The VG Resource

And there you go, you're ignoring logistics

If the product is bad and yet it's popular somehow, then mad respect to the logistics/advertisers who made a stellar job.

---

honestly, in the end games are products from a multibillionaire industry. They're made to be sold and keep their devs afloat. Games don't get popular for nothing even if they are bad. They spend millions for advertising and studying demographics to ensure the game's popularity and therefore commercial success.

Taking that Hydlide again as example, it was released on NEC. Part of popularity of a given game or franchise is actually publishing it on a popular hardware. I bet that a huge part of the gaming community doesn't even know about Falcom exactly because of their weird-ass advertising/publishing policies and making animu games on extremely underground consoles. (NES and Genesis? PFFT let's release the game on PC-88)

If you can make great shit but if no one knows about it, then that means you aren't great at all, commercially speaking.

Now, do I agree with this strategy? Not in the slightest, but it's A Thing That Happens.

Also let's not ignore the fact that the praise might as well be justified. Zelda was a solid game at the time and maybe the baby steps of the sandbox genre, hence why it applies in this case.

(11-27-2015, 08:25 AM)Koh Wrote: [ -> ]Let's say you've never owned an N64 and Super Mario 64, right?  Your first game happens to be Tomb Raider on Playstation.  So you have no idea that better 3D controls exist; as far as you know, Tomb Raider is your first 3D game.  Even under those circumstances, you'll still get frustrated with the clunky and cumbersome tank controls.  This doesn't have to mean you won't enjoy the game as a whole, but it will immediately affect your experience.

Don't tell me how my experiences playing Tomb Raider were. Who are you to say how much I did or didn't enjoy a game?

Also, even though I said "sometimes you don't know something's bad until something good comes along", it does not mean "everything is good until something better comes along." Tomb Raider isn't a game I'd say is good for its time. GoldenEye, however, was.

It's a case-by-case basis.

(11-27-2015, 01:29 PM)Gors Wrote: [ -> ]@This post

But you yourself are also ignoring that there can be zero advertising and it still happens, good or bad.  For example, Flappy Bird and Goat Simulator.  These aren't the kind of things that were all on TV or something, it's literally just some shitty games that got insanely popular because of the sharing people did.  "Hey man, check out how bad this game is."  And then that person shares it with three more people, and so on, until everyone and their grandmother is talking about it.  The developers did absolutely nothing in regard to it spreading around the way it did.  It was just other people making something like that so popular, when it really isn't anything at all.  For this reason, you cannot trust popularity of something alone, because quite literally anything can go viral and take the world by storm, advertised or not, good or not.  

Hell, even the Mother 3 fans that exist, or fans of anything that was never officially advertised over here or released over here, should know this.  We never got the game, and still haven't; it was only a thing in Japan.  Fanslators got their hands on the rom, fanslated it, and suddenly it got a cult following.  I'm not saying the game is good or bad, but it's definitely not anything that was advertised over here, it just happened to build up from people spreading it around on their own.

Hydlide didn't have that happen to it because it was before the emulation era, and wasn't even a Western thing until it was ported on the NES, but it was a BIG deal in Japan.  So are we just to say it wasn't "good for its time," just because it wasn't popular HERE?  Then we'd start creating some double standards. But if we also say something was "good for its time" just because it happened to be popular, that's also a problem, since it doesn't take into consideration the actual content and mechanics of the game, and just goes by metrics.

You seem to have a really boolean way to rate things.

it's 1 or 0.
it's good or bad.

This current market we are inserted in allows for lots of possibilities. There's the actual part made of actual advertising, then there's part that is made by word of mouth and viralization. What I said is but one of the possibility that can happen, and kinda like a "normal and expected" equation to the result of success. But the world isn't boolen as you think.

Those games you cited are exceptions that boom and spread absurdly fast (they happen constantly, especially now that communication is easy, quick and accessible) but remember, word of mouth /is/ another type of advertisement.

We are making advertisements all the time, when we share our tastes and try to compare brands. It's a natural thing. The only difference is that we're not making money off of it, like some reviewers or advertisers do.

