Are older games better? Or is that just the Nostalgia talking?
- Thread starter Ixnay1111
- Start date
no older games are not better, but an older games are good to play to see where certain things come from.
and well, if a game is fun when it came out, its going to be fun no matter what, even if it does require you to think about it differently and expect less (like perhaps playing the sequel to a game then playing the original)
and well, if a game is fun when it came out, its going to be fun no matter what, even if it does require you to think about it differently and expect less (like perhaps playing the sequel to a game then playing the original)
I believe it's partway nostalgia talking. I've played some pretty awesome games that have come out in the past ten or so years, but because of the great memories I have surrounding games I played when I was a kid, they will always hold a special place in my heart.
Also, when you do a comparison within a single franchise, you might find its past versions were much more challenging and engaging than its current. I feel like side-scroller versions of the Mario franchise were far more challenging than the 3D games today because you had fewer options for avoiding death. If you like the kind of challenge that leaves you screaming in frustration until you finally get it right--at which point you give a scream of triumph--then a lot of the oldschool games probably would seem better.
Also, when you do a comparison within a single franchise, you might find its past versions were much more challenging and engaging than its current. I feel like side-scroller versions of the Mario franchise were far more challenging than the 3D games today because you had fewer options for avoiding death. If you like the kind of challenge that leaves you screaming in frustration until you finally get it right--at which point you give a scream of triumph--then a lot of the oldschool games probably would seem better.
I think there many psone/2 games that are still amazing. In fact I find myself playing more psone/2games than ever before. Mostly due to being so focused on the pc back when the ps2 came out so only now am I discovering games like dragon quest 8 and silent hill or shadow hearts and fatal frame.
Even with super mario brothers. I prefer SMB3 over NSMB wii.
Even with super mario brothers. I prefer SMB3 over NSMB wii.
For me, it was the nostalgia talking with some of the old games I've re-played.
Case in point, Spyro the Dragon. I've always considered it to be my most favorite game of all time. Mostly because it was the first game I've ever beaten. Until I've downloaded it from the PSN that is.
It was still a very good game, but it hasn't aged too well. The camera wasn't all that cooperative, the jumps are VERY precise later on in the game, and it was a lot shorter than I remembered it. Not to mention the story was almost non-existent.
It was than that I knocked Spyro down my most favorite game list and brought Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee up. When it first came out, I never finished the game. So I bought the game again just to get some closure in my gaming life. And HOT DAMN was it a good game. Sure, the controls are slightly delayed, and it was ridiculously hard in some areas. But the game was quite fun and challenging, and had an interesting story. I actually found myself enjoying it a lot more than Spyro. Which was kind of odd. (Pun not intended)
So yeah, my point is that we often see some of our older games as great simply due to nostalgia. Since than, our tastes for games may have changed, and they may not be as fun as we found them in our childhood. I still appreciate Spyro the Dragon for making me the gamer I am today, but it wasn't exactly the holy grail of gaming I thought it was back than.
Case in point, Spyro the Dragon. I've always considered it to be my most favorite game of all time. Mostly because it was the first game I've ever beaten. Until I've downloaded it from the PSN that is.
It was still a very good game, but it hasn't aged too well. The camera wasn't all that cooperative, the jumps are VERY precise later on in the game, and it was a lot shorter than I remembered it. Not to mention the story was almost non-existent.
It was than that I knocked Spyro down my most favorite game list and brought Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee up. When it first came out, I never finished the game. So I bought the game again just to get some closure in my gaming life. And HOT DAMN was it a good game. Sure, the controls are slightly delayed, and it was ridiculously hard in some areas. But the game was quite fun and challenging, and had an interesting story. I actually found myself enjoying it a lot more than Spyro. Which was kind of odd. (Pun not intended)
So yeah, my point is that we often see some of our older games as great simply due to nostalgia. Since than, our tastes for games may have changed, and they may not be as fun as we found them in our childhood. I still appreciate Spyro the Dragon for making me the gamer I am today, but it wasn't exactly the holy grail of gaming I thought it was back than.
Thats a bad example because if you were around for the NES you should know that there was SO MUCH CRAP like Wii shovel ware x3. The NES you needed like i buying guider to avoid all the crap, so picking a random game isint the best example.ten.to.ten said:
As for the op. Ummmm. I still love my od games. Final FAntasy 1-9 are still amazing to this day because the story is what drives it not the gameplay. If the gameplay is what made it great then it will age most of time beside for say Castelvania or metriod. I still play Resident evil 1-3 but am sure if somone played them now theyed be crap.
New games are fantastic! we have it so good this generation.
Armored core 4 and For answers with Armored core 5 incoming.
