Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Old games: Are they shit?

2456

Posts

  • psycojesterpsycojester Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    X-com, Jagged Alliance and Planescape Torment mother fucker.

    Modern gaming i'm waiting for your rebutal.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • XagarathXagarath Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Some old games (see: original Sonics and Marios, a large number of pc games from the turn of the millenium, original Silent Hill, etc) are great.
    Some (Donkey Kong Country) are overrated pieces of mediocrity coasting on nostalgia.
    That simple, really.

  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Xagarath wrote: »
    Some old games (see: original Sonics and Marios, a large number of pc games from the turn of the millenium, original Silent Hill, etc) are great.
    Some (Donkey Kong Country) are overrated pieces of mediocrity coasting on nostalgia.
    That simple, really.

    However some of the real classics are still good. Pacman is still a fun game, as is asteroids etc.

    Your puny weapons are useless against me
  • ben0207ben0207 Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Seol wrote: »
    ben0207 wrote: »
    God guys, way to miss my point entirely. I'm not saying all old games are shit. I'm saying that comparing them to more current games they fare badly, not due to graphics but because of improvements in accessibility, control and balance.
    No, not really. It's very difficult to argue there's anything wrong with the accessibility, control and balance of, say, SF2, or Sonic, or any of the other games that have endured. Even taking, for example, second-string platformers, it's not that they're bad now, they're just overshadowed by better examples of the genre. But then, you can't really compare Super Mario World to Halo in any meaningful way. I'd even venture to say that people had a better grasp of those three metrics back in the SNES era than they do now - but it was easier then, because games were several orders of magnitude less complex.
    Yes, but by and large the games that endure now either completely bypass those metrics, or we forgive them, because of their other qualities.

  • SeolSeol Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    ben0207 wrote: »
    Seol wrote: »
    ben0207 wrote: »
    God guys, way to miss my point entirely. I'm not saying all old games are shit. I'm saying that comparing them to more current games they fare badly, not due to graphics but because of improvements in accessibility, control and balance.
    No, not really. It's very difficult to argue there's anything wrong with the accessibility, control and balance of, say, SF2, or Sonic, or any of the other games that have endured. Even taking, for example, second-string platformers, it's not that they're bad now, they're just overshadowed by better examples of the genre. But then, you can't really compare Super Mario World to Halo in any meaningful way. I'd even venture to say that people had a better grasp of those three metrics back in the SNES era than they do now - but it was easier then, because games were several orders of magnitude less complex.
    Yes, but by and large the games that endure now either completely bypass those metrics, or we forgive them, because of their other qualities.
    I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you give some examples? How do games bypass metrics like control, accessibility and balance?

  • Mr RayMr Ray Sarcasm sphereRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Some games age well, some don't. Its as simple as that. Generally you can tell whether a game has aged well with the "can-I-make-my-mates-who-didn't-play-it-the-first-time-round-play-it" strategy. If you can get them to play and enjoy it, it has aged well. If they get bored, it hasn't.

    The original two X-Coms have aged fairly well. Syndicate, by comparison, has not.

    It also depends on the presentation of said game. The X-coms for instance, being sprite-based, don't look all that bad. Final Fantasy 7 looks fucking horrible. I'm sorry to break it to all of you, but Cloud is basically a triangle with hair.

    I appreciate how people went "Oh wow!" and declared it "BEST GAME EVAR" at the time, but in retrospect I think we can agree that this is not the case. It was the story which kept me going most of the way, but despite the praise the FF fanboys give it, it is not exactly Shakespere. The combination of an above-average storyline and what at the time were groundbreaking graphics are what caused it's staggering popularity, and while it is certainly still playable by modern standards... that's just barely. I doubt you'll get the kids who're growing up with Halo and Gears of War to give FFVII a second glance.

    So what determines how a game lasts against the test of time then? I guess it can basically be summed up as "It'll last, as long as nothing better comes along to replace it". Farcry, although above-average, will sink (or already has sunk) into obscurity, because games which are better in every way have come and gone. Better graphics, better controls, and more fun gimmicks. Its still worth a playthrough today, if you can pick it up from a bargain bin and you like really hard FPS's, but in ten years time when Crysis 3 and Half-life 4 episode 12 are out? I doubt it.

    TL;DR:

    No, but some of them are.

