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

[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.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I don't know about better, but it does seem that they had more soul. Or to put it another way, there seemed to be less committee designed sludge, as Yahtzee says, back in the bygone days.

 

[Spineyguy]

I have yet to find a Game I enjoy more than Kirby Superstar.

 

[roastbeefy]

Being slightly younger than a lot of gamers, I can say that this largely isn't true for a lot of games. Chrono Trigger is one of the only JRPGs I've ever beaten, and I only beat it a couple years ago on a rom, having missed out on playing it the first time around. I had no nostalgia for the game, but I still thought it was great. And the same is true for a lot of games I've played the same way, but Chrono Trigger stands out as having become one of my favorite games ever.

 

[k-ossuburb]

I do enjoy starting up the Mega Drive, Master System or Playstation (the original gray brick with the MagicGate still on it for online play that never really happened). Sometimes it's good to just have a blast on MK 1 & 2, Sonic, Afterburner, Soul Reaver, Tomb Raider or any of the other classics I've still got taking up space in my closet.

One I love coming back to has to be WipEout 2097, I was awesome at that game. Heart Of Darkness and Abe's Oddysee are also still as fun as they used to be and I'm surprised I still know most of the combos for Yoshimistu in Tekken 3. I've since migrated to the 360, so I doubt I could actually take anyone on in any of the later versions, but I was half-decent at Tekken 3.

 

[PurplePlatypus]

Most of anything is shit, so most old games are shit.

I think games generally are getting better; at least developers have a lot more knowledge and experience to draw and work from now. There are still some stumbling blocks to go but we have managed to pass a few and games are better for it.

Old gems certainly do exist; maybe even some of the best games are older games. Although that might be due to the fact it takes a bit of hindsight to work out what the best of anything is. We figure out what is great when we look back and it?s hard to say what in the present might one day be seen as great.

 

[SpaceArcader]

That is like saying were films better in the 50s? Our attitudes change throughout the decades but that doesnt mean we cant appreciate them. I do have to admit that I decided to retread the Disney game Hercules just for nostalgia reasons but I just got bored of it. It was quite upsetting because I gave so many hours through that game. Another icon was Crash Bandicoot, he was great in the late 90s but soon after with sequel after sequel it turned stale. That's the same with most franchises that continue to do the same formula. Saw was brilliant but then came the mindless sequels after it. In ways it's good for a franchise to stop, otherwise it will end up like Star Wars, its a great franchise sure but the old trilogy without the added effects or edited scenes (who shoots first dilemma)is the best. Now it's become a cash cow. The point is that each decade something innovating comes along and then like fashion it goes out the way.

 

[Silent Biohazard Solid]

Some older games are better. Some aren't.
The question is, are the old games worse for being old? No, I don't think so.
Sure, we've come a long way, but who cares? What was so bad about turn based battle systems in RPGs? It was just one way of playing a GAME. Games have rules, that one had the rule that fighting will be determined by taking turns. I don't see why people look down on that so much? Let's all play real-time Monopoly!
But then, how many JRPGs do people actually LIKE this generation? There's barely a handful on the PS360. And even then, it's usually like, "It's pretty good. Worth getting. Not amazing."
Whereas, when you take the PSP (or DS maybe?) which have a crapload of RPGs done old school style... Now, back in the day, I've never played Lunar, or Valkyrie Profile, and certainly haven't played the new games like Hexyz Force. Yet all those games are made with 1990's style gameplay conventions, (since most of them are remakes). And since I never played them before, there sure as hell won't be any nostalgia there. And yet, I enjoyed them a hell of a lot more than, say, Resonance of Fate or FFXIII.
That's my one example. I'm not go into the plenty of the other ones I have.
But the point is, the timeless classics didn't become that for being mediocre games. A great game is a great game, no matter which generation it's from.

 

[DelphiSantano]

I'd say it's mainly nostalgia, but I do prefer some older games to newer ones.
Saying that, there are some recent games that I love.
It really depends on the game, and if it's aged well to be honest. If it hasn't then it's definitely nostalgia

 

[lacktheknack]

It was before games started doing stuff I hated (excessively overused multiplayer, giant fall in difficulty, changing from "stylized" to "hyper-realistic"). So I'd consider old games to typically be better, yes.

It's not ALWAYS the case (Titan Quest, Tomb Raider Legend, Psychonauts, Mirror's Edge...).

 

[Continuity]

For most games, I would say that it's just nostalgia. Future sequels in a series, or just games in the same genre released later are often better than those that came before them. For instance, I Wind Waker is still the best of the Zelda games in my opinion. Also, I enjoyed Donkey Kong 64 and Banjo Kazooie far more than I liked Super Mario 64.

Same thing went for the Donkey Kong Country series over the SNES Marios. They're all great games, but if I had to rank them, well..

