N64 is not 'old nintendo'. the fucking megadrive/genesis is not 'classic sega'.
Agreed on the former, disagree on the latter. The Master System may have come first, but come on, the Genesis was the heyday of early Sega. It's the very definition of classic Sega.
Oh my god this thread makes me feel about a hundred years old. Final Fantasy 7, Metal Gear Solid, and Street Fighter 3 are what we're calling "old games" now?!
At any rate, I agree that this is all very silly.
Two weeks ago, my best friend and I sat down in front of the TV and had an absolute blast playing King of Fighters '94 on the Virtual Console, and that's not even a particularly good older game!
It's true that people who seek out older games won't be as numerous as people who want the latest and shiniest, but that's true of all media, so who cares?
I know what you mean.
N64 is not 'old nintendo'. the fucking megadrive/genesis is not 'classic sega'.
Final Fantasy 7 is not old final fantasy. heck, ill bet 90% of the FF fanbase have not played any of the games 1 thru 6 or even heard of them outside of the logical assumption that 7 was the 7th one in the series.
All those FF games have since been re-released. And I believe they all generate a nice tidy profit seeing how many times they have been re-released. I'd bet most of the fanbase has played 1-6, just not on the original snes/nes.
heck, ill bet 90% of the FF fanbase have not played any of the games 1 thru 6 or even heard of them outside of the logical assumption that 7 was the 7th one in the series.
FF 1-6... those are the ones on the Game Boy Advance, right?
Oh my god this thread makes me feel about a hundred years old. Final Fantasy 7, Metal Gear Solid, and Street Fighter 3 are what we're calling "old games" now?!
At any rate, I agree that this is all very silly.
Two weeks ago, my best friend and I sat down in front of the TV and had an absolute blast playing King of Fighters '94 on the Virtual Console, and that's not even a particularly good older game!
It's true that people who seek out older games won't be as numerous as people who want the latest and shiniest, but that's true of all media, so who cares?
I know what you mean.
N64 is not 'old nintendo'. the fucking megadrive/genesis is not 'classic sega'.
Final Fantasy 7 is not old final fantasy. heck, ill bet 90% of the FF fanbase have not played any of the games 1 thru 6 or even heard of them outside of the logical assumption that 7 was the 7th one in the series.
I cannot imagine a childhood and adolescence that doesn't involve FFVI
heck, ill bet 90% of the FF fanbase have not played any of the games 1 thru 6 or even heard of them outside of the logical assumption that 7 was the 7th one in the series.
FF 1-6... those are the ones on the Game Boy Advance, right?
I have not read the thread, but to be honest it's pointless to do so.
The vast majority of games will not be played in the future. The good ones will and already have done.
Super Metroid is still great. Half-Life 2 is still great. I fully expect people to be discussing the finer points of Bioshock in 2012. I still expect people to be playing World of Warcraft. I doubt they'll be talking about Cloning Clyde (is anyone even talking about it now?) or Heavenly Sword, just as no-one really cares about Kid Chameleon or Croc.
In summary, good games are good, and bad games are not.
Sigh.
Willeth on
@vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming! @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
heck, ill bet 90% of the FF fanbase have not played any of the games 1 thru 6 or even heard of them outside of the logical assumption that 7 was the 7th one in the series.
FF 1-6... those are the ones on the Game Boy Advance, right?
Yes. Isn't it weird how they came after 7?
I wasn't old enough to play the original versions, all right!Stop reminding me!
Also - No old games aren't shit, so fuck you, eh? I just finished X-com and it was fuck-awesome. Unless we're talking strictly about games such as Galaga... They're pretty terrible.
I have not read the thread, but to be honest it's pointless to do so.
The vast majority of games will not be played in the future. The good ones will and already have done.
Super Metroid is still great. Half-Life 2 is still great. I fully expect people to be discussing the finer points of Bioshock in 2012. I still expect people to be playing World of Warcraft. I doubt they'll be talking about Cloning Clyde (is anyone even talking about it now?) or Heavenly Sword, just as no-one really cares about Kid Chameleon or Croc.
In summary, good games are good, and bad games are not.
Sigh.
I think that even after a global thermonuclear war, the surviving mutants and sentient cockroaches would still be playing Tetris.