    Spoiler:
  • SeolSeol Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    It also depends on the reasons why games are good in the first place. A lot of the history of the development of the artform is taking a structure, then making incremental improvements to it. Many, many game genres are driven by their mechanics and interface - sports games, strategy games, fighting games, puzzle games are all strong examples of this - as opposed to their assets. Most of the time, you can look at that structure and make subtle tweaks, meaning there's a process of iterative improvement and progress in a genre. Other games are driven by assets - adventure games are the archetypal example, and platformers got to that point fairly quickly. You can't just look at Mario World and improve it by tweaking here or there, because whilst the controls and powerups were executed near-perfectly, the genius is in the level design, and that has to be rebuilt from scratch - you can't just take what existed before and build on it. Similar with Sam and Max - imitating the mechanics there doesn't give you a game.

    Mechanic-driven games are more likely to be superceded by strictly superior games, although that's never a given. Asset-driven games, however, are timeless when they're done well.

  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I think whether games are good or not is less relevant than whether people will play them. But I guess you might say that the fact people play a game makes it good, entertaining, in some respect.

    Generally what I am considering here is the fact that I can easily pop in Sonic 1 and play through a level or two, cheat to any level I feel like breezing through, that sort of thing. But how likely am I to pop in God of War for a level or two?

    I can either play through a Sonic/Mario in one sitting, or make a little bit of headway in a massive and grand adventure that I'm not likely to finish, or even particularly enjoy due to not having my full range of powers. Old games let you progress much faster without big cutscenes and time-waster segments without any more content than looking pretty.

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • GlalGlal Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Unless of course you find character progression and story development to be a large part of what makes games fun, in which case you'll experience just the opposite; I've personally always found Pac-Man and other "classics" to be boring as dirt, even Back In The Day. Deus Ex over Quake 1, Cave Story over Sonic, etc. It's the extra depth they provide that makes me replay them in the first place, regardless of whether or not I end up actually finishing them.

    I know there are a bunch of "it's all about gameplay mechanics! Games don't need to be complex!" people around here, but I cringe every time that concept is heralded as an absolute truth. If the entirety of PC gaming turned to one-trick-pony XBLA games I'd die a little bit inside.

  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Glal wrote: »
    Unless of course you find character progression and story development to be a large part of what makes games fun, in which case you'll experience just the opposite; I've personally always found Pac-Man and other "classics" to be boring as dirt, even Back In The Day. Deus Ex over Quake 1, Cave Story over Sonic, etc. It's the extra depth they provide that makes me replay them in the first place, regardless of whether or not I end up actually finishing them.

    I know there are a bunch of "it's all about gameplay mechanics! Games don't need to be complex!" people around here, but I cringe every time that concept is heralded as an absolute truth. If the entirety of PC gaming turned to one-trick-pony XBLA games I'd die a little bit inside.

    But the games you mentioned show exactly what I mean. Cave Story is pick-up-and-play in the same capacity of Sonic, Megaman etc. I can start a quick game of Cave Story. As much as I enjoy it, I can't really start a quick game of Shadow of the Colossus.

    Extensive character progression and story development run counter to the concept of replaying old games. You've already experienced the story before, and while at times it can be fun to relive it, you're not going to be happy if that story is your primary motivation.

    3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504
    Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
  • VulpineVulpine Registered User
    edited September 2008
    A good game is a good game is a good game. I still play, for example, Sonic the Hedgehog on the Master System. Nostalgia is certainly a part, but the fact is - I enjoy it. I don't need to justify it any further than that.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • GlalGlal Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Glal wrote: »
    Unless of course you find character progression and story development to be a large part of what makes games fun, in which case you'll experience just the opposite; I've personally always found Pac-Man and other "classics" to be boring as dirt, even Back In The Day. Deus Ex over Quake 1, Cave Story over Sonic, etc. It's the extra depth they provide that makes me replay them in the first place, regardless of whether or not I end up actually finishing them.
    I know there are a bunch of "it's all about gameplay mechanics! Games don't need to be complex!" people around here, but I cringe every time that concept is heralded as an absolute truth. If the entirety of PC gaming turned to one-trick-pony XBLA games I'd die a little bit inside.
    But the games you mentioned show exactly what I mean. Cave Story is pick-up-and-play in the same capacity of Sonic, Megaman etc. I can start a quick game of Cave Story. As much as I enjoy it, I can't really start a quick game of Shadow of the Colossus.

