10-05-2010, 09:47 PM
Just as the title says. I figure I should probably start getting a wee bit more active in the forums, like I said I would be, so, here goes nothing.
Now, I missed the whole "golden age" of DOS games primarily because, well, I was in diapers back then. A game to me was trying to figure out why square would not fit in circle. However, when I actually got tech savvy enough, I ran a few dozen old DOS games. Some of them were outright terrible. (See: The Bard's Tale.) With incredible difficulty as the game was completely merciless with an absolute brick-wall learning curve, being that there was no tutorial, and the game did not in any way, shape, or form attempt to teach you how it would work. It simply plopped you in the middle of nowhere to die. It also had a horrible tendency to swing luck in the favour of the AI, no matter how stacked the odds may have been against you.
Conversely, there was also some mind blowing, absolutely amazing DOS games. Some of which I still enjoy playing on occasion to this day, despite the overhauled graphics of some current titles. (See: X-Com: Apocalypse.) X-Com was a game that required no real explaining, as the game was rather forgiving and easy to learn. It was friendly to new people, yet held some advanced tactics for the experienced players to enjoy. It was one of the few DOS games where the save function was actually useful and is the first game where entire battlefields were destructible, allowing you to create new paths and reduce enemy cover. These systems weren't picked up and used again for several years until games like Company of Heroes "invented" the idea. (Haha. Fat chance.) X-Com was a real-time or turn-based strategy game.
Now, some ask where the creativity and difficulty of DOS games went. This is a very simple thing to answer, if you think on it long enough.
1. There is no such thing as the Game Over or limited retries anymore.
In many, if not all DOS games, if you lost the game, you lost it. Period. If you started to lose, you generally continued to lose until the game became impossible, and you would have to load to a much earlier place or outright start over. Some games were even gruelling in their punishments, allowing only a limited number of lives before "Game Over" would appear in big, bold, red letters on the screen. Sure, in modern day games, there is still the game over screen. However, with the abandonment of the limited lives system, the capability to hide behind cover and wait for your health to recover in first person shooters, the checkpoint system, etc, means that every death or "loss" is just a setback; it is not a real "game over."
2. The enchanting art style is not realistic.
Many older gamers, or younger gamers who looked back upon the previous generation of games, complain about how everything seems to suffer the three gaming B sins: Blur, Brown, and Bloom. How all first person shooters look the same, and how everything looks depressing, etc. Well, you guys really asked for it. If you saw a game styled to look like a 50's retro game, the majority of the gaming crowd would call it fucking retarded and go back to playing Medal of Honor 87: We're back in Berlin Pt. 15 Section 3. Now that we have far superior graphics engines, 3D environments, models, etc, the necessity to be creative with wacky designs to tickle the imagination are no longer required, and are even frowned upon by the majority of the gaming community.
3. Copy what works.
Back in the DOS generation, most game designers had no clue what was a good game, and what was a bad game, and so, much experimentation went on. Now, the lines have been drawn pretty clearly: For a first person shooter to be good, you need a flimsy shallow plot which the average neurotic idiot could understand, a few American firearms (and possible a pair of firearms from Europe, with the inevitable inclusion of the AK47), and Americans killing people. If not Americans, than the Allies. If not the Allies, than a suspiciously similar to the point of ludicrous World War II game world created by the Japanese who are attempting to cater to a North American market. Totally subtle there huh.
I suppose the point is: Nobody makes games like they used to, because it is not financial a good idea, not a lot of people like the style anymore, it would be hard work on the artists used to rendering M16's all their lives, and for Christ's sake, those games were hard as Hell.
Leave your opinion below, maybe your favourite DOS game? Your most hated one? What you think of them? Was this profound to you? Etc. If you want any other topic related to gaming covered, just ask and I'll make a topic about it. Even something as ridiculous as asking why every Pokemon game is the same damn thing as last time. Either way, I'll keep posting up these topics to attempt to spur some forum traffic. Hope you enjoy Mark.