I have not read the thread, but to be honest it's pointless to do so.
The vast majority of games will not be played in the future. The good ones will and already have done.
Super Metroid is still great. Half-Life 2 is still great. I fully expect people to be discussing the finer points of Bioshock in 2012. I still expect people to be playing World of Warcraft. I doubt they'll be talking about Cloning Clyde (is anyone even talking about it now?) or Heavenly Sword, just as no-one really cares about Kid Chameleon or Croc.
In summary, good games are good, and bad games are not.
Sigh.
I think that even after a global thermonuclear war, the surviving mutants and sentient cockroaches would still be playing Tetris.
I think Tetris sucks compared to Tetris Attack or Super Puzzle Fighter. Does that make me a horrible person?
I have not read the thread, but to be honest it's pointless to do so.
The vast majority of games will not be played in the future. The good ones will and already have done.
Super Metroid is still great. Half-Life 2 is still great. I fully expect people to be discussing the finer points of Bioshock in 2012. I still expect people to be playing World of Warcraft. I doubt they'll be talking about Cloning Clyde (is anyone even talking about it now?) or Heavenly Sword, just as no-one really cares about Kid Chameleon or Croc.
In summary, good games are good, and bad games are not.
Sigh.
I think that even after a global thermonuclear war, the surviving mutants and sentient cockroaches would still be playing Tetris.
I think Tetris sucks compared to Tetris Attack or Super Puzzle Fighter. Does that make me a horrible person?
Do either of those games feature a dancing Russian cossack wearing a fur hat? If so, then no.
I have not read the thread, but to be honest it's pointless to do so.
The vast majority of games will not be played in the future. The good ones will and already have done.
Super Metroid is still great. Half-Life 2 is still great. I fully expect people to be discussing the finer points of Bioshock in 2012. I still expect people to be playing World of Warcraft. I doubt they'll be talking about Cloning Clyde (is anyone even talking about it now?) or Heavenly Sword, just as no-one really cares about Kid Chameleon or Croc.
In summary, good games are good, and bad games are not.
Sigh.
I think that even after a global thermonuclear war, the surviving mutants and sentient cockroaches would still be playing Tetris.
I think Tetris sucks compared to Tetris Attack or Super Puzzle Fighter. Does that make me a horrible person?
Do either of those games feature a dancing Russian cossack wearing a fur hat? If so, then no.
I was born years after it came out, so I have no nostalgia for it, but I will always dump about ten bucks into a Donkey Kong machine if I happen to be on one of my seldom visits to an arcade.
I have not read the thread, but to be honest it's pointless to do so.
The vast majority of games will not be played in the future. The good ones will and already have done.
Super Metroid is still great. Half-Life 2 is still great. I fully expect people to be discussing the finer points of Bioshock in 2012. I still expect people to be playing World of Warcraft. I doubt they'll be talking about Cloning Clyde (is anyone even talking about it now?) or Heavenly Sword, just as no-one really cares about Kid Chameleon or Croc.
In summary, good games are good, and bad games are not.
Sigh.
I think that even after a global thermonuclear war, the surviving mutants and sentient cockroaches would still be playing Tetris.
I think Tetris sucks compared to Tetris Attack or Super Puzzle Fighter. Does that make me a horrible person?
No, because tetris attack is the best puzzle game ever made. Anyone who disagrees is a fool.
This is actually a more interesting question than I first thought, which was "What the hell is going on here? Stop this right now."
I'm like a lot of the prior posters; I enjoy old games, and I tend to enjoy good old games that I hadn't played before. Sin And Punishment and River City Ransom are two recent examples of this, as I hadn't played either of them before their Wii VC ports, and I loved both of them.
Shining Force II is still my favourite game, with Jagged Alliance II closely running up.
But, then you've got my brother. He's thirteen years my younger. He grew up with a Gamecube. He idolizes the "New Sonic" and that believes Final Fantasy VII is the be all end all game - without actually having ever played the PS1 game. Sonic 2 and Sonic CD aren't fun for him, and A Link To The Past "isn't really like Zelda."
He has never seen a Master System or an NES, much less played them. He doesn't understand games from before his time, and can't fathom them fun.