As for Mother 3. I can assure you that no one wanted it because it was Mother 3. They wanted it because fans of Earthbound (a game released overseas) were interested to play its sequel. Of course they'll end up knowing about the game and play it eventually. They're huge fans of the series. (and let's not forget that for a majority of people, Earthbound was something unknown until Ness's inclusion in Smash Bros - a clever advertisement method).

And honestly, yeah. The place you are will affect this perception, because there are some games that weren't released in one place or another. There is a tint of 'double standardization' already when you compare game tastes, which in turn changes the list of "classic games".

tl;dr

Quote: But if we also say something was "good for its time" just because it happened to be popular, that's also a problem

That's obvious. But I clearly didn't say this is the ONLY method to be a "good for its time" game, either.

Some of the aspects that can elevate a game to such levels, with no set order, are:

1- Advertising. Making your game likable, well known and popular is the basis of success beforehand;
2- Usage of hardware. Using the hardware to the full extent (that is, colors, polygons, any visual innovation) will cause a big visual impact;
3- Gameplay. Of course there has to be something to tie everything up, and I guess I don't need to develop this point any further;
4- Innovation. Back in the day, there weren't as many game genres as we do now, and games like Zelda/Fire Emblem were the first of its kind. Nowadays, they have many other alternatives, but a "good for its time" game will usually be different from other titles released at its time.

Again, this list is just what we expect normally, and some games can be famous enough to be "good for its time" without fully meeting those points. There is no set rule to rate games like this - but it's generally accepted that such games have these points achieved.

(11-27-2015, 02:40 PM)Koh Wrote: [ -> ]So are we just to say it wasn't "good for its time," just because it wasn't popular HERE?  Then we'd start creating some double standards.

Apologies if this post is formatted weird, I am on a phone right now.

But I feel it necessary to say that "good for its time" is already a double standard. "This game may not be as good in a modern light, but I enjoy it regardless."

Since it is as I said a case-by-case thing, it makes sense that " good for its time" would vary by region and culture.

Excellent posts guys. I actually wish I could thank those twice like some posts have that happen to, lol.

I do want to say the Innovation one kills me though, especially when it's not something that was truly innovative, but considered as such. Like Five Night's At Freddies, and how you always see people say how innovative it is, when it's just Night Trap or Double Switch with an animatronic skin, and sans gameplay cutscenes. Or how Angry Birds took all that, when it's literally an exact copy of Flash games like Crush the Castle or others that existed even before that, just with birds.

now, let me tell you

Will both Five Nights at Freddy's and Flappy Bird be "good for its time" 10 years later on?

We may not think so, but I guarantee the hardcore fans will make it as such, lol.

Though that is a good question about games in this generation in general. Much of this generation was really catering to nostalgia, whether by graphics, music, gameplay, remakes, or a mix, while the main focus of having the highest-detailed possible graphics is really only a thing some companies do.

I honestly don't think there's much room for innovation anymore in terms of graphics; we've seen just about everything now, and the final step is full Virtual Reality. There isn't too much room for innovation in the way we play games either...save for Virtual Reality, but the whole motion control and 3D things aren't anything special anymore.

So it'll all ultimately fall back on the games themselves, and what they do to stand out from the rest. They may not have cutting edge graphics or any exactly new gameplay, but the way the parts come together to form a unique experience will have them be remembered. Like Undertale. I gave it shit for the graphics, and I still do, because I know they could be better even in the context of the game. But it DID combine elements in a way that wasn't really done before, even if they weren't really fleshed out to the potential they could've been, and it's left its impact already. No doubt there will be more "Undertale" successes in the future either.

(11-27-2015, 06:13 PM)Gors Wrote: [ -> ]now, let me tell you

ooh ooh ooh
* Kosheh raises hand and desires to add very little to this argument except

pick me pick me i wanna answer this one

(11-27-2015, 06:13 PM)Gors Wrote: [ -> ]Will both Five Nights at Freddy's and Flappy Bird be "good for its time" 10 years later on?