Now, I missed the whole "golden age" of DOS games primarily because, well, I was in diapers back then. A game to me was trying to figure out why square would not fit in circle. However, when I actually got tech savvy enough, I ran a few dozen old DOS games. Some of them were outright terrible. (See: The Bard's Tale.) With incredible difficulty as the game was completely merciless with an absolute brick-wall learning curve, being that there was no tutorial, and the game did not in any way, shape, or form attempt to teach you how it would work. It simply plopped you in the middle of nowhere to die. It also had a horrible tendency to swing luck in the favour of the AI, no matter how stacked the odds may have been against you.
Conversely, there was also some mind blowing, absolutely amazing DOS games. Some of which I still enjoy playing on occasion to this day, despite the overhauled graphics of some current titles. (See: X-Com: Apocalypse.) X-Com was a game that required no real explaining, as the game was rather forgiving and easy to learn. It was friendly to new people, yet held some advanced tactics for the experienced players to enjoy. It was one of the few DOS games where the save function was actually useful and is the first game where entire battlefields were destructible, allowing you to create new paths and reduce enemy cover. These systems weren't picked up and used again for several years until games like Company of Heroes "invented" the idea. (Haha. Fat chance.) X-Com was a real-time or turn-based strategy game.
Now, some ask where the creativity and difficulty of DOS games went. This is a very simple thing to answer, if you think on it long enough.
1. There is no such thing as the Game Over or limited retries anymore.
In many, if not all DOS games, if you lost the game, you lost it. Period. If you started to lose, you generally continued to lose until the game became impossible, and you would have to load to a much earlier place or outright start over. Some games were even gruelling in their punishments, allowing only a limited number of lives before "Game Over" would appear in big, bold, red letters on the screen. Sure, in modern day games, there is still the game over screen. However, with the abandonment of the limited lives system, the capability to hide behind cover and wait for your health to recover in first person shooters, the checkpoint system, etc, means that every death or "loss" is just a setback; it is not a real "game over."
2. The enchanting art style is not realistic.
Many older gamers, or younger gamers who looked back upon the previous generation of games, complain about how everything seems to suffer the three gaming B sins: Blur, Brown, and Bloom. How all first person shooters look the same, and how everything looks depressing, etc. Well, you guys really asked for it. If you saw a game styled to look like a 50's retro game, the majority of the gaming crowd would call it fucking retarded and go back to playing Medal of Honor 87: We're back in Berlin Pt. 15 Section 3. Now that we have far superior graphics engines, 3D environments, models, etc, the necessity to be creative with wacky designs to tickle the imagination are no longer required, and are even frowned upon by the majority of the gaming community.
3. Copy what works.
Back in the DOS generation, most game designers had no clue what was a good game, and what was a bad game, and so, much experimentation went on. Now, the lines have been drawn pretty clearly: For a first person shooter to be good, you need a flimsy shallow plot which the average neurotic idiot could understand, a few American firearms (and possible a pair of firearms from Europe, with the inevitable inclusion of the AK47), and Americans killing people. If not Americans, than the Allies. If not the Allies, than a suspiciously similar to the point of ludicrous World War II game world created by the Japanese who are attempting to cater to a North American market. Totally subtle there huh.
I suppose the point is: Nobody makes games like they used to, because it is not financial a good idea, not a lot of people like the style anymore, it would be hard work on the artists used to rendering M16's all their lives, and for Christ's sake, those games were hard as Hell.
Leave your opinion below, maybe your favourite DOS game? Your most hated one? What you think of them? Was this profound to you? Etc. If you want any other topic related to gaming covered, just ask and I'll make a topic about it. Even something as ridiculous as asking why every Pokemon game is the same damn thing as last time. Either way, I'll keep posting up these topics to attempt to spur some forum traffic. Hope you enjoy Mark.
I am a writer. I write often, and I write lovingly. If you wish to write with me sometime, or are interested in writing, throw me a bone. If not, throw me a shotgun and I'll paint out love with zombie limbs.