So I can see where, depending on who you ask, old games could all be shit.
Litany on
Steam: Litany || PSN: Litany- || Nintendo Network ID: Litany
I was born years after it came out, so I have no nostalgia for it, but I will always dump about ten bucks into a Donkey Kong machine if I happen to be on one of my seldom visits to an arcade.
I'm not a huge Donkey Kong fan, but I'll ALWAYS do a round on a Ms. Pac-man/Galaga cabinet if I see one. And if I find a NeoGeo cab, I play it. No matter what. There's pretty much something good on them 100% of the time.
As for the general nostalgia/old games debate, here's my take on it: I'm 16. The first game I can remember playing is Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers on the SNES. I still find games even older than I am to be immensely fun, despite an utter lack of nostalgia for them. A good game is a good game, no matter how old or how new or what system or any of that. All that matters is the core quality of the game.
But, then you've got my brother. He's thirteen years my younger. He grew up with a Gamecube. He idolizes the "New Sonic" and that believes Final Fantasy VII is the be all end all game - without actually having ever played the PS1 game. Sonic 2 and Sonic CD aren't fun for him, and A Link To The Past "isn't really like Zelda."
Chloroform and electroshock treatments. Do it. There is only one hope for redemption.
But, then you've got my brother. He's thirteen years my younger. He grew up with a Gamecube. He idolizes the "New Sonic" and that believes Final Fantasy VII is the be all end all game - without actually having ever played the PS1 game. Sonic 2 and Sonic CD aren't fun for him, and A Link To The Past "isn't really like Zelda."
He has never seen a Master System or an NES, much less played them. He doesn't understand games from before his time, and can't fathom them fun.
So I can see where, depending on who you ask, old games could all be shit.
Yeah, but how old is he? It sounds like he's quite young, and video games are just like any other art form in that taste has to be developed and cultivated, and that generally takes time. It's like preteens who blast the Jonas Brothers but think the Beatles are crap.
Also, the things we're throwing around as "old games" continue to shock and horrify me. I mean, Sonic 2 and Sonic CD are modern games. They have a protagonist, a rudimentary plot, clearly defined progression, and a conclusion.
I can see a young person whose first console was a PS2 or Gamecube being confused by something like Centipede or Peter Pack Rat, which were two of my favorite games as a kid, because of the lack of plot, an ultimate goal, etc.. Even on this forum, recent games like that tend to be branded "non-games." It's understandable that someone whose ideas about video games were formed by things like Grand Theft Auto and Halo wouldn't be that interested in them, because they differ in fundamental ways.
But that doesn't mean that those older games are bad, of course.
I'm not even going to touch things like Final Fantasy 7 or Mario 64, which aren't "old" games in any sense of the word.
My best friend has a way younger brother who is about 12 or 13 or so. He likes Starcraft, Fallout: Tactics, Medieval: Total War, and we've even gotten him interested in playing Fallout 1. He also likes playing wii, Halo 3, and other new games.
He does, however, express no interest in 16 bit or older games.
He made snide comments about FF6's graphics looking ancient, but I let it pass since he thought Fallout was cool.
But, then you've got my brother. He's thirteen years my younger. He grew up with a Gamecube. He idolizes the "New Sonic" and that believes Final Fantasy VII is the be all end all game - without actually having ever played the PS1 game. Sonic 2 and Sonic CD aren't fun for him, and A Link To The Past "isn't really like Zelda."
.
By the way, this is the stupidest thing I've read since yesterday, at least. He a regular internet user? The comment on FF7 would lead me to believe that.
Okay, old games = hard as fuck. That, or I've totally losy my skills (which is probably more likely).
I've dipped into a number of old games lately, and holy shit I can't believe I beat them way back when. Tried playing through Wonder Boy in Monster Land on the Sega Master System and got my ass handed to me again and again and again. I finished that damn game. Once. Why is it so hard now?
Alex Kidd in Miracle World? Piss easy. Or at least, it was.
The definition of "old" for "old games" is being used in different ways by different people here, and is also being used in a different way than the term "retro."
How old does a game have to be before it's considered "old?" First generation console? Early arcade?
