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

[TheFuzz]

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.

This.

Honestly, what was fun yesterday is still fun today. I've had a lot of people talk about how much better games have become that can't put the controller down when I let them play Super Mario Bros. The standards for what makes a story good, or what gameplay mechanic is fun don't really change over time. This isn't always the case of course, games like Goldeneye certainly haven't aged well and are almost unplayable compared to more modern shooters (IMO, of course). Overall though, if you let yourself get past the graphics and sound, you can lose yourself in a game from any era.

That isn't to say modern games aren't good. There are still gems, as there have always been. The overall standard for certain genres have even got much better. The problem I find, is that as gaming becomes more mainstream, game publishers tend to dumb them down to appeal to a more broad audience. Mass Effect, for example, went from a decent RPG with great story and tacked on shooter to a very generic 3rd person shooter with boring, linear gameplay and a still very good story. I enjoyed the game, but strictly for the storyline. It's become less about making a great game than making a great selling game.

This is my opinion, of course, but I find the current gen of gaming to be much less appealing that any previous gen. The tools a developer has to tell a story, or to create a fun atmosphere are greater than ever before, but are underutilized by so many companies these days in favor of commercial success.

 

[sumanoskae]

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.

DAO is a matter of opinion and I'm not going to change yours. Some people apparently like Final Fantasy... I don't get it but whatever

An RPG does not imply a great story, nor does a game need to be an RPG to have one.

Even if they did, so what?. If RPG's did have inherently better stories, then that would only make the other two games I listed more impressive for their accomplishments.

Also, technically Mass Effect is an RPG

 

[sumanoskae]

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

As evidenced I can go back to them as well, but I'm not going to pretend that they don't make me appreciate the innovations made by newer games. It has less to do with the games themselves, and more to do with the times they released in.

For example; In KOTOR you interact with a great many aliens, and each of the races has about four or five pieces of random word mashing that serve as the language you hear as you read text. I don't think this was just done to accurately display the Star Wars universe, as it also saves a great deal of money on voice acting they'll never need. Mass Effect is fully voiced not necessarily out of just creative difference, but Mass Effect just has better technology backing it, not because it's a batter mad game, it's just newer, and expectations are higher

 

[Nazulu]

I read something about looking back at classic rock, and I think it applies here. When you turn on a classic rock station, if you're into classic rock, you might think, "wow, all the songs in the late 70's-80's were phenomenal, not repetitive mundane crap like what's on the radio now." The problem is, that's not the only stuff that radios were playing back in the day, that's just what gets remembered 'cause they were great. When you think of old games you're probably thinking of the Zelda's, the Mario 3's and the Contra's....What gets lost to oblivion are the cheap clones and poorly coded mediocre knock-offs that were probably just as prevalent as they are today. The article stressed the point by saying something like, the year Gimme Shelter was released, the top song was something like, Sugar Sugar....That hurts. Sadly, I can't remember where the hell I read all this.... Oh well, food for thought

I see this point brought up very often on topics like this and the first thing that comes to my head is that there isn't anything like: Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Rolling Stones, Mahavishnu Orchestra, ELP, Queen, Pink Floyd, AC/DC, Metallica, Aerosmith, Iron Maiden, ABBA, Black Sabbath, Rush, Yes, Ozzy Osbourne, Alice Cooper, Meat Loaf, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Judas Priest, David Bowie, Jethro Tull, The Doors, Bob Dylan, Guns N Roses, Eric Clapton, The Who, Renaissance, Mike Oldfield, Stevie Wonder, The Eagles, Joni Mitchell, etc. anything like that today.

Sorry, don't mean to sound like an ass but there isn't. Don't nostalgia me, I wasn't around back then.

With gaming though it's different, but still haven't played anything like: Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, Link to the Past, Donkey Kong Country, Lineage 2 (early chronicles), SSB Melee, Perfect Dark, Total Annihilation, Red Alert 2, Half-Life 2, Mario Kart 64, Lylat Wars, Carmaggedon 2, Diablo 2, Road Rash, Mischief Makers, Abes Odyssey, Turtles in Time, Spectre, Starcraft, Metroid Prime, etc. for a while now.

I'm very sure people are thinking of the sequels but I didn't like them. In fact, I go back to these games every now and again because I can't find anything I'm interested in. In fact again, I'm buying all the other classic games that I missed out on like Ico & SotC. I would kill you all for another Melee or Lineage 2.

 

[hermes]

snip

Megaman
Metroid
Ninja Gaiden
Trojan
Bubble Bobble
Paperboy
Zelda
Fire Emblem
Robowarrior
Final Fantasy
Batman (Batman 2: Return of the Joker)
Ys
Wonderboy in Wonderland (was it named that?)
Contra
Swordmas-

Sorry, do you want me to go on?

