"Converting" people to MSX

Page 2/3
1 | | 3

By snout

Ascended (15187)

snout's picture

10-12-2004, 18:54

I don't think it's just a generation-thing. I think that new and old technology does not easily surprise people anymore.

By Edwin

Paragon (1182)

Edwin's picture

10-12-2004, 19:21

Ahh, the days of counting how many scanlines a routine of some sort takes and trying to fit everything you want to do together. Wink I still love coding in C/C++ on a hyperfast machine, but that did add a special flair to things.

Today the problem is really the same with most media, too much is released too quickly in order to be able to enjoy it. And everything is old technology a day after you get it. A friend of mine got Halo 2 off the net a few days before it was released last month. He actually even finished the game before the official release date as wel. Apparently it was a simple matter of blasting your way through in a couple of hours. That just seems very odd to me. A learning curve doesn't appear te be necessary anymore.

Edwin

By dumfrog

Resident (38)

dumfrog's picture

10-12-2004, 20:21

He actually even finished the game before the official release date as wel. Apparently it was a simple matter of blasting your way through in a couple of hours.

I remember that my brother and I had spent weeks (and weeks, and weeks...) to finish "Vampire Killer" or "Nemesis 1" (that one was so hard that we were thinking that programmers had not "tested" it).
I wonder if kids, today, would be patient enough...

By marcel

Supporter (6)

marcel's picture

11-12-2004, 21:19

I'd show them Knightmare, because it's simple and addictive (it still is.)

As for modern 3d gamez, they're nice- but also boring, after half an hour- it's just more of the same.

By DarQ

Paragon (1038)

DarQ's picture

12-12-2004, 19:30

eeehm

- Aleste 2
- Xak TToG intro
- Akin
- Super Runner
- Space Manbow
- Bubble Bobble
- Metal Gear 2
- MBWave Wink

By Sousuke

Master (177)

Sousuke's picture

13-12-2004, 00:18

I don't even have to think about brag w/ my ol' MSX to my friends.
Everyone nowadays expects prolly 3D-graphics and many colorful effects - Nothing more. The gameplay is not important (anymore?).
It's interesting technology (standard, cool extensions etc.) inside that cute little machine? "Who cares anyway?"
Ah well... Smile

I wonder if kids, today, would be patient enough... As I'm one of the youngest MSXers here, I'd say: No.
All my friends (similar to Edwin's friend) just want to play it and finish it within one day... (some lamers even use trainers!) Smile

I remember that my brother and I had spent weeks (and weeks, and weeks...) to finish "Vampire Killer" or "Nemesis 1" (that one was so hard that we were thinking that programmers had not "tested" it).Some (or many?) games on MSX (and other 'older' computers) were originally arcade-games. And IMHO these coders wanted to prevent you from winning. Wink Wink
And if you were crazy enough to spend thousands of coins in it, and really got thru that game (well, the coders probably didn't expect that), you're just rewarded with a *very* short ending: Congrats! or You've made it! Smile

By [D-Tail]

Ascended (8232)

[D-Tail]'s picture

13-12-2004, 00:21

Yup, I agree... Gaming on MSX is pure art Smile. As well as software development, of course!

By Chardson

Champion (411)

Chardson's picture

13-12-2004, 07:22

D-Tail said it all. Gaming and development on MSX and other oldies are pure art and skill. But common people can`t see it as I can`t see what`s so cool about DaVinci`s Monalisa.

I gave up trying to impress others with cool MSX stuff. Once I showed a digitalized Screen12 photo to a friend. He answered "on PC when don`t have scanlines, have 1024x768 res and needs only double-click on the file, instead of a 3 lines Basic instructions". Sad

The only things that got some attention were Girls Garden, SG-1000 game converted by ricbit , Penguin Adventure and Ys.

Now, if I try to impress someone with my MSX, I open RSC II, make some fast code to put someones name on screen, and, on my command, return to system. This makes some impressions. Other things that tends to work is showing some old looking but cool games. The only thing that never works is trying to show the best things MSX can do like EVA movies, pseudo-3D games, and the kind.

About the newer games and players, I being a 20yo MSXer, can confirm that about 80% people of my age only wants hi-res good-looking games. Even SNES games for them are old enough to be despised.

By JohnHassink

Ambassador (5413)

JohnHassink's picture

13-12-2004, 15:22

About the newer games and players, I being a 20yo MSXer, can confirm that about 80% people of my age only wants hi-res good-looking games. Even SNES games for them are old enough to be despised.Right, that's also what I meant!
It's like playing a record of a really good song from the 60's and people go like "Man, this sounds old, it's crap!".
I just don't get it. Do people tend to go only for "looks", or the surface of things nowadays, or was it always like that? Can't be like that, right?

I remember this guy I was staying at for a while, who let me use his computer.
He said, "If you're bored, install everything you like, play games, whatever."
So I went and downloaded a Snes and an MSX emulator.
When he looked at what I was playing (think I was playing Megaman X), he totally didn't understand, like "I got a computer that's specified like this-and-that (fill in some high specs), and you play this old crap?"
I answered that I think the "new crap" is sooooo boring.
It's different worlds, really.

By wolf_

Ambassador_ (9769)

wolf_'s picture

13-12-2004, 15:46

Old songs are production-wise worse than what we can do today, it's lo-fi .. hard-panned. Ofcourse, the song itself can be good musically, but it sounds dated.

More modern usually means 'better' for the production-quality. However just as 3d-games look boring because of the technology, music-production can also go way too far out of line. The worst-ever music-technology effect that was ever invented, in my point of view, was that dreaded Autotune. What you get now is singing peopl who actually can't sing, and 'art'-settings (just 1 straight frequency, no human vibrato or fluctuations) that sound downright ugly.

So, I guess that modern technology isn't bad perse, it's just that some people can't get that same modern technology into perspective. They 'just use it' .. no thinking, no self-relfection, nothing.. case closed.

Page 2/3
1 | | 3