what ? Almost every game on NES was a clone of some other game. Well, I live in a country where we had chinese "fake" NeS console, so maybe it was more visible, because the Chinese made quite a lot clones on their own.

But from my memories, every second NES game was similar to another.

I downloaded around 200 NES roms, to play on my PC, around 50 of them are very good games I like to play even today. The rest is a cloned piece of shit.

Trust me, man - If BZB has a story - We've heard it a thousand times before.

And I can understand convention but I also like ingenuity otherwise it all turns into Match 3 games as far as the eye can see.
Yeah, that happens - Once a new idea is introduced everyone copies so releases taking place during the first two years of the NES where echoed and parroted for the rest of NES's lifespan.

Just to mention, as far as I know, the console was made in Taiwan. And most of the fake games came from Russia. We don't have to blame Chinese for everything :D

It's a hard thing to define what's a 'shitty' control scheme. I, for example, have sometimes a lot of fun discovering and learning an unusual control scheme instead of bypassing this part and jumping right into the 'mastering' phase. That's one of the reasons why I like to play many different games instead of just sticking to one. And that's also the reason why I am a retro gamer (instead of nostalgia - im too young for that) - becouse unusual controls is something that sets oldies apart from today's games. It's only after some time that I discover, probably on some forum, that the particular controls should be called 'shitty'.

The big emphasis on convention and the "easy to learn, hard to master" formula is not something I like, becouse the learning part can also be much fun. Of course old times were also the times of convention, but one can argue, that during the old times the major companies had a much easier time experimenting with the formulas – this may be the NES thing that the creator of the thread was talking about. The big ones were pushing the new ideas, while the small developers jumped on the bandwagon as the copycats. Today it's mostly the other way round.

But, on the other hand, one cannot deny that something like a 'shitty' control scheme does exist. To a point it's a subjective thing. It's all about the line between 'unusual' and 'shitty'.

BTW the cheesines of Serious Sam story is, i think, quite intentional and is part of the charm (don't know about SS2, as i've never played that one).

Again, it's a difficult thing to say whether a particular game needs or doesn't need a story. But it doesn't mean that the question itself isn't unjustified - there is certainly some relation between gameplay and possibilities of storytelling. I think there's a pressure for games to create worlds, narratives, that we can escape to and forget that it's just a game. But I actually like when the game is very 'gamish' - that's why I like pinball for example, becouse no matter how much narrative you add, it's still a pinball: a ridiculous game, where you try to not let the ball drain using the flippers. Why? Not becouse draining the ball sets a thermonuclear reaction that destroys the universe but becouse a) it's hard b) it's fun.

Oh yea, I meant to mention that too. That's a biggie.

I usually say that people haven't gotten dumber but thanks to new technologies we are more aware of the dumb people's existence.

In the past only developers and publishers got calls and mail from clients who were uncapable of playing their games. Now we see those people on forums, writing comments and even posting vids on YT. Complaining doesn't make them go away. They've always been there and always will.

Unlimited SaGa isn't complicated or hard really. Quite a lot of it is common sense actually. It's just not transparent.

The problem is that most rpgs train people to be stupid, and are designed around obsessive compulsive behavior and min-maxing. Quite a few players would rather watch numbers go up and hoard everything they get, rather than use strategy and manage their resources properly. People don't heal HP, and then wonder why they're hemorrhaging LP. They are deathly afraid of LP damage, so they only using one character at a time to tank everything until they run out of LP, instead of tanking properly and rotating in fresh characters, and wonder why they're taking so much damage. They hoard weapons for boss battles only to find they have no skills to use with them. etc.. People would rather blame the game instead of admitting they're doing it wrong.

That's true. It's not only becouse of communication, but becouse the gaming market did expand, the target audience changed, there are many players playing for different reasons...

I'd defend some of them: who can blame a person whose idea of a leisure time is to turn on easiest possible settings and mindlessly click through some repetitive game, when he lives extremely stressful life, with no certainty about the future, no job or health security etc. Some people have good reasons for wanting absolutely stressless games (boring for others, including me).

Few years ago many of those people were not in the market at all. Now producers have to cater to this crowd mainly and provide them with a substitute for peace in their lives.

Differing control schemes can be fine, they can even be superior, my only point being from a design perspective one should have a reason to implement them, not "just because". The times where you've liked it were probably when it was wisely selected by a designer.

Most of the time, yes, i suppose... Still things are kind of subjective here. Experimentation is always a risk. You're sure to alienate some, question is how many. Sometimes i prefer bad experimentation to none, like in case of Cryo games, most of them extremely flawed, but each one trying radical ideas... of course becouse of this flaws you don't find yourself playing the same game for months and returning to it every year, but as i said many times, im a "many radically different games" not "one perfect game" kind of guy.

My favorite example of the same generation games' with good/bad controls is Sacrifice vs. Black and White. They both had almost the exact same requirements for movement and yet Sacrifice was so well implemented that I literally uninstalled Black and White in disgust after a few hours.

IIRC Sacrifice had a rather novel control scheme (3D RTSes were not yet very common).

But, you know, B&W got 10/10 or almost 10/10 from many reviewers, which means some people liked its controls! (i never played that one though)

FUCK! That guy's style is awesome! I need to subscribe! Thank you Orcish one!

Ok, now i'm going back to play Might and Magic 1... so let's cast cure... press C, it's a spell level 1, and the number, fuck i forgot the number, where was the manual... ah, it's 6, ok press enter.... no he doesn't have gems, now who has gems, press T, give to whom... to Andariel (press 1), trade what, gems (press 1), how many, 50....

(Now i'm making fun, 'couse i memorised all the commands and it takes me two seconds now :P)