    Extensive character progression and story development run counter to the concept of replaying old games. You've already experienced the story before, and while at times it can be fun to relive it, you're not going to be happy if that story is your primary motivation.
    Hm, how is a linear progression in Cave Story that much different from SOTC? In both cases your abilities evolve, and you can't just jump to anywhere in the game with ease.
    And I guess it's like reading a book twice. I've no problems reading good books multiple times, knowing the outcome alters, but doesn't diminish the experience.

  • theSquidtheSquid Sydney, AustraliaRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I think people will remember games that made new genres first and foremost and the immediate follow ups that polished the fuck out of them and set the standard that everyone would copy for years to come - Wolf3D, then Doom, then Quake (and on the multiplayer end Doom then Quake then Counterstrike). Warcraft 2, then Starcraft. Dune 2, then Command and Conquer, then C&C Red Alert. Super Mario Brothers. Mario 64 for that matter. I got a PS1 instead of a N64 so I'll personally remember Crash Bandicoot and Medieval for a while but no one is ever going to put those games in a list of best games evar.

    As an aside, one of the reasons I was so eager to get a Wii is to experience games that may very well have started their own genres. Same with Spore. Needless to say the Wii has been a little disappointing on that front.

    I had sex with the Ecumenical Patriarch and he infected me with syphilis
  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    So wait, is the OP trolling, or is it just the source he quoted?

    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • brandotheninjamasterbrandotheninjamaster Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    OP, take a look at the latest re-release of Chono Trigger.

    They left the game almost untouched, and it more then holding its own when comes down to sales. So I think the answer to your question is this; some games are timeless, others left by the wayside (Jouneyman Project Turbo anyone?), but as long as person can get lost in a awesome story, then there will be a demand to achive that means regardless of the art's age (kinda like the lord of the rings movies based on books are from what the 40's or 50's?).

  • piLpiL Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Let us tell you something about "retro gaming" -- it's SHIT and it's for LOSERS. If you are into "retro gaming" you need to STOP LIVING IN A FANTASY WORLD, you need to GROW UP and you need to STOP KIDDING YOURSELF that old games are still relevant today. They're not. They're shit. All of them. Even Outrun. You're just making yourself look stupid.
    Protip: all video games are irrelevant. Its escapist entertainment.
    I'd like to challenge this notion, but only slightly. Video games aren't just escapist entertainment. Some of it's hobbyist entertainment. Like learning to juggle or flip a coin, there's a factor of the hobby that is simply learning to do something frivolous and be better at it than other people. This wouldn't be that relevant since most games don't count, but Pac-Man was mentioned in the OP.

  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    OP, take a look at the latest re-release of Chono Trigger.

    They left the game almost untouched, and it more then holding its own when comes down to sales. So I think the answer to your question is this; some games are timeless, others left by the wayside (Jouneyman Project Turbo anyone?), but as long as person can get lost in a awesome story, then there will be a demand to achive that means regardless of the art's age (kinda like the lord of the rings movies based on books are from what the 40's or 50's?).

    30's and 40's - Tolkien wrote the bulk of it during WW2.

    Of course, something with the full scope of LOTR would get the "TL;DR" treatment today - as it vaguely did in the movies, but that was still a way for people to experience the epic story without having to "read."

    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Seeks wrote: »
    People still play old games.

    Therefore, this post is false and you have failed, sir.

  • Shorn Scrotum ManShorn Scrotum Man Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Once the current industry is able to produce games that are better than the original X-COM and Deus Ex I will stop retro gaming.

    Don't see that happening any time soon though!

    steam_sig.png
  • Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User
    edited September 2008
    ben0207 wrote: »
    the idea that twenty years from nopw we will have somehow forgotten HL2 and MGS but will still want to pay money for Pac Man is still clearly bullshit.

    The man on the street isn't buying or playing Pac Man, or Sonic 1. He's buying FIFA 08 and Gears of War.
    And yet re-releases of older games keep selling, and selling, and selling, and selling, and selling, to the point where you can't find a console that doesn't have at least some "retro" games available.

    Sorry, but you're just plain wrong. There will always be a market for the classics. There will always be people who want to revisit the classics. There will always be people who want to play them for the first time. As long as there is gaming, people will fire up Pac-Man and Super Mario Brothers and Metal Gear Solid.

  • brandotheninjamasterbrandotheninjamaster Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Shoegaze99 wrote: »
    Seeks wrote: »
    People still play old games.

    Therefore, this post is false and you have failed, sir.

    An undeniable fact sir. I think what the Op was trying to say was that he acknowledges that people still play old games, but how do they fare against the games of today.