Sometimes, though, nostalgia MAKES playing something fun. A lot of feelings of old games being superior is just from that fact that the person in question hasnt played said game in years, or cannot. If they actually sat down and played the game, they would see the differences/improvements that have been made since its release. A lot of games we like to play simply because of the nostalgia, and that fact will always make them better to us. It's a mix of both feelings

If this was true I would only enjoy retro games that I'd already played in the past, where as I enjoy playing retro games that I haven't played before. ergo you are wrong, or at least you have a generalisation that isn't universally true.
Anyway, a lot of the differences and so called improvements in modern games are actually changes for the worse. Not all of course but the point still stands IMO. For most genre, the best game of that genre was released in the late 90s to mid 2000's...

 

[BestOfWest]

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.

 

[MrShadowzs]

there are a few that are really good but yeah most of it is nostalgia

 

[Hyper-space]

It would mainly be nostalgia, but I also prefer playing older games for other reasons.

The ones I remember playing and have been playing through recently had nice stories and gameplay, and instead of alot of them being very similar to mainstream games (CoD clones and the like)

Also some games are classic, that everyone loves and remembers that haven't had anything similar in recent times (Hogs of War springs to mind)

It seems that older games also don't try to copy other games to make a profit as much.

The reason why you think so is because you do not remember any of the bad games/cash-ins. Just as it is with music, films and art, we only remember that which is WORTH remembering, with time brushing aside all the crap from our memories. Everyone at the time of which some of the classics were made said exactly the same thing as you, "too many X clones/games were better back then", because they (at the moment) are experiencing the same thing that happens with every medium and it is only later on when you will look back and see only good games.

With more and more games being released, i would dare say that we will see more great games that will be remembered. Sure, with more video-games comes more crap, but that is true of every medium. You always remember the past as much better than it really was, how was the popularity of doom or quake any different from Halo or CoD? all mindless shooters if you ask me. I remember looking through the shelfs at my local game store back in the days, finding a lot of shit and blatant cash-ins. Hell, i even remember back in the PS2 days how many crap games i played, most of which i just completely forgot (went through my old games collection) as the only games i remember were the good ones.

The past, no matter what time-period, is always the golden age.

 

[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.

 

[Continuity]

It would mainly be nostalgia, but I also prefer playing older games for other reasons.

The ones I remember playing and have been playing through recently had nice stories and gameplay, and instead of alot of them being very similar to mainstream games (CoD clones and the like)

Also some games are classic, that everyone loves and remembers that haven't had anything similar in recent times (Hogs of War springs to mind)

It seems that older games also don't try to copy other games to make a profit as much.

The reason why you think so is because you do not remember any of the bad games/cash-ins. Just as it is with music, films and art, we only remember that which is WORTH remembering, with time brushing aside all the crap from our memories. Everyone at the time of which some of the classics were made said exactly the same thing as you, "too many X clones/games were better back then", because they (at the moment) are experiencing the same thing that happens with every medium and it is only later on when you will look back and see only good games.

Yeah, I remember back in the late 90's there were so many C&C clones that is was almost a joke... no one seems to remember that.

 

[irishladdie727]

I'm in the midst of playing Deus Ex for the first time right now and I can say without a doubt that it's the greatest game of all time and that older games are largely better. Games were great when it was a large smattering of small, creative studios trying to do fun, interesting things with a new medium. As said new medium gained in popularity, and therefore monetary viability, corporate interests became involved and now the vast majority of games are put out by large super-publishers as a means to an end (getting your money quickly).

Sony and Microsoft ARE NOT full time games publishers, they are enormous media corporations that publish games, and so the games they put out are only as valuable as the money their shareholders predict they're going to make. So most games for PS3 and Xbox 360, which just so happen to be the consoles with the best technology, will be bland, generic, derivative, and predictable, until consumer interests radically change and ten or so years are provided for the suits to notice said change.

Nintendo actually used to be one of the fun creative studios and many of the people working there, particularly Miyamoto, retain that spirit, but they are deathly afraid of change, despite what the Wii, DS, and 3DS might suggest. The creative direction at Nintendo is overseen the same cabal of eight or so Japanese guys it was in the eighties, and that's not going to change. Right now, if Miyamoto were to suddenly die today, there would be no Nintendo tomorrow. Their entire economic model is rehashing franchises he invented plus Pokemon. Every time we say old games are better, we reinforce their fear of true innovation. New technology is one thing, but new franchises, new forms of gameplay, new genres? Absolutely not. So while old games may indeed be better, the people who made them need to grow up if we're ever going to get more classics. I don't think we'll ever stop seeing Mario or Link, and I don't think we ever truly would want to, but Nintendo could be so much more than just the company that makes Miyamoto's games.

Activision and EA are the epitome of evil corporate games machines, and as long as you keep buying the shit they put out, they'll keep putting out more shit. Oh, and buying out good studios and stealing their souls.

However, PC publishers like Valve and the scattered disciples of Warren Spector, as well as the entirety of the Indie Games scene are all making great games right now and have the right idea, and if video games can work past their weird corporate adolescence, the "by gamers for gamers" future is on the horizon with these kind of people in charge.

tl;dr video games were fun until YOU started paying for them