The term "old" has a very different meaning depending on context. Some people refer to "old games" simply because they are from the previous generation. For example, many people refer to RE4:WE as an excellent port of an old game. Usually in the context of what games are available this gen. Hell, some people call games as recent as a year since release as "old" as a contrast to brand new games coming out. So when stuff like Lost Planet was finally released for the PS3, people referred to it as a sloppy port of an old game.
If we're talking about "old" games in terms of the history of the industry, that's a pretty difficult line to draw. This industry is still so young, what is old? Obviously, the first few arcades/consoles should be considered old, if nothing preceded them. But what about the 2nd gen of consoles? the 2600, Intellivision, Colecovision? I think most of us would probably agree that this is still 'old.'
Third generation? The NES? The first systems after the Crash? The Master System a couple of years later? Now we're getting into gray territory. Certainly people here are already arguing that the fourth generation is certainly not "old enough," but their points would apply to the third as well.
So what "old games?" To answer the question, it's easy to pick a game from any generation that's still great today, even without rose-tinted glasses. To be more specific, the definition of "old" has to be more clear.
I think the question is actually somewhat different. Looking at games on the 2600 is like trying to analyse literature from a period where language was rudimentary at best. The question here isn't one of when games started to show merit, or when the modern idea of what constitutes a game arose. It's a question of what will have pervasive value, what will endure?
The creative environment of videogames is highly cannibalistic - the mechanics of games build on what came before them, and short of Spacewar, it's difficult to identify a truly original game. When it's expected that the next game will reinvent its predecessors, finding games which retain value despite that continual reinvention is tricky. Occasionally you'll find a game where the mechanics were perfect first time round - see Tetris - or the mechanics were refined to perfection - see SSF2T. But generally, games where the mechanics are the draw will be superceded (if there's any demand for them) or will fall by the wayside.
Therefore, games that will endure are either:
a) Games that got it absolutely perfectly right, or;
b) Games that got it more right than anything else in their genre before their genre fell from grace, or;
c) Games that distinguish themselves on the basis not of their mechanics, but of their content, whether that be story, level design, art design, or some other asset-related as opposed to mechanical differentiator.
I have not read the thread, but to be honest it's pointless to do so.
The vast majority of games will not be played in the future. The good ones will and already have done.
Super Metroid is still great. Half-Life 2 is still great. I fully expect people to be discussing the finer points of Bioshock in 2012. I still expect people to be playing World of Warcraft. I doubt they'll be talking about Cloning Clyde (is anyone even talking about it now?) or Heavenly Sword, just as no-one really cares about Kid Chameleon or Croc.
In summary, good games are good, and bad games are not.
Sigh.
I think that even after a global thermonuclear war, the surviving mutants and sentient cockroaches would still be playing Tetris.
I think Tetris sucks compared to Tetris Attack or Super Puzzle Fighter. Does that make me a horrible person?
No, because tetris attack is the best puzzle game ever made. Anyone who disagrees is a fool.
Is it wrong that I'm 14 and totally capable of enjoying something as old as the original Contra or Megaman games(the very definitions of aging pretty decently), as middle-aged as Super Metroid or the original MGS (which I have a copy or two of), a few years old like Shadow of the Colossus and Psychonauts, and as recent as TWEWY or Rock Band?
Because apparently 13 or 14 are automatically ages of evil in terms of taste.
Is it wrong that I'm 14 and totally capable of enjoying something as old as the original Contra or Megaman games(the very definitions of aging pretty decently), as middle-aged as Super Metroid or the original MGS (which I have a copy or two of), a few years old like Shadow of the Colossus and Psychonauts, and as recent as TWEWY or Rock Band?
Because apparently 13 or 14 are automatically ages of evil in terms of taste.
You can also spell and use an apostrophe correctly, so you're doing well in my personal tally.
Is it wrong that I'm 14 and totally capable of enjoying something as old as the original Contra or Megaman games(the very definitions of aging pretty decently), as middle-aged as Super Metroid or the original MGS (which I have a copy or two of), a few years old like Shadow of the Colossus and Psychonauts, and as recent as TWEWY or Rock Band?
Because apparently 13 or 14 are automatically ages of evil in terms of taste.