We got KOF13, resident Evil 5, DMC4 (screw the reboot) we got starcraft 2.
Its a wonderful world!
this has probably been mentioned before but the average game has at least stayed constant and probably gotten better, but when we look back on older games we tend not to remember the forgettable shit and only remember the system shock 2s or the deus exs, so it seems like all older games are amazing.
There are some games that are simply timeless. However for the most part, it tends to be the nostalgia talking. If you want to test it, take a genre your very familar with. For this test I will use RPGs. Now find an example of an old game of that type that was not considered a classic (Original Final fantasys, Dragon WARRIOR, etc) that you did not play when it was new.
For this test I will use Lufia. Now In playing Lufia I can get past the Snes level graphics with no problem. However what stops me are the mechanics of the game and how certain modern conventions that are now commonplace in games of a similar type today had yet to be conceived in that day and age. It also shines the light on inherent flaws in game mechanics that have been weened out of games since because they werent enjoyable and did not enhance the experience So we do not use them any more. (another good example of this is Vagrant story. While I loved the plot of Vagrant story, the fact that the cameras rotation is controlled by shoulder buttons instead of an analog stick renders the game unplayable for me)
Next look at the story of it. without the nostalgia effect I know I find myself laughing at how bad the dialog seems now and how nonsensical the plot seems. However I know I will typically replay and beat Final fantasy 1 or 3(us) roughly once a year and am infinitely more forgiving of the sillier aspects of each.
Dont get me wrong, I still enjoy old school games. Hell Ill waste a few hours a week playing something like Berzerk, Dig dug or Joust for chits and giggles. But I can tell it is mostly just trying to recapture a small piece of the enjoyment I got from those same titles so long ago.
I know everyone is different but I can tell at least for me that nostalgia makes me much more forgiving of old titles that I enjoyed when I was younger.
For this test I will use Lufia. Now In playing Lufia I can get past the Snes level graphics with no problem. However what stops me are the mechanics of the game and how certain modern conventions that are now commonplace in games of a similar type today had yet to be conceived in that day and age. It also shines the light on inherent flaws in game mechanics that have been weened out of games since because they werent enjoyable and did not enhance the experience So we do not use them any more. (another good example of this is Vagrant story. While I loved the plot of Vagrant story, the fact that the cameras rotation is controlled by shoulder buttons instead of an analog stick renders the game unplayable for me)
Next look at the story of it. without the nostalgia effect I know I find myself laughing at how bad the dialog seems now and how nonsensical the plot seems. However I know I will typically replay and beat Final fantasy 1 or 3(us) roughly once a year and am infinitely more forgiving of the sillier aspects of each.
Dont get me wrong, I still enjoy old school games. Hell Ill waste a few hours a week playing something like Berzerk, Dig dug or Joust for chits and giggles. But I can tell it is mostly just trying to recapture a small piece of the enjoyment I got from those same titles so long ago.
I know everyone is different but I can tell at least for me that nostalgia makes me much more forgiving of old titles that I enjoyed when I was younger.
See the problem(so to say) is that what we most remember are the really good stuff. It's the same reason people always say "Movies were alot better during Era-X", simply because alot of the bad stuff has kinda drifted into obscurity.
Now alot of old games DO still hold up and are alot of fun. I dare anyone to say they still wouldn't enjoy Super Mario Bros.3 if they sat down to play it again for instance.
I do say, personally, that games are getting better and better. Things do change but they also need to. It's just the nature of things.
Some changes we like, some like say QTE's most of us feel we could do without.
Now alot of old games DO still hold up and are alot of fun. I dare anyone to say they still wouldn't enjoy Super Mario Bros.3 if they sat down to play it again for instance.
I do say, personally, that games are getting better and better. Things do change but they also need to. It's just the nature of things.
Some changes we like, some like say QTE's most of us feel we could do without.
Wanna bet? Have you seen the library of games for the NES wanna know how much is trash? Mabey lets take a gander at the N64, Sega CD, 3D0!. Stop acting like todays games are so terrble.Zeithri said:
Theres a saying and it goes somthing like "when you look back you only see the good and never remember the bad" Thats exactly what your doing here, think for a second.
I with confidence say that the 4th and 5th generation of consoles had FAR more terrible games and even consoles compared to the 6th and 7th generation. Take of those glasses.
I love old platform games, they just aren't made anymore. I can see why, a 2d platformer would look pathetic graphically next to a Final Fantasy game or something but I love them. The old FPS games like Hexen or Quake are enjoyable too but I think that is mostly nostalgia.
Well, it's a bit of both.
