missing. Where are the bump-shaded, volumetric, polymetric, psychedelic fog-accelerated polygonal chunks (and their lighting!)? I rest my case, thank goodness for modern technology opening our eyes and enriching our lives. Now excuse me while I enjoy a nice relaxing play of NFL 2008 Champ Cup - Collector's Edition 2, patch 14.

 

[LHC]

The 8 Bit and 16 Bit era gave us much more interesting or novel concepts than now because it was all new. Nowadays its just the same games using new technology to make them look and act better.

i remember people getting excited with GTA Vice City because you could drive boats and fly helicopters . Well I remember when that was a new interesting novel concept in a game called Hunter.

See I have no problem with people saying games are better now what i have a problem with your comments that there was little creativity because I saw more different style games and storylines on my Amiga and C64 than ive ever seen on any modern computer.

The first part I would disagree with as I have pointed out. Side/vertical scrolling shoot em ups/beat em ups were not new concepts and they made the majority of games. I really don't think you can call games in those days more innovative than a Wii, for example.

The people that got excited about that are idiots, I don't speak on behalf of them

People back then sure lacked creativity. I mean, fire up any relic-retro title, and you'll instantly realize that crucial gameplay elements are completely missing. Where are the bump-shaded, volumetric, polymetric, psychedelic fog-accelerated polygonal chunks (and their lighting!)? I rest my case, thank goodness for modern technology opening our eyes and enriching our lives. Now excuse me while I enjoy a nice relaxing play of NFL 2008 Champ Cup - Collector's Edition 2, patch 14.

This is a poor example really. The aim of a sports games game shouldn't be to be innovative, but to be as realistic and fun as possible. Almost without exception this is improving in every sport with every new incarnation (when talking about the best example for that sport Pro Evo, NHL, Madden, NBA) and if they tried to innovate they would ruin a near perfect concept.

 

[nickspoon]

People back then sure lacked creativity. I mean, fire up any relic-retro title, and you'll instantly realize that crucial gameplay elements are completely missing. Where are the bump-shaded, volumetric, polymetric, psychedelic fog-accelerated polygonal chunks (and their lighting!)? I rest my case, thank goodness for modern technology opening our eyes and enriching our lives. Now excuse me while I enjoy a nice relaxing play of NFL 2008 Champ Cup - Collector's Edition 2, patch 14.

This is a poor example really. The aim of a sports games game shouldn't be to be innovative, but to be as realistic and fun as possible. Almost without exception this is improving in every sport with every new incarnation (when talking about the best example for that sport Pro Evo, NHL, Madden, NBA) and if they tried to innovate they would ruin a near perfect concept.

If they tried to innovate, then maybe you would be buying a new game when you bought FIFA 2005/6/7/8, but instead you're buying an updated roster and some textures at the same price as you bought last year's installment. There is zero need to innovate if people will buy the same regurgitated crap at the same price over and over just so they can play as their favourite overrated celebrity.

 

[WarmFluffyUK]

The aim of a sports games game shouldn't be to be innovative, but to be as realistic and fun as possible. Almost without exception this is improving in every sport with every new incarnation (when talking about the best example for that sport Pro Evo, NHL, Madden, NBA) and if they tried to innovate they would ruin a near perfect concept.

I don't think that is the aim of sports games in general, take Speedball and Speedball 2 for example: Old 16 bit graphics and totally not supposed to be realistic. But the game-play was phenomenal! Realism for me doesn't make a game, how fun it is to play does it for me regardless of how realistic it looks.

 

[foleyjo]

The first part I would disagree with as I have pointed out. Side/vertical scrolling shoot em ups/beat em ups were not new concepts and they made the majority of games. I really don't think you can call games in those days more innovative than a Wii, for example.

This is a poor example really. The aim of a sports games game shouldn't be to be innovative, but to be as realistic and fun as possible. Almost without exception this is improving in every sport with every new incarnation (when talking about the best example for that sport Pro Evo, NHL, Madden, NBA) and if they tried to innovate they would ruin a near perfect concept.

The games you described were only the majority to the nintendo and sega consoles. Also it was in the 8bit and 16 bit days that the type of games you described were new concepts. Street Fighter 2 has been around for years and rarely changes and has spawned many clones. However it was a new concept back in its day.


