Are older games better? Or is that just the Nostalgia talking?

[ten.to.ten]

As someone who didn't grow up with games older then the previous console generation, therefore having no nostalgia glasses, I think newer games are generally better. Case in point: I preferred Twilight princess over Ocarina of time. Oot was definately amazing for it's time, but I must say Tp was more enjoyable. Tp had a much more lively world, a more engaging story, and brilliant dungeon design.

Just between you and me, I got OoT for Christmas the year it was released and never thought it lived upto the hype. I mean it was a great game, but it wasn't the best game ever, and not even the best Zelda ever (I'd give that accolade to Wind Waker, personally).

 

[emeraldrafael]

it would probably depend on which game and waht you're looking at. And how "old" the game actually is.

For example, Parasite Eve is probably one of the best games made, and thats... thats wow. Like... 1997 I think.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Games: Objectively Subjective. Some are great. Like really, really great. Doesn't matter when they were made, there was just quality, inspiration, follow-through, and good design all laced together. The earlier games had to try and bring this about, as there was less focus on games as a capitalist venture, and so had to make sure their backing was worth it. Now, games have to turn more of a profit, so there's much more of the guaranteed coming out, but this does not demean the newer games with a well developed and produced idea. There are phenomenal old games, and there are extraordinary modern games. There is also a ton of rubbish sprinkled throughout the ages.

(Coincidentally, has gaming been around long enough that we can use the phrase "contemporary gaming"? Or should we still wait on that for a bit?)

 

[bushwhacker2k]

It seemed like when games were first being released (or at least when it feels like they were still new, meaning '90s) there was a lot of innovation and the people coming into the industry to make games weren't coming in to make big loads of cash from games directed at massive crowds of people.

I'm not going to jump on the "all games are pretty looking pieces of shite now" bandwagon, but I can honestly say they seem to revolve a lot more around money and a lot less around innovation and creativity.

Space Station Silicon Valley wasn't a graphically-advanced game, and in fact it wasn't even completable without cheating, but it was a MASTERPIECE. Oh, keep in mind I mean the N64 version, it's more of a difference than one might think.

 

[Lionsfan1986]

I think it's because it takes you back to a smipler age and they remind you of that.

 

[Liberaliter]

I think it's to do with having time to let your experiences sink in. Most of my all time favourite games are older ones, but I'm sure in five or so years games from this generation will be added to that list.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

No it is not always just nostalgia. For example I played the PoP remake on the 360 as my first game into the series and I hated it with a passion of a thousand burning suns. I saw them really cheap on Steam sales. While I have nto finished them yet they kick the new ones ass while doing its mom.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Old games tend to just have nostalgia going for them. There was just as much crap then as now, we just don't remember it being that bad. Of course there were some good games back then as there are now obviously and I suppose they are easier to find since opinions are well formed and the good ones have been clearly noted.

 

[Naheal]

Partially. In a way, a push toward graphical fidelity has limited what some games can do with a storyline. When you saw a game like Star Ocean: The Second Story, it was unique, fun, and challenging. When you saw a game like Tactics Ogre: Let Us Cling Together, you ran into a game that would kick the shit out of you, but have a compelling enough story to make you want to continue. When you saw a game like Final Fantasy VII, you saw a setting that had only rarely been done before.

Now, so many game types have been done to death that there's very little that's actually new anymore. Italian plumber stuck in a kingdom of sentient mushrooms who has to save a princess from a giant snapping turtle? Bizarre, but done. Zombie plague that's been started from a supercorp and must be contained before it spreads to the rest of the world? Cliche now. Member of a random special group who needs to unite the land to face a force that is going to destroy the world/universe? Done to death.

It isn't the baseline games that are the issue anymore, it's the details. Modify a minor detail and you can change the entire face of a game, but designers aren't thinking of that now. Invasion force bent on genocide? What if your race's existence in and of itself is a threat to this invasion force? What if the aliens need your race in order to continue to procreate? Blur the line and the story becomes far more complex than we realize. This is the complexity that we can see in today's games. A depth that could not be explained in only a two hour motion picture. An experience where participating in the game adds to the experience that is the story.