You can also spell and use an apostrophe correctly, so you're doing well in my personal tally.
Is it wrong that I'm 14 and totally capable of enjoying something as old as the original Contra or Megaman games(the very definitions of aging pretty decently), as middle-aged as Super Metroid or the original MGS (which I have a copy or two of), a few years old like Shadow of the Colossus and Psychonauts, and as recent as TWEWY or Rock Band?
Because apparently 13 or 14 are automatically ages of evil in terms of taste.
Is it wrong that I love to read classic literature? No.
Is it wrong that I'm 14 and totally capable of enjoying something as old as the original Contra or Megaman games(the very definitions of aging pretty decently), as middle-aged as Super Metroid or the original MGS (which I have a copy or two of), a few years old like Shadow of the Colossus and Psychonauts, and as recent as TWEWY or Rock Band?
Because apparently 13 or 14 are automatically ages of evil in terms of taste.
You can also spell and use an apostrophe correctly, so you're doing well in my personal tally.
I agree with this.
I also think that Mortal Sky makes a good point about the "old" games he does like. Contra and Mega Man are both so simple that there's really not much that the passage of time can do to them.
The Mega Man games in particular have such simple, solid gameplay and such a fun, signature art style that we're seeing a new game in exactly that vein in a couple weeks.
And, again, I would consider the Mega Man games modern games. They have a protagonist, a rudimentary plot, clear goals and a clear finale, etc.. More recent games may have a lot more flash and frou frou thrown in, but by and large a lot of them aren't doing anything fundamentally different than the Mega Man games.
Is it wrong that I'm 14 and totally capable of enjoying something as old as the original Contra or Megaman games(the very definitions of aging pretty decently), as middle-aged as Super Metroid or the original MGS (which I have a copy or two of), a few years old like Shadow of the Colossus and Psychonauts, and as recent as TWEWY or Rock Band?
Because apparently 13 or 14 are automatically ages of evil in terms of taste.
You are probably an outlier, but I seriously hope not. How were you introduced to gaming, both classic and contemporary? Do your parents encourage/discourage playing games, or do they play as well? Do your peers seem to have a similar appreciation for the origins of the medium?
I only ask because the stereotypical behavior for someone your age online is to scream shrilly into xbox mics.
Is it wrong that I'm 14 and totally capable of enjoying something as old as the original Contra or Megaman games(the very definitions of aging pretty decently), as middle-aged as Super Metroid or the original MGS (which I have a copy or two of), a few years old like Shadow of the Colossus and Psychonauts, and as recent as TWEWY or Rock Band?
Because apparently 13 or 14 are automatically ages of evil in terms of taste.
You are probably an outlier, but I seriously hope not. How were you introduced to gaming, both classic and contemporary? Do your parents encourage/discourage playing games, or do they play as well? Do your peers seem to have a similar appreciation for the origins of the medium?
I only ask because the stereotypical behavior for someone your age online is to scream shrilly into xbox mics.
Gaming? Legend of Zelda:Link's Awakening, Final Fantasy Legend 2, and Tetris were my first video games on my dad's old gameboy, back around 98. I also played a huge amount of Myst and Riven back then, but I never solved the puzzles, just explored the pretty places. I enjoyed Riven more. Then Pokemon came out and changed my life. My parents are each different. Mom is mostly apathetic (the only games she really digs are the Myst series), while dad takes some interest in games, but never usually gets too far in them.
My friends all sorta vary. A lot don't play too many games, but quite a few, even of the more mainstream crowd, are capable of playing older games.
And, again, I would consider the Mega Man games modern games. They have a protagonist, a rudimentary plot, clear goals and a clear finale, etc.. More recent games may have a lot more flash and frou frou thrown in, but by and large a lot of them aren't doing anything fundamentally different than the Mega Man games.
Donkey Kong had all of those (yes, it looped if you reached the end, but it still had a clear finale), whereas Gran Turismo has no protagonist, no plot, and no finale. I question your definition of "modern game".
Seol on
0
Options
HerrCronIt that wickedly supports taxationRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
Some of the replies on this thread make me feel so goddamn old i'm pretty sure i should be denouncing this internet business as the devils work.