Also you missed out other genres such as the First Person Shooter (wolvenstein) , Space Trading Sim(Elite), Sports Games, Stratedy Games,Graphic Adventure Games, Life simulations (The sims can be traced back to little computer people), Flight Sims, Tank Sims, Building Sims, RPGs, Rythem games, Puzzle Games, Surgery Simulators, Quiz Games, Family games,
All these and more can be traced back to the 8 and 16 bit computers. Give me a genre that was made post 16 bit.
If the games were better then as i said is a different argument all together

The Wii does not have new innovative games it only has new ways of controlling them and to be honest the controls are just a refining of what came before starting with the old VR systems. Theres nothing new about the mini games. Most were already done on the Eyetoy. Nothing new about using a controller like a golf club or fishing rod or gun.

This is a poor example really. The aim of a sports games game shouldn't be to be innovative, but to be as realistic and fun as possible. Almost without exception this is improving in every sport with every new incarnation (when talking about the best example for that sport Pro Evo, NHL, Madden, NBA) and if they tried to innovate they would ruin a near perfect concept.

Maybe your right but Pro Evo is based on Fifa which I believe started life in the 16 bit days
NHL started in the 16 bit days
Madden started in the 16 bit days
NBA started in the 16 bit days
My point they only became a perfect concept because someone in the 16bit days had a new innovative idea that progressed over the years
and all these were based around ideas from the 8 bit days and they all can be traced back to the old magnavox consoles


Remember folks "lacking in Technology does not mean Lacking in innovation"

 

[telengard]

Yeah I don't agree with him that much either. The ratio of good games for the era compared to now is much higher IMO. Lots more variety and creativity.

Are you sure this is true? I'm not convinced. I haven't played too much from that era, only the classics so I don't know that much about it really.

From the NES/SNES era which can now be considered 'retro' though, the ratio wasn't any better than it is now. I have a CD full of NES/SNES games for me to play on XBOX and the number of shitty product promoting platform games is incredible. And then there's hundreds of shitty health conscious ones about diabetes or teeth whatever. There was very little creativity by this point; do you remember the incredible numbers of formulaic side/vertical scrolling shooters (shoot, shield, upgrade weapon, clear screen with powerful attack, boss, repeat) or formulaic side scrolling beat em ups (3 characters, one is fast/weak, one is slow/strong and one is in the middle, kill shitty guys, pick up fruit to regain health, do a super attack but take damage in the process, beat boss with huge HP) or standard 2d platformers? In the 8/16 bit era this was all you got.

Of course the situation may have been different before this, but I suspect not massively.


Well, it's my opinion of the time period so take it with a grain of salt.

And to be honest I didn't even have an NES/SNES. I'm drawing from experience with earlier consoles (2600, ColecoVision, etc), arcade games, and home computers of the era (both 8 and 16 bit). The games you are describing are past what I personally consider to be classic (but then again, I'm 36). I wasn't big on the NES personally, too cartoony for me.

I could make quite a lengthy list of original, excellent games to play but I'll give you a *very* short one.

Archon
M.U.L.E.
Robotron
Defender
Joust
One On One
Blue Max
Bruce Lee (one of the few "platform games" I like)
Defender of the Crown
Centipede
Marble Madness
Dungeon Master
Time Bandit
Sinistar
Yars Revenge
Space Taxi
Laser Squad
Star Raiders
Choplifter
Realm of Impossibility
Loderunner

I could go on and on and on....

The only games I like on the NES are Tecmo Bowl and Tetris for the most part. That's about it. SNES the only game I can say I've played and liked is Super Mario Kart. To me around '86 or so almost every game in the arcade seemed to be a vertical shoot em up and that's whey I started losing interest. Then came all the fighting games which I had *no* interest in, although I did enjoy Double Dragon. I guess it all boils down to personal taste.

I agree with a previous post that maybe Jeff Minter is trying to distance himself from the scene. His remarks always seem to be intentionally "edge-y" to me for some reason.

Nothing he, or anyone else, says can convince me that the classic period of gaming is mostly crap. I play games for the fun gameplay and I don't care when they came out. The bulk of games that fall into that category for me come from the late 70s and 80s.

And just to show I'm not all the oldies I play the game Shadowrun a *LOT* on my xbox 360.
That game is extremely fun.

~telengard

 

[LHC]

The aim of a sports games game shouldn't be to be innovative, but to be as realistic and fun as possible. Almost without exception this is improving in every sport with every new incarnation (when talking about the best example for that sport Pro Evo, NHL, Madden, NBA) and if they tried to innovate they would ruin a near perfect concept.