In general, games have gotten much better as time has moved on - computing power has increased and imaginations have given players new and incredible experiences. Brand new stories and worlds come out all the time, and have reached the level of graphical awesomeness that can help make it truly immersive.
So, if this is true, why do so many people prefer old games?
I believe the reasons are twofold.
1 - Old games were simpler.
This is true no matter how you slice it - graphics were simpler, conflict was simpler (not easier, mind you), music - just due to the limitations of what was available. And simplicity is easy to remember. Think, if you will, of two CDs - one of, say, a soundtrack composed by John Williams, and one of children's songs. Which are you more likely to remember? The kid's songs, because they're simpler. Nobody's arguing that John Williams is worse, but it can be a bit of sensory overload - just like games today. Think of the last FPS you played. Was it full of gunfights and loud noises and visually stimulating graphics? Yep. And it overwhelms you. You get lost in it - not immersed.
2 - We played old games in our youth, and we tend to have fond memories of our youth.
Point in case - One of the first games we ever had was Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (No, I'm not really that young, my parents just didn't like games for a long time). I loved that game. Last year, I bought it on Ebay just because of nostalgia. I still like to play it, but I realized that it wasn't as fun as I remembered. See, most people idolize what was in their youth - if everything was better when you were younger, then you must be better, too. So today's kids will grow up thinking that "FPS CLONE 8" is the best game ever, but their kids will (probably) be correct in thinking that games made for them are, in general, better.
However, there is one big caveat. Many games today are clones - or, rather, poor imitations of games that have done well. This is one of the biggest arguments against games being better today, and it's not without merit. The fact is, while there were clones in earlier games, many were fresh ideas and stories that were incredibly interesting. Today, games tend to stick to what is known to sell. This may be because games now have budgets that eclipse some small nations total economies.
So: tl;dr - Most of it is nostalgia, but there are certainly cases to be made that old games could be better than today's.
In general, games have gotten much better as time has moved on - computing power has increased and imaginations have given players new and incredible experiences. Brand new stories and worlds come out all the time, and have reached the level of graphical awesomeness that can help make it truly immersive.
So, if this is true, why do so many people prefer old games?
I believe the reasons are twofold.
1 - Old games were simpler.
This is true no matter how you slice it - graphics were simpler, conflict was simpler (not easier, mind you), music - just due to the limitations of what was available. And simplicity is easy to remember. Think, if you will, of two CDs - one of, say, a soundtrack composed by John Williams, and one of children's songs. Which are you more likely to remember? The kid's songs, because they're simpler. Nobody's arguing that John Williams is worse, but it can be a bit of sensory overload - just like games today. Think of the last FPS you played. Was it full of gunfights and loud noises and visually stimulating graphics? Yep. And it overwhelms you. You get lost in it - not immersed.
2 - We played old games in our youth, and we tend to have fond memories of our youth.
Point in case - One of the first games we ever had was Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 (No, I'm not really that young, my parents just didn't like games for a long time). I loved that game. Last year, I bought it on Ebay just because of nostalgia. I still like to play it, but I realized that it wasn't as fun as I remembered. See, most people idolize what was in their youth - if everything was better when you were younger, then you must be better, too. So today's kids will grow up thinking that "FPS CLONE 8" is the best game ever, but their kids will (probably) be correct in thinking that games made for them are, in general, better.
However, there is one big caveat. Many games today are clones - or, rather, poor imitations of games that have done well. This is one of the biggest arguments against games being better today, and it's not without merit. The fact is, while there were clones in earlier games, many were fresh ideas and stories that were incredibly interesting. Today, games tend to stick to what is known to sell. This may be because games now have budgets that eclipse some small nations total economies.
So: tl;dr - Most of it is nostalgia, but there are certainly cases to be made that old games could be better than today's.
This is going to be a very subjective post, but with a topic like this, what can you do?
Short answer: yes, older games are generally better.
Clarification: Let's look at the AAA titles of ye olden days: Diablo 2, System Shock 2, C&C (before it went to shit, thanks to EA killing Westwood), Dungeon Keeper 2, Tomb Raider (yes, this was good back in the day, or it might have just really appealed to my 12 year old self for some reason...), Thief, Baldur's Gate, Master of Orion, Civilization, Deus Ex, Warcraft3+TFT, Silent Hill, Half Life, etc.
You may not like some of these, a perfectly valid opinion, but can anybody deny that these are now considered classic games? Some had amazing stories (Warcraft, Deus Ex, Silent Hill), some had horribly addictive gameplay (Diablo, Master of Orion, Civ), some were just hilarious (C&C, Dungeon Keeper), and others just revolutionized their genres (Thief, Deus Ex, Half-Life). Can today's greyish-brown CoD clone brigade claim anything similar? Entertaining multiplayer isn't anything new, Diablo2 showed us how that's done back in 2000! Cathartic shooty-upy? Doom, Serious Sam, etc did it better. Scripted missions to enhance immersion? Half-Life, nothing else needs to be said. Characterization and character interaction? Baldur's Gate, Warcraft, Deus Ex.