Posts
Agreed on the former, disagree on the latter. The Master System may have come first, but come on, the Genesis was the heyday of early Sega. It's the very definition of classic Sega.
All those FF games have since been re-released. And I believe they all generate a nice tidy profit seeing how many times they have been re-released. I'd bet most of the fanbase has played 1-6, just not on the original snes/nes.
FF 1-6... those are the ones on the Game Boy Advance, right?
I cannot imagine a childhood and adolescence that doesn't involve FFVI
Yes. Isn't it weird how they came after 7?
The vast majority of games will not be played in the future. The good ones will and already have done.
Super Metroid is still great. Half-Life 2 is still great. I fully expect people to be discussing the finer points of Bioshock in 2012. I still expect people to be playing World of Warcraft. I doubt they'll be talking about Cloning Clyde (is anyone even talking about it now?) or Heavenly Sword, just as no-one really cares about Kid Chameleon or Croc.
In summary, good games are good, and bad games are not.
Sigh.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
I wasn't old enough to play the original versions, all right! Stop reminding me!
Also - No old games aren't shit, so fuck you, eh? I just finished X-com and it was fuck-awesome. Unless we're talking strictly about games such as Galaga... They're pretty terrible.
Rage!
Mmmm.
I think that even after a global thermonuclear war, the surviving mutants and sentient cockroaches would still be playing Tetris.
I think Tetris sucks compared to Tetris Attack or Super Puzzle Fighter. Does that make me a horrible person?
PSN: super_emu
Xbox360 Gamertag: Emuchop
Do either of those games feature a dancing Russian cossack wearing a fur hat? If so, then no.
Hahaha, this is actually a pretty valid point.
One features a half-naked Russian wrestler.
Boo-urns, BOO-URNS!!!
Twitter: Cokomon | dA: Cokomon | Tumblr: Cokomon-art | XBL / NNID / Steam: Cokomon
That is the good shit.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I'm like a lot of the prior posters; I enjoy old games, and I tend to enjoy good old games that I hadn't played before. Sin And Punishment and River City Ransom are two recent examples of this, as I hadn't played either of them before their Wii VC ports, and I loved both of them.
Shining Force II is still my favourite game, with Jagged Alliance II closely running up.
But, then you've got my brother. He's thirteen years my younger. He grew up with a Gamecube. He idolizes the "New Sonic" and that believes Final Fantasy VII is the be all end all game - without actually having ever played the PS1 game. Sonic 2 and Sonic CD aren't fun for him, and A Link To The Past "isn't really like Zelda."
He has never seen a Master System or an NES, much less played them. He doesn't understand games from before his time, and can't fathom them fun.
So I can see where, depending on who you ask, old games could all be shit.
I'm not a huge Donkey Kong fan, but I'll ALWAYS do a round on a Ms. Pac-man/Galaga cabinet if I see one. And if I find a NeoGeo cab, I play it. No matter what. There's pretty much something good on them 100% of the time.
As for the general nostalgia/old games debate, here's my take on it: I'm 16. The first game I can remember playing is Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers on the SNES. I still find games even older than I am to be immensely fun, despite an utter lack of nostalgia for them. A good game is a good game, no matter how old or how new or what system or any of that. All that matters is the core quality of the game.
Chloroform and electroshock treatments. Do it. There is only one hope for redemption.
Also, the things we're throwing around as "old games" continue to shock and horrify me. I mean, Sonic 2 and Sonic CD are modern games. They have a protagonist, a rudimentary plot, clearly defined progression, and a conclusion.
I can see a young person whose first console was a PS2 or Gamecube being confused by something like Centipede or Peter Pack Rat, which were two of my favorite games as a kid, because of the lack of plot, an ultimate goal, etc.. Even on this forum, recent games like that tend to be branded "non-games." It's understandable that someone whose ideas about video games were formed by things like Grand Theft Auto and Halo wouldn't be that interested in them, because they differ in fundamental ways.
But that doesn't mean that those older games are bad, of course.
I'm not even going to touch things like Final Fantasy 7 or Mario 64, which aren't "old" games in any sense of the word.
He does, however, express no interest in 16 bit or older games.
He made snide comments about FF6's graphics looking ancient, but I let it pass since he thought Fallout was cool.