No thanks, but here is the second part of my question. Name 10 good games of 1984. 1986? 1987? Now try 2007...

The reasons that last one is easier are because: 2007 is more recent, and the list you gave me before compresses a couple decades of games (Fire Emblem is from 1990, Return of the Joker is from 91, FF and Contra are from 87 and Zelda is from 85). Of course there were a lot of good games back then, but also a lot of garbage (which we forget because they are... well, garbage). Seen that way, I could also name 10 pretty good games of the 2000s which would make the point about old games being better void.

Ironically, I don't remember any of the games that were released 2007.
And you're just nitpicking now. This list is based on games that I find good and those that I have played.

1987
Castlevania
The Goonies II
Kid Icarus
Legend of Zelda
Metroid
Mega Man
Mike Tyson's Punch Out
Section Z
Top Gun
Trojan

Now, looking up 2007. . .
Contra 4 (Whoo!!)
Crysis
Death Note Kira Game
Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock
Megaman ZX Advent
R-Type Command
Timeshift

7 games in 2007 and 10 games in 1987.
You know, I find it funny how you claim that we "forget" that the games were garbage because..
No, we didn't. We remember them and we don't play them. Saying that we forget that there were crappy games back then is just ... ~sigh~

You know what, go ahead and play the games yourself :3
Because by the end of the day, this is what it is all about and let me spell it out for you because there seem to be sooo much confusion on this forum about this;

It's all a matter of taste. Not nostalgia.
Go and play one of the games or more, then make up your own mind.​

Really? No Portal? No Bioshock? No Team Fortress 2, Persona 3, Halo 3, Modern Warfare, Mass Effect, Sam & Max, Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted, Assassins Creed, Rock Band or Super Mario Galaxy?
Nevermind, it is obvious you know and enjoy plenty of old school games (I wouldn't menction Contra 4 on the 2007 list), and more power to you. I also will admit I was being nitpicking...
But I still stick to my opinion on this topic... Most people that say "old games were better" know few old games.
Ask them about the 70s and most will say Galaga, Pacman and Pong (sure, they were pretty good games, but an entire decade and just 3 games?). The fact that most examples used to support that point are spread among 10 years, but when they compare them to modern games people don't see past the last 6 months, makes the whole discussion invalid.

 

[Slaanax]

The best older games are better than some of the newer games, but the best older movies and better than a lot of the newer movies, the best old tv shows are better than and so and so on. Classics are classic for a reason, but over all the quality of games are probably going up.

 

[Atmos Duality]

"By today's standards"...now there's a statement that is both generalized and largely meaningless since it covers so many potential topics without actually addressing them. (Standards compared to what? Facebook games? Xbox 360/PS3? Nintendo's Casual-Market-Money-Milker? PC gaming? What genre? Genres have individual standards too.)

Certainly, some older games do things better than today's games even beyond the realm of nostalgia. And they also do many things strictly worse. (Leading to the fallacious style of thinking such as "3D is strictly better than 2D. Always." Popular, perhaps. Objectively better? Very much no. Many "3D" games effectively play in 2D even today.)

It's rather telling when today's games are technically superior in every way conceivable, and yet most of them remain incredibly shallow anyway. Despite the market being more "diverse", many of the biggest games are direct clones of each other (either via sequels or market exploitation).

 

[Falseprophet]

It's probably both. I think the problem is the inflated budgets of AAA titles these days. Everything is a huge production with movie-like cutscenes and voice-acted dialogue and orchestrated music that takes hundreds of staff and millions of dollars to produce, so studios and publishers have to cater to the largest possible audience to make a profit. So most high-profile releases today are the equivalent of a Michael Bay or Zack Snyder production: stylish, maybe even fun and exciting, but weak on substance.

The industry needs a middle ground--where are the Aronofsky/Tarantino/Rodriguez-style productions? Smaller budgets and staff, but able to appeal to niche audiences because the risks are smaller? I think there's a definite hunger for that kind of product, and probably platforms like XBLA/PSN/Steam/smartphones are where it will come from.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The industry needs a middle ground--where are the Aronofsky/Tarantino/Rodriguez-style productions? Smaller budgets and staff, but able to appeal to niche audiences because the risks are smaller? I think there's a definite hunger for that kind of product, and probably platforms like XBLA/PSN/Steam/smartphones are where it will come from.

Indeed.
"Niche" is a dirty word in the AAA industry. Investors never want to hear or see it; they would rather just bludgeon the customers with their generic "Michael Bay" (as you put it) product and hope that the market eventually changes to suit *their* needs.

This is why most games can never become "art". Business trumps art, because art doesn't consistently turn the big bucks.

 

[StriderShinryu]

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.

This is a very good point. It's the in thing these days to complain about too many games being "brown" FPSers, that too many games have space marines or that the Wii library is all shovelware. While that may be true in someone's personal perspective, it's often used to compare todays games to those that came before but, in reality, the previous generations were largely just as bad.

