http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCLOxK6FpfA
Here is the video response to what we already know is true.
Printable View
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCLOxK6FpfA
Here is the video response to what we already know is true.
I have to say I'm still surprised on how tough nes games are. I mean they sure took some punishment in this video. *Has seen this video before*
Having had some rough treatment occur with some of my own NES games (my copy of Zelda 2 too a falling statuette and still functioned, similar to the drop in this video and until the day it disappeared with the rest of my collection, it worked 100%) I'm actually not surprised that all, but one of the games in the video continued to work.
There have been a few that I considered setting fire to in anger. Ninja Gaiden for example. Back then the players weren't as pampered as they are with a lot of today's titles. We've been spoiled.
Haha yes. I also thought this would be a testament to how difficult the games are. But hell, I'll take this case too. These games are rough 'n tumble, apparently. Small electronics, I guess.
NES controllers are also among the most durable controllers ever made. They are more likely to put holes in walls than break after being thrown at them.
Heh, there was an article on Holdtheline about this very subject:
http://www.holdtheline.com/threads/c...ty-plague.6289
TLDR version:
It goes beyond fragility. The hardware itself just isn't built to last in the first place, much of it is the fault of 2nd and 3rd parties cheaping out with inferior, but cheaper components. there are a ton of other reasons for this like the use of QFN chips, and the general short term thinking among modern corporations.
You got that straight King. They're damn near as strong as titanium. Good for "Angry Gamers":playful:Quote:
Originally Posted by King Aquamentus
I wouldn't say it is short-term thinking. It makes perfect sense because it gets them more money. People break their systems all of the time and about half of them, even if it may be within warranty, cough up the money for a replacement. People buying replacements means more units sold and units sold equals money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac
Another reason for this is that all of the good equipment is very expensive. Gaming computers can cost upward of $2,000 because of the sophisticated equipment they use. If consoles used all of the good parts the good gaming computers use, they would be too expensive for most people to buy. Imagine paying $1,000 for a Wii-U. That's what we will be looking at if consoles used all of the good equipment that gaming computers used.
The reason I call it short term thinking is because long term, it probably discourages sales. I don't even want to buy a PS4 or XB1 because of the RROD and YLOD thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orithan
The price point though, makes sense. It's about what an NES would cost today if 1980's pricing was adjusted for inflation, and, honestly, I'd prefer the higher price tab if it meant I could expect it to actually work in 20-30 years time.
On the subject of the actual games... Of course a cartridge encased in plastic is going to be more sturdy than a CD. But in the days when systems shifted from carts to disks, carts were just too expensive and couldn't hold nearly the amount of data. It was a trade off that had to be made. With increasingly large storage capacities, though, carts have had a spiritual successor in the form of DS and 3DS cards. I doubt, though, that cards will make their way to consoles though.
Although, I think some of the difficulty in NES games is due to save frequency. Either you can't save at all or you get one password per level. Newer games you get infinite lives and dying sends you back about one screen's worth tops. If newer games had the save frequency of NES games you have to wonder if any of them would be considered insanely hard.
Then again no new game would make you go through the final three boss fights back to back without any health restoration and send you back to the start of the level if you died (That's right screw you 1980s Konami).
In a similar vein, most NES games are also VERY short. If they weren't super hard, and required a lot of learning and precision, people would probably feel ripped off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jirin
According to inflation adjustment the NES Action set in 1988 costing $150 would cost around $286 today. Ofcourse, that's only half the story. Technology and the progress of it has alot to do with the cost of it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Anarchy_Balsac
NES games often are tough. Some are because they aren't very polished. Others are because of tight and clever design. Then there are others that are hard because of terrible design. Back in the past it wasn't expected for every player to complete every game they played. Nowdays it's pretty much expected that given enough time any player should be able to beat almost any game. I think it's driven by the changing market demographic.
So true, though I think a lot of it had to do with how short the games were. Most could be beaten within 2 hours, almost all of the rest within 5, and next to zero would take more than a day or two to beat. So to compensate, things like high difficulty, trial and error, and unforgivingly secret puzzles were thrown in. Today, many games, even if they're easy, can't be beaten within a day. So that right there may be a reason for the paradigm shift.Quote:
Originally Posted by MottZilla
That is a good point. Infact these days games are often judged harshly if they don't take a significant amount of time to complete. Personally I find it somewhat annoying how many games are so long when they really don't offer much new as you play to justify it. Older games that are jump in and play appeal to me more. There are exceptions like games such as Super Metroid and RPGs, they are supposed to be reasonably time consuming.
Actually one of the worst things in modern games is long cut scenes you can't skip, or long loading times. I remember specifically an instance in an older game that annoys me like this. Mega Man 7 on SNES. From the time you press start at the title till the time you actually get control over Mega Man, is like 2 or 3 minutes. It's insane. You can't skip it or speed it up. Little details like that are often overlooked in games.
I believe all my old NES cartridges continued to work well for all of their existence. However, it was my NES itself that eventually showed its signs of age with random crashes.
Also in newer games, rather than games starting out easy and ending out hard, the difficulty stays the same for the entire game.
I don't like this trend in newer games where action games try to have the story of RPGs. RPG stories are at their best when the world is really immersive and there's seamless experience between gameplay and story, so story just feels like an extension of the gameplay. In action games you mostly just have to put down the controller for ten minutes every thirty minutes. You can't just pick the controller up and get the adrenaline moving. Even RPGs are adopting the 'Put down the controller and watch the cutscene' model. And you have these long tutorial sections before you can even really play the game.
There have been a few great games in the past few years, but not as frequently as before. All the games that get hyped up are the ones that focus on graphics and story with same-ish repetitive gameplay, no adrenaline, no skill curve to master and no challenge to overcome.