What you should have done was put his head on a spike on your battlements, as a lesson to 13 year olds everywhere.
By the way, this is the stupidest thing I've read since yesterday, at least. He a regular internet user? The comment on FF7 would lead me to believe that.
Dammit if it has "64" in the title it's not a fucking old game dammit.
I've dipped into a number of old games lately, and holy shit I can't believe I beat them way back when. Tried playing through Wonder Boy in Monster Land on the Sega Master System and got my ass handed to me again and again and again. I finished that damn game. Once. Why is it so hard now?
Alex Kidd in Miracle World? Piss easy. Or at least, it was.
I suck and I'm old and I have gray hair.
The definition of "old" for "old games" is being used in different ways by different people here, and is also being used in a different way than the term "retro."
How old does a game have to be before it's considered "old?" First generation console? Early arcade?
The term "old" has a very different meaning depending on context. Some people refer to "old games" simply because they are from the previous generation. For example, many people refer to RE4:WE as an excellent port of an old game. Usually in the context of what games are available this gen. Hell, some people call games as recent as a year since release as "old" as a contrast to brand new games coming out. So when stuff like Lost Planet was finally released for the PS3, people referred to it as a sloppy port of an old game.
If we're talking about "old" games in terms of the history of the industry, that's a pretty difficult line to draw. This industry is still so young, what is old? Obviously, the first few arcades/consoles should be considered old, if nothing preceded them. But what about the 2nd gen of consoles? the 2600, Intellivision, Colecovision? I think most of us would probably agree that this is still 'old.'
Third generation? The NES? The first systems after the Crash? The Master System a couple of years later? Now we're getting into gray territory. Certainly people here are already arguing that the fourth generation is certainly not "old enough," but their points would apply to the third as well.
So what "old games?" To answer the question, it's easy to pick a game from any generation that's still great today, even without rose-tinted glasses. To be more specific, the definition of "old" has to be more clear.
Steam ID: slashx000______Twitter: @bill_at_zeboyd______ Facebook: Zeboyd Games
The creative environment of videogames is highly cannibalistic - the mechanics of games build on what came before them, and short of Spacewar, it's difficult to identify a truly original game. When it's expected that the next game will reinvent its predecessors, finding games which retain value despite that continual reinvention is tricky. Occasionally you'll find a game where the mechanics were perfect first time round - see Tetris - or the mechanics were refined to perfection - see SSF2T. But generally, games where the mechanics are the draw will be superceded (if there's any demand for them) or will fall by the wayside.
Therefore, games that will endure are either:
a) Games that got it absolutely perfectly right, or;
b) Games that got it more right than anything else in their genre before their genre fell from grace, or;
c) Games that distinguish themselves on the basis not of their mechanics, but of their content, whether that be story, level design, art design, or some other asset-related as opposed to mechanical differentiator.
Anyone else play Tetris Blast? I loved that game.
Because apparently 13 or 14 are automatically ages of evil in terms of taste.
You can also spell and use an apostrophe correctly, so you're doing well in my personal tally.
I agree with Vulpine. :P
Is it wrong that I love to read classic literature? No.
The greats are where you dip your feet first.
I agree with this.
I also think that Mortal Sky makes a good point about the "old" games he does like. Contra and Mega Man are both so simple that there's really not much that the passage of time can do to them.
The Mega Man games in particular have such simple, solid gameplay and such a fun, signature art style that we're seeing a new game in exactly that vein in a couple weeks.
And, again, I would consider the Mega Man games modern games. They have a protagonist, a rudimentary plot, clear goals and a clear finale, etc.. More recent games may have a lot more flash and frou frou thrown in, but by and large a lot of them aren't doing anything fundamentally different than the Mega Man games.
You are probably an outlier, but I seriously hope not. How were you introduced to gaming, both classic and contemporary? Do your parents encourage/discourage playing games, or do they play as well? Do your peers seem to have a similar appreciation for the origins of the medium?
I only ask because the stereotypical behavior for someone your age online is to scream shrilly into xbox mics.
My friends all sorta vary. A lot don't play too many games, but quite a few, even of the more mainstream crowd, are capable of playing older games.