  • angrylinuxgeekangrylinuxgeek Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I lol'd at a G&Ter calling Slashdot users neckbearded twats

    fake edit: no, I haven't been to slashdot in years

    sQwJu.png
  • Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User
    edited September 2008
    I think what the Op was trying to say was that he acknowledges that people still play old games, but how do they fare against the games of today.
    I think in most cases it's apples and oranges. Generally speaking, gaming from one era tried to do something different than another era. The early days of home consoles differed from the 8-bit and 16-bit era, which in turn differed from the early 3D era, and so on. Games had a different focus, different approach, different goals.

    No one is going to play an early video game to get the same experience as a current game, they are going to play it to get the unique experience games from a different era offer. I think that's part of the reason why Geometry Wars turned out to be such a sweeping cult hit. It gave many gamers something that either hadn't had in years, or had never had before. The experience was decidedly retro, but for many folks it was also different than anything else they had played.

  • darleysamdarleysam Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I enjoy good games. If they're older, so be it, but I do find a higher hit-rate with more recent things. I also violently despise the attitude I sometimes see from people that seems to worship and adore something just because it's old.

    edit: but yes, it is essentially like asking if old films, books or songs are good. Some are, just as some modern examples will be timeless too. Skills and technology advance, some people put them to good use, others don't.

  • XagarathXagarath Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Also, there were old games with ambition the modern market hasn't even tried to match.
    See: Ultima 7, Ultima Underworld, Elite, System Shock

  • darleysamdarleysam Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Xagarath wrote: »
    Also, there were old games with ambition the modern market hasn't even tried to match.
    See: Ultima 7, Ultima Underworld, Elite, System Shock

    Well X3 has a good stab at Elite, but it's Braben himself who says that he considers the GTA games to be the successor to Elite.
    I'm really excited to see both The Outsider, and any news on Elite 4.

  • Monolithic_DomeMonolithic_Dome Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    XCOM

    That's all I'm going to say in these threads anymore.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • ForarForar #432 Already prepping for Toronto Fan Expo!Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Y'know what I just bought last weekend?

    The X-Com pack on Steam. No, they're not all great, but the original is a gem that I have loved for around a decade and a half, and I can't imagine not loving it in the future.

    Some games age better than others, but yes, I can imagine a day where people are still snagging 10+ year old games for good times, especially as things like Steam and the various console game download systems exist and are becomming cheaper, easier, more prolific, and better stocked.

    Edit:
    XCOM

    That's all I'm going to say in these threads anymore.

    MD, you and I are on the exact same page. I tip my hat to you, sir.

    sigtwo.png
  • LeitnerLeitner Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    darleysam wrote: »
    edit: but yes, it is essentially like asking if old films, books or songs are good. Some are, just as some modern examples will be timeless too. Skills and technology advance, some people put them to good use, others don't.

    How many people do you know who watch silent black and white movies, I’m going to guess it’s going to be in the minority? Now take that concept and quadruple it and you’re starting to get something like the speed at which video games are evolving. New games are developing an improved skill set at an astronomic rate and removing things that simply don’t work as a rule (how many modern games do you see with limited lives per game? Obviously ignoring those trying to replicate retro games). Now this doesn’t mean that retro games are no longer enjoyable at all, but it does make them harder to play and enjoy compared to modern titles – especially those that attempt more complex mechanics.

  • darleysamdarleysam Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Leitner wrote: »
    darleysam wrote: »
    edit: but yes, it is essentially like asking if old films, books or songs are good. Some are, just as some modern examples will be timeless too. Skills and technology advance, some people put them to good use, others don't.

    How many people do you know who watch silent black and white movies, I’m going to guess it’s going to be in the minority? Now take that concept and quadruple it and you’re starting to get something like the speed at which video games are evolving. New games are developing an improved skill set at an astronomic rate and removing things that simply don’t work as a rule (how many modern games do you see with limited lives per game? Obviously ignoring those trying to replicate retro games). Now this doesn’t mean that retro games are no longer enjoyable at all, but it does make them harder to play and enjoy compared to modern titles – especially those that attempt more complex mechanics.

    Yeah, that's kind of what I was getting at. Some games will always be timeless classics regardless of their appearance or the new technologies that have come along since, but proportionally, it'll never be too many.

  • Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Leitner wrote: »
    New games are developing an improved skill set at an astronomic rate and removing things that simply don’t work as a rule (how many modern games do you see with limited lives per game? Obviously ignoring those trying to replicate retro games).