NO - they'll not be classics because they're an "old game" or a "trendy", "mainstream", "skinned" version. they'll be classics because of the distribution platform at the time and also the "low on resources, high on gameplay" aspects of the game!!! (in other words, how the creator did so much with so little!!!!!) let's not forget the arcadey approach of "oh cmon you can do better just hit this button to retry"

- Flappy Bird being so disgustingly simple (yet hard to control) that its deceptive interface made it easy to get mad at the game and keep trying due to its fundamental design!!!
- Five Night Freddy piggybacking on 1) anthropomorhic animals which the internet loves 2) spooky games that can be churned out on a dime that gamers love 3) surprisingly thick lore that TEENS love 4) its EXTREMELY LOW PRICE POINT that teen internet gamers love
- oh yeah and they're both PC (politically correct not the computer) because like theres no distinguishable genders in it for modern critics to use to bring up tropes for a discussion point

they've set the bar high for developers to come!!
Ten years from now we'll probably have gamers reminiscing on FNAF and indie developers once again trying to make Shit Your Pants horror with the game dev equivalent of bubble gum and toothpicks

(11-27-2015, 06:13 PM)Gors Wrote: [ -> ]now, let me tell you

Will both Five Nights at Freddy's and Flappy Bird be "good for its time" 10 years later on?

I sure hope not.

Flappy Bird's core game mechanic certainly isn't even new, it just wasn't very common at the time.
FNAF is a survival/escape game, right? Which also isn't a new concept.

In my opinion, a game that's "good for its time" probably should try to push the limits of what the current technology and development infrastructure supports.

For example, creating even a "basic" 3d game like a really stripped-down Wolfestein on the GBA would probably qualify for that label. By today's standards, creating a handheld edition of Wolfenstein is trivial, and in fact, the handheld and mobile consoles have the kind of hardware to run a game considerably more complex. But, building a 3d rendering engine over the GBA (or even the original gameboy if you're not concerned about colors) would be a challenge in itself. Then to build a game over THAT. Any game or developer who can accomplish this goal, ideally when the gameboy family was much more prominent, is worthy of that game being called "good for its time" , because it pushes the absolute limits of what a gameboy system can actually do.

Not to say someone won't try anyways, but to say Flappy Bird or FNAF is "good for its time" is a pretty fallacious argument. Those games don't exactly break the mold in any way, or challenge their target platforms, etc...
They kinda just...exist, and have spawned these large fan-bases that are either totally addicted to the game and clone/re-skin it a gazillion times (Flappy Bird, and Angry Birds before it) , or inspires TONS of fan art and fan fiction, usually as grim-dark as the original game (FNAF)

That should be everything

That's actually been done DarkGrevious.

007 Nightfire on GBA.
It's quite impressive that it went full 3D and all, but I bet it used those ugly tank controls. A game that was BUILT for dual analog stick action, reduced to a single d-pad.

Also, Toy Story Racer on GBC.
Needless to say, this is quite impressive too.

Cool!
I never implied they didn't exist, only that I never heard of them.

I came into the more "serious" gaming scene pretty late, so I missed a lot.

Thanks for the videos, I'll watch later. Too lazy right now, and saving my energy to watch Toonami in 30 minutes, and SOMEHOW get through tomorrow's volunteer work without crashing after staying up an extra three hours for my anime! xD

(11-28-2015, 07:13 AM)Koh Wrote: [ -> ]Also, Toy Story Racer on GBC.

Spoiler

I'm pretty sure (don't quote me) that this one doesn't actually have any 3D rendering work going on in the actual game, but rather the "camera" is just a bunch of prerendered frames strung together to look 3d.

yep, you're correct (though this isn't a bad thing - Donkey Kong did the very same thing for its sprites and it's often considered to be one of Nintendo's best)

I'd say that this Toy Story game is indeed a "good for its time" game if we compare it with other portable racing games in the market.

---

About portable racers of the time, I think I'd put F1-RACE a little higher than Toy Story Racer though. Despite the latter's graphical tricks, F1-RACE seems better designed (with slipstreaming, booster and 4P multiplayer) - I'm not even considering which one came first, too.

I think you're going to get this into a gameplay vs visuals deadlock... I can see why F1 is arguably a technically superior game, but it's incredible the world Disney was able to craft on the GBC with Toy Story Racers. Watching that video made me want to see how the tracks and characters could be handled on Wii U/by the Mario Kart 8 team, but the F1 video is just like "Oh, so it's a generic black-and-white race car, okay. Pole Position."

So even though Toy Story Racers might not be as well designed, it's the one I would want to spend more time in. Know this isn't universal, but I don't think I would be alone in that?