Fighting a war? Give the player the feeling that they are in command. Give the player the feeling that they are making a choice that will affect the future of multiple races and you'll see a major difference between a game and a movie. What would normally just be a compelling story to a moviegoer becomes a real choice for a game player. You aren't just watching someone make a controversial decision; you make that decision and you explore what those consequences are.

 

[putowtin]

No. I recently replayed KOTOR, an even though it's still a really good game, the story and characters aren't as impressive when held up to the standards now set by games like Red Dead: Redemption, Mass Effect and Dragon Age or Heavy Rain.

I have to disagree (politely and all that!) KotoR I and II are game I feel I can always go back to. I'm not saying every game that came out 10 years ago is a classic that should be worshipped but in this age of twenty new releases every week I think there's a who load of rubbish shipped out that 10 years ago wouldn't have been released, because of bugs, poor game design and just general shitness

 

[Wireframefool]

What people need to think about, there were good games made in the past "old games". And there were good games made recently "new games". And there are good games being made now. Its not about which is better, old or new, its that the games them selfs are fun. So if your the kind of guy who hasn't bought a console in 10 years, you can play good games. If your a guy who owns a modern console or pc, guess what, you can play good games too. Its the games that are fun, not the year they were from.

 

[GeneralFungi]

I've only begun playing the original megaman games recently, and I'm having a great time with it. The only thing I had to compare it to was the megaman X games on my ps2... and...

well...

BLECK.

 

[Continuity]

The only way to know for sure that it isn't nostalgia would be to play it now rather then as a child. Seeing on hows that's impossible there is no clear way to know if you truly like it or it's just nostalgia.

Even that wouldn't work are you're now prejudiced by current expectations, you expect certain control conventions, certain gameplay mechanics and certain graphics fidelity. Armed with those expectations you're almost certain to be disappointed with older games, that doesn't mean the older games are not good.

Well I guess it all depends on the person because not everyone expects those certain things.

Well I didn't necessarily mean you consciously expect them, obviously you wouldn't expect SM3 graphics in a game from the eighties or nineties; what I mean is that you've gotten used to modern games and so that will colour your experience of older games.

 

[Sebster 105]

I'm going to bring up some hot topic Chestnuts:
Deus Ex (2000)
GTA4 (2008)
Now, I'm not saying one is better than the other, they're completely different and I'd be a moron for comparing them, but I enjoyed them both to an equal extend, so I'd say no.

 

[Logic 0]

It's a bit of both the nerd has shown that old games weren't always the best and there are some stinkers lately.

 

[TheBaron87]

Back when games couldn't try to be movies they had to actually try to be decent games.

That and gaming was a lot less mainstream, so there wasn't nearly as much homogenized, mass-appeal crap we get today. Of course there were still bad games, just watch AVGN, but they didn't get nearly as much spotlight, and it was the gamers who decided what the good games were, not the publisher's marketing budgets.

 

[Holy_Handgrenade]

They're not better but they're sure not made how they used to.

 

[Continuity]

No. I recently replayed KOTOR, an even though it's still a really good game, the story and characters aren't as impressive when held up to the standards now set by games like Red Dead: Redemption, Mass Effect and Dragon Age or Heavy Rain.

Yeah but you're making a fundamental error there in comparing those games, kotor is an RPG, all the ones you're comparing it to are not, with the exception of DAO... not that I understand why you put DAO in there: the story was awful and the characters ok at best.

Back when games couldn't try to be movies they had to actually try to be decent games.

That and gaming was a lot less mainstream, so there wasn't nearly as much homogenized, mass-appeal crap we get today. Of course there were still bad games, just watch AVGN, but they didn't get nearly as much spotlight, and it was the gamers who decided what the good games were, not the publisher's marketing budgets.

yeah this pretty much hits the nail on the head.

 

[Thundero13]

Zelda Ocarina of time is nothing more than good, it's not great, Majoras Mask is better, Wind Waker is better yet and Twilight Princess is the best, so yes it's juyst the nostalgia talking.