I don't think that is the aim of sports games in general, take Speedball and Speedball 2 for example: Old 16 bit graphics and totally not supposed to be realistic. But the game-play was phenomenal! Realism for me doesn't make a game, how fun it is to play does it for me regardless of how realistic it looks.

I am talking about sports that actually exist (football, ice hockey, cricket, rugby, tennis, etc). Speedball isn't realistic because murdersports are illegal.

The games you described were only the majority to the nintendo and sega consoles. Also it was in the 8bit and 16 bit days that the type of games you described were new concepts. Street Fighter 2 has been around for years and rarely changes and has spawned many clones. However it was a new concept back in its day.

Also you missed out other genres such as the First Person Shooter (wolvenstein) , Space Trading Sim(Elite), Sports Games, Stratedy Games,Graphic Adventure Games, Life simulations (The sims can be traced back to little computer people), Flight Sims, Tank Sims, Building Sims, RPGs, Rythem games, Puzzle Games, Surgery Simulators, Quiz Games, Family games,
All these and more can be traced back to the 8 and 16 bit computers. Give me a genre that was made post 16 bit.
If the games were better then as i said is a different argument all together


I didn't miss them out. I acknowledge new genres were created but these were the minority. If a new genre is going to be created now it will also be the minority. Also RPGs, puzzle games, quiz games, family games are just taking an existing concept and putting it on a computer.

I doubt they will make a genre because it's all been done. I don't blame the current industry for this though. The aim is to be innovative within a genre (eg story, fighting system, whatever) and I think that is regularly done.

The Wii does not have new innovative games it only has new ways of controlling them and to be honest the controls are just a refining of what came before starting with the old VR systems. Theres nothing new about the mini games. Most were already done on the Eyetoy. Nothing new about using a controller like a golf club or fishing rod or gun.

All of those things are fairly modern, post retro at least.

Maybe your right but Pro Evo is based on Fifa which I believe started life in the 16 bit days
NHL started in the 16 bit days
Madden started in the 16 bit days
NBA started in the 16 bit days
My point they only became a perfect concept because someone in the 16bit days had a new innovative idea that progressed over the years
and all these were based around ideas from the 8 bit days and they all can be traced back to the old magnavox consoles

Remember folks "lacking in Technology does not mean Lacking in innovation"


Like I said the sport genre isn't attempting to be innovative. None of the ideas were innovative, they were taken from the sport that they are trying to recreate. Taking ideas from a sport wasn't innovative in the 80s, 90s or 2000s.

Nobody said "lacking in Technology does not mean Lacking in innovation". I'm not anti-retro and pro 3D (if I was I would hardly bother posting here) but I do I have a problem with people assuming the gaming industry is deliberately lacking in ideas.

 

[telengard]

The aim of a sports games game shouldn't be to be innovative, but to be as realistic and fun as possible. Almost without exception this is improving in every sport with every new incarnation (when talking about the best example for that sport Pro Evo, NHL, Madden, NBA) and if they tried to innovate they would ruin a near perfect concept.

I don't think that is the aim of sports games in general, take Speedball and Speedball 2 for example: Old 16 bit graphics and totally not supposed to be realistic. But the game-play was phenomenal! Realism for me doesn't make a game, how fun it is to play does it for me regardless of how realistic it looks.


Exactly, but I think it comes down to taste. I don't really like sports games but Tecmo Bowl on the NES and '94 NHL Hockey on the Sega Genesis are two games I just love playing. I'd much rather play those than modern, more realistic games (which I've tried). Fun is a big part of it for me, not the realism.

Some people however, the realism is what it's all about. Different strokes....

~telengard

 

[b._.o._.b]

Exactly, but I think it comes down to taste. I don't really like sports games but Tecmo Bowl on the NES and '94 NHL Hockey on the Sega Genesis are two games I just love playing. I'd much rather play those than modern, more realistic games (which I've tried). Fun is a big part of it for me, not the realism.

Some people however, the realism is what it's all about. Different strokes....

~telengard

High five brother! You're absolutely right, its all a matter of taste. I can understand Jeff Minter though. He likes to think he made progress in all these years. I think he made some great stuff like gridrunner and llamatron, he's just defending his current works. Not a big deal.

I think you can compare games with music. Some like simple blues with only a guitar and a singer and some like a complete band with modern synthesizers including dancers and spectacular special effects.
Nobody is going to tell me what I should like, if I like to listen to Robert Leroy Johnson instead of Steve Vai that's my choice.