What constitutes an oldschool computer game, anyway?

Personally, I think the most important factor is the amount of imagination left on player.
Or, is it?

I'd say spontaneously, gameplay over technology.
Technology is then used just as a tool to support the gameplay, not vice versa.

Originally Posted by DeepO
Personally, I think the most important factor is the amount of imagination left on player.
Or, is it?

No, it's the oldschoolness of the particular game in question.

Some element, like design for example, associated with a past era.

Well, they don't make 'em like that anymore. <grin>

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
I'd say spontaneously, gameplay over technology.
Technology is then used just as a tool to support the gameplay, not vice versa.

What he said. Consider a quick clinical review of MM7: crap graphics, mostly linear story, terrible NPC interactions, relatively simplistic combat, but with surprisingly deep character development and just an absolute joy to play. In a nutshell, the core mechanics are so strong that you don't care that the bells and whistles are pretty much shite.

Huh? He said computer game not crpgs. I don't remember Space Invaders having deep character development, and you don't get much more old school than that.

Fair enough, but we are on a cRPG site…

Asteroids !!

Text adventures.

Originally Posted by dteowner
Fair enough, but we are on a cRPG site…

In the Off-Topic section - come on you don't really need me to argue that one.

I think old school may be another "in the eye of the beholder' thing(and I'm not referring to the game.) I never got to play a MUD or a Gold Box game, but I think of old school as a game that's not over-hyped, has substance over show, and can hook you with its gameplay as opposed to it's appearance or it's PR.

I'd rather play Master of Orion2 than GalCiv, Eschalon or M&M6-7 or Wizardy 8 than Mask of the Betrayer, and Gothic than Mass Effect--not because I particularly dislike any of those more recent games, but because the others are better at getting me hooked on what they have to offer. There's just less to distract you from the core game experience.

Massively increased difficulty compared to today's standards.

Originally Posted by magerette
I think old school may be another "in the eye of the beholder' thing(and I'm not referring to the game.) I never got to play a MUD or a Gold Box game, but I think of old school as a game that's not over-hyped, has substance over show, and can hook you with its gameplay as opposed to it's appearance or it's PR.

I'd rather play Master of Orion2 than GalCiv, Eschalon or M&M6-7 or Wizardy 8 than Mask of the Betrayer, and Gothic than Mass Effect--not because I particularly dislike any of those more recent games, but because the others are better at getting me hooked on what they have to offer. There's just less to distract you from the core game experience.

I share all the preferences you mentioned.

On the other hand your examples show how subjective the defintion is:
Many people wouldn't call Gothic or the M&Ms beyond 5 old school.

So may be the defintion is: Old school games are games for old school gamers?

Heh, there is actually a definition on Wiki.

Originally Posted by woges
Heh, there is actually a definition on Wiki.

Yes and also specifically for gaming.
But that is boringly serious.

Originally Posted by DeepO
Personally, I think the most important factor is the amount of imagination left on player.
Or, is it?

I agree completely, certainly as far as CRPG is concerned. The old school stimulated imagination while the new school leaves less and less to it.

Graphics changed this genre, IMO. At first it was all good. Graphics were new and cool and only added to the quality of the experience. But as those capabilities improved, commitment to graphics increased, the result of which leaves less and less to the player's imagination.

The heck of it is even the developers who "get it" don't seem to really get it. Instead of thinking in terms of innovation, independent CRPG developers seem to always aim for the perceived "sweet spot" when graphics were nice without being too dominating, and that's just being stuck in the past, IMO.

What this genre really needs is new engines, and by "engine" I mean core software whose components provide and enable new capabilities, ones that lend themselves more to the mechanics of role-play gaming and less to arcade gaming.

It ain't easy, trying to buck inertia under any circumstances. And it's next to impossible to do it as an employee working for somebody else. Indies are in the best position to redefine this genre, and someday I believe one of them will.

It would be a crying shame, I think, if those "old school" CRPGs were never taken to the next level.

Originally Posted by Squeek
I agree completely, certainly as far as CRPG is concerned. The old school stimulated imagination while the new school leaves less and less to it.

Graphics changed this genre, IMO. At first it was all good. Graphics were new and cool and only added to the quality of the experience. But as those capabilities improved, commitment to graphics increased, the result of which leaves less and less to the player's imagination.

I agree insofar that graphics = technology are in a way the main factor in games nowadays, not the gameplay as such, extremely put (see my posts above).

In fact, the element of imagination began to decrease with the switch from text adventures to graphical adventures.

Nowadays, the graphical part is so heavy that it puts down everything else because of the sheer costs. Games need to look good to sell, nowadays, that's why all other elements are most likely to be cut financially - or at least reduced - than the graphical/graphics part.

What I also notice (which disturbs me a bit), is that graphics-heavy games make gamers more and more passive concerning the use of imagination and solving problems. Imho. Graphics-intensive games become more and more like interactive films, which just leaves the need for imagination out. People become more passive in that respect.

To follow this thought means imho that this will lead to younger generations which become more and more passive. Even with TV. That might be a reason why - at least here - fewer and fewer people go to P&P role playing sassions. They tend to want to rather consume and stay passive than to become active.

In a discussion I mentioned several times from the RPC someone used a word which is very new and very difficult to translate. Imagine the word "fun" as a verb first. Kind of "making fun". Then, imagine this verb as a reflexive verb, making the "consumer" passive. It would read "he is being be-funned", so to say. Yes, I think this is the closest way to translate it. "Being be-funned".

What I mean is that newer generations seem to tend to want to be be-funned rather than becoming active in something. With a TV, it's entirely passive. In gaming, it depends. The imagination becomes entirely passive, but on the oher hand people like modders still are active. So it depends on what element you select.

To me, the degree of old-schoolism is directly related to what has been sacrificed to meet a larger audience.

A game that is essentially "pure" and based on the developers' fully subjective notion of exactly how it should play, is fully old-school.

This is because in the "old days" games sold better when they represented an evolution in gameplay, and when they took concepts to the next level. This was because gamers were enthusiasts and not casual about their hobby, so they naturally wanted games to be "pure".

This can potentially be called gameplay over technology, as has been said, but I have to concede that modern games have gameplay as well, and it's simply a matter of me wanting a DIFFERENT kind of gameplay.

When you have to strain your eyes in order to tell the difference between your character and the enemy…