There's obviously some nostalgia here, but looking back (and ignoring the often hideous graphics), you'll that the big titles of their time were just more interesting than today's equivalent. Don't get me wrong, I had plenty of fun with Red Dead Redemption, but I'll take Vice City over it any day! Mass Effect? Let's ignore the planet sized plot holes, and it is indeed a good rpg, but it doesn't hold a candle to Deus Ex, another shooty-rpgy hybrid thing.
Short answer: yes, older games are generally better.
Clarification: Let's look at the AAA titles of ye olden days: Diablo 2, System Shock 2, C&C (before it went to shit, thanks to EA killing Westwood), Dungeon Keeper 2, Tomb Raider (yes, this was good back in the day, or it might have just really appealed to my 12 year old self for some reason...), Thief, Baldur's Gate, Master of Orion, Civilization, Deus Ex, Warcraft3+TFT, Silent Hill, Half Life, etc.
You may not like some of these, a perfectly valid opinion, but can anybody deny that these are now considered classic games? Some had amazing stories (Warcraft, Deus Ex, Silent Hill), some had horribly addictive gameplay (Diablo, Master of Orion, Civ), some were just hilarious (C&C, Dungeon Keeper), and others just revolutionized their genres (Thief, Deus Ex, Half-Life). Can today's greyish-brown CoD clone brigade claim anything similar? Entertaining multiplayer isn't anything new, Diablo2 showed us how that's done back in 2000! Cathartic shooty-upy? Doom, Serious Sam, etc did it better. Scripted missions to enhance immersion? Half-Life, nothing else needs to be said. Characterization and character interaction? Baldur's Gate, Warcraft, Deus Ex.
There's obviously some nostalgia here, but looking back (and ignoring the often hideous graphics), you'll that the big titles of their time were just more interesting than today's equivalent. Don't get me wrong, I had plenty of fun with Red Dead Redemption, but I'll take Vice City over it any day! Mass Effect? Let's ignore the planet sized plot holes, and it is indeed a good rpg, but it doesn't hold a candle to Deus Ex, another shooty-rpgy hybrid thing.
In the case of super mario legend of the seven stars, simply a better game. Oh square, why won't you give us Geno? Are you worried that nintendo will throw away his character and turn him into a joke they way they did bowser? .... wait, maybe it is better that Geno isn't mixed up with some of that stuff...
could be the nostalgia talking, but sometimes the genres themselves were a little better. A lot of the turn based RPGs today look a little too samey for me. I mean, i know there is tons of innovation, like when you consider everything Shim Megami tensei has done.
Like I said, could be nostalgia, but other than Lost Kingdoms, i haven't played a game that made me actually feel like I was having an adventure since Quest 64. But then again, the large environments were all necessary. You stray off the path, you find secret rewards, stronger enemies, level up, awesome. in Red dead, I'm on horseback for half an hour and nothing happens. No interesting fighting because the random guy is taken down with a single shot, and then stuff happens, I die, I'm half an hour away again, and i'm like 'screw it.' (I've only played the game for brief intervals at friend's houses and do honestly want the game, but geeze it doesn't exactly feel like an adventure when its that big.)
Granted I'm older now... maybe its harder for imagination to be captured when your a college student with only half hour intervals to play games rather than a ten year old sitting in a messy room with your brother and litterally playing a game for 7 hours a day.
could be the nostalgia talking, but sometimes the genres themselves were a little better. A lot of the turn based RPGs today look a little too samey for me. I mean, i know there is tons of innovation, like when you consider everything Shim Megami tensei has done.
Like I said, could be nostalgia, but other than Lost Kingdoms, i haven't played a game that made me actually feel like I was having an adventure since Quest 64. But then again, the large environments were all necessary. You stray off the path, you find secret rewards, stronger enemies, level up, awesome. in Red dead, I'm on horseback for half an hour and nothing happens. No interesting fighting because the random guy is taken down with a single shot, and then stuff happens, I die, I'm half an hour away again, and i'm like 'screw it.' (I've only played the game for brief intervals at friend's houses and do honestly want the game, but geeze it doesn't exactly feel like an adventure when its that big.)
Granted I'm older now... maybe its harder for imagination to be captured when your a college student with only half hour intervals to play games rather than a ten year old sitting in a messy room with your brother and litterally playing a game for 7 hours a day.