832
I rented many games solely based on their covers, only to be mildly disappointed when I got home.
(lemmy.world)
this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
832 points (98.8% liked)
RetroGaming
19386 readers
518 users here now
Vintage gaming community.
Rules:
- Be kind.
- No spam or soliciting for money.
- No racism or other bigotry allowed.
- Obviously nothing illegal.
If you see these please report them.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As someone who lived through that era, let me tell you, the gameplay graphics were never a disappointment. In your mind they looked as good as graphics today. The only thing I can remember being disappointed about was the Nintendo Powerglove. Man, what a collosal, non-working, over hyped advertising lies, piece of shit that thing was!
Box art back then was more akin to book cover art: an artist’s interpretation of the content. It never disappointed me. I even miss it sometimes. I used to collect images of box art even without the games, because it really was art.
When I give a digital game as present I go to the shop to print out the cover art on photo paper and then put it in a card. It gives them something they can immediately look at, handle, and discuss.
Here are a few I've used recently, they are more literal than the cartridge era but they are still artworks in their own right:
Nah there were definitely games that had disappointing graphics relative to what I was expecting lol
Although it's true, we generally were more forgiving about graphics back then than we are these days.
Mario 3 was the most mind blowing leap in graphics I think I've ever experienced.
The game in the example is Bad Street Brawler which is every bit as terrible as portrayed. I have it somewhere still. Could never get past like thr second level.
The Wizard lied to me for 2 hours about that useless piece of plastic.
Dude, the guy who introduced it in the movie straight up said "it's so bad!"
Which meant "it's really really really good" at the time.
But if you would have saved it until today you could resell it foe a whole $25 more (of course accounting for inflation it’s actually $105 less)
…
Wait is that true? Did a rare Nintendo product depreciate in value????
It was a mattel product
I’m gonna press X to doubt on that one.
No, he’s right. The power glove was garbage from the get-go. Really cool cyberpunk thing on paper but … hell, we still aren’t there today!
We're beyond that today...
The power glove was essentially a Wiimote. It has a 3 point sensor bar you had to hang on the TV, and used audio signals to get the location. Technology improved & we ended up with the Wiimote and the Kinect, then decided that the motion controls were dumb unless VR was involved and that's where all the innovation went.
We absolutely could be "there" today but the lingering aura of the Powerglove is still so powerful that nobody has tried to make a better one. It got clowned on so hard the first time that the echoes of that are still rippling through our global subconscious 35 years later.
Also, Nintendo would probably try to sue you if you sold a glove-based controller, even 35 years later.
I'd argue that haptic gloves, valve index controllers, and hand tracking are there, but the hardware for VR isn't quite cheap enough for it to be mainstream.
Even if it worked well, the idea was bad from the start. No one wants to control a game with motion controls.
I dunno, Wii seemed to manage it just fine.
No X button on the controller. Just A and B.
Touché.