Sure Mario Zelda and Metroid were great, but the 8Bit days had absolutely crap tons of terrible licensed games and platformer clones to name just a couple of trends. The same was true of the 16bit era where almost every game that was released was a generic JRPG cloning the FF series, a character based platformer cloning Mario/Sonic or a bland sports game.

We always remember the classic games and our childhood favourites as shining examples of what used to be so great about gaming, but in doing so we gloss over the glut of me-too crap that filled 90% of the library of every single videogame era.

 

[Weaver]

I feel like older games were actually GAMES.
For insance, Asteroids lays out the rules of the game (rotate, shoot, move) and an objective (get a high score as possible by shooting asteroids) in an isolated environment. This simple ruleset makes the game, and tactics develop from it.

This same thing happens in any MOBA type game. Define objectives for both teams, give them a means to accomplish it, let them play. From this incredibly complex strategies can develop.

Modern games tend to focus on delivering to the player a story. This isn't bad, but I feel a lot of them simply throw in gameplay because we expect it to be there. With a few and quite notable exceptions, it seems that we have the game and the story pretty much isolated from one another.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I love playing older games but I cant really say why.

How old are we talking about.
I've been playing since the atari/intellivision days and I have to say that the past 15 years have really matured the industry in the sense that there's so much more you can do/so many different things to play.
I still remember the old NES games fondly but they aren't as good as the best from these days.
However, I do feel that the previous generation of games were much more inventive, fun, and came in a wider variety that we see with this gen.
I liked my favorite games of last gen (San Andreas, Burnout Revenge, Katamari, Dawn of War) a lot more than my favorites from this gen (Fallout 3, Warhawk, Valkyria Chronicles).

 

[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.

DAO is a matter of opinion and I'm not going to change yours. Some people apparently like Final Fantasy... I don't get it but whatever

An RPG does not imply a great story, nor does a game need to be an RPG to have one.

Even if they did, so what?. If RPG's did have inherently better stories, then that would only make the other two games I listed more impressive for their accomplishments.

Also, technically Mass Effect is an RPG

Agreed DAO is a matter of opinion, there are many people who laud various aspects of the game that I don't like including the story, though I have to say in my own opinion its competent at best.

However I think you may have slightly misunderstood my comments about kotor being an RPG, the point i was trying to make is that RPGs are not necessarily so much about the story, though admittedly its an important part, RPGs are primarily about building customised characters and fitting them out with various loot and equipment.
On this basis I don't think its fair to say that the story and characters of an RPG can be measured up against adventure and action adventure games which live and die by those elements. A story enables and RPG but its not a story that makes an RPG.

I wont get into the debate about mass effect being an RPG, suffice to say it ticks many of the boxes and but not all. I personally enjoyed mass effect a lot and although its a bit short I think its a great game. Perhaps we could agree on it being a hybrid RPG with some elements simpler than you might expect from a traditional RPG, though thats probably inevitable given the genre it crosses i.e. action adventure, cover shooter, and RPG.
I'd also say that the RPG element of mass effect is probably its least important aspect which is perhaps why it has been toned down in the sequel (apparently, though I haven't played it).

 

[reddfawks]

Can't answer. Too busy playing Super Mario 64. =P

 

[hermes]

It's probably both. I think the problem is the inflated budgets of AAA titles these days. Everything is a huge production with movie-like cutscenes and voice-acted dialogue and orchestrated music that takes hundreds of staff and millions of dollars to produce, so studios and publishers have to cater to the largest possible audience to make a profit. So most high-profile releases today are the equivalent of a Michael Bay or Zack Snyder production: stylish, maybe even fun and exciting, but weak on substance.

The industry needs a middle ground--where are the Aronofsky/Tarantino/Rodriguez-style productions? Smaller budgets and staff, but able to appeal to niche audiences because the risks are smaller? I think there's a definite hunger for that kind of product, and probably platforms like XBLA/PSN/Steam/smartphones are where it will come from.

You are talking about the indie realm. Yes, I agree. Huge budget made the games too safe to take risks and really innovate. In order to see some real innovation, indie is your best choice.

 

[Perplexed]

When someone thinks older games, I'd imagine they think about good older games. When someone things new games, it's likely they bunch together all the new games rather then pick and choosing as they did when they thought older games.

I wonder how much interaction is actually required of me.

 

[katsumoto03]

Not always, but usually. About 80% of all old games that are so much "better" than modern ones are shit viewed through nostalgia-coated spectacles.

 

[Perplexed]

I suppose that may or may not have something to do with the number of games that are coming out these years compared to yesteryears, but all in all it'd be strange to say modern things falter in comparison to younger things. Perhaps they lack the depth that used to be put into games, perhaps not. I wouldn't know.