    How are limited lives something that doesn't work "as a rule"? That it's not longer in vogue doesn't mean it doesn't work, it just means that it's no longer in vogue. Limited lives are just another gameplay element and style choice.

  • Shoegaze99Shoegaze99 Registered User
    edited September 2008
    darleysam wrote: »
    but proportionally, it'll never be too many.

    Of course not. That's because 90 pecent of everything is crap. Ninety percent of the games out there right now are crap.

  • darleysamdarleysam Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Shoegaze99 wrote: »
    darleysam wrote: »
    but proportionally, it'll never be too many.

    Of course not. That's because 90 pecent of everything is crap. Ninety percent of the games out there right now are crap.

    Again, that's kind of what I meant. 20 years from now, there will be some classics that people still play, or want ported to their latest console or whatever, but it will only be a small percentage of the games around at the moment. Similarly, there's only a small fraction of games from 20 years ago that actually deserve their lofty status, with a great many more being held up by little more than nostalgia.

  • PeregrineFalconPeregrineFalcon Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    darleysam wrote: »
    Similarly, there's only a small fraction of games from 20 years ago that actually deserve their lofty status, with a great many more being held up by little more than whiny emo bitches who think they're cool because they're playing an 8-bit Nintendo

    Fixed. :x

    Looking for a DX:HR OnLive code for my kid brother.
    Can trade TF2 items or whatever else you're interested in. PM me.
  • zhen_roguezhen_rogue Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I still play the FF games, DW games, Conflict, and Desert Commander on the NES (among others).
    I still play the PS games, Shining in the Darkness, and M&M:GtAW on the Genesis (among others).
    I still play Return Fire and Twisted on the 3DO.
    Hell, I still fire up Venture, Wing War, River Raid, and Montezuma's Revenge on my Coleco.
    I don't have time to list all the old games I still play on PC.

    I'm sure a big part of my love for the old stuff is nostalgia, but many of the games have aged quite well.
    Especially RPG's, which many times have a great story associated with them - and high replay value.

  • DusT_HounDDusT_HounD Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Definitely i'm on the 'depends on the game' side of the fence.

    I have a 360, with a bunch of new games i've hardly touched. You know what i've been playing recently?

    Gunstar and Astro Boy on the GBfuckingA.

    OP is no more than an inflammatory opinion.

  • SilvoculousSilvoculous Registered User
    edited September 2008
    There's so much to love on the GBA and SNES, I don't feel the need to attempt to justify it. Right off the bat in starting a new game in SMRPG, I get a stirring inside that tells me, "this is the best there is." Modern games that have given me that feeling: Shadow of the Colossus, Half-Life 2 and MGS3.

    There's almost an equal love for old and new - they do things differently, they just have to do them well.

  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Which contemporary games (ie, released since 2000) do you think will be the 8 bit retro classics of the year 2030?

    scarab you have mental problems
  • HefflingHeffling Center of Excellence Applications Engineer Alexandria, LARegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    ben0207 wrote: »
    The man on the street isn't buying or playing Pac Man, or Sonic 1. He's buying FIFA 08 and Gears of War. 20 years from now he still won't be buying Pac Man. Or Gears of War. He'll be buying whatever is current, and we'll still be on a forum on the cortex meganet saying that even though the graphics aren't very good and it doesn't run on holodeck XP, isn't this "half life" still amazing to play.

    Look at how successful the Good Ole Games thread is to see people still buying games that were made around a decade ago. Many of which weren't high budget games.

    Look at how successful the Final Fantasy re-releases have been on the GBA and the DS. I mean, I've spent probably 40 hours in the past week playing FF4, and the update to it's graphics bring it on par with those from FF7. So it's obviously not the cutting edge graphics that make me want to play it.

    I will agree with you that yes, modern games sell more copies. Of course they do, as noone spends any money advertising Fallout 2 anymore. Yet people still buy copies of it (I found FO1 and FO2 DVD in a Wal-Mart 3 or 4 years ago and that was definately worth the 10$).

    If your assertion was true, then people wouldn't be buying the re-released Super Mario's on the DS. But they sell well.

    mcp wrote: »
    I'm never going anywhere near your lawn.
  • The_ScarabThe_Scarab Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    IIRC the Final Fantasy re-releases have not been that successful at all.

    Plus, that is hardly a fair comparison, it's final fantasy. Otaku assholes will buy toothpaste with that logo on it.

    scarab you have mental problems
Sign In or Register to comment.