How Do We Judge Old Games?

[DoPo]

Considering newer games tend to be judged with different elements (like sound, replayability, etc.), you cannot do that with old games considering they will likely lose against newer standards.

That's making a big assumption there that the old games are worse or the new ones are better and several others. Why would an old game lose on playability? I'm still replaying Might and Magic 7 to this day (and it wasn't even new when I started it off) and I've played Heroes 3 more than any three other games combined. I'm unlikely to replay Prototype soon, though, if ever.

Same thing with sound - unless you go really way back, when the sound was pretty much a collection of chirps and whistles, then, yes, it may not fare well against somebody using a whole philharmonia for their soundtrack. Then again, I have Super Mario Brothers's soundtrack in my playlist right now[footnote]Also, Quake 3's, Crimsonland's (from version 1.3.0 and 1.9.8), and Death Illistrated's soundracks. For reference. [/footnote]. But go a bit forward, and Arcanum's soundtrack is fucking beautiful. I played the game for the first time this year, too.

So, while it may be possible that an old game doesn't do well compared to modern standards, it also depends on who is looking at it. I would say that, yes, the graphics may look worse and the UI may be...old but other than that, I'm perfectly capable and willing to judge a game on its own. I'll not go "well, that sound is utter crap compared to Oblivion" or whatever.

 

[Xangba]

I'd say judge them by standards of the time. It's not really fair to judge something based on modern technology when it didn't exist or was prohibitively expensive at the time. Funny thing is in my mind is that despite graphics several older games still manage to beat modern ones, even by todays standards. And that is sad.

 

[Fasckira]

-snip-

Through sufficiently thick rimmed rose-tinted glasses, its the only way!

I think you can judge an old game on graphics assuming you're comparing it to the graphic standard at that time. Beyond that, its as you say - story, gameplay, mechanics etc.

 

[thespyisdead]

i hear "what a game from 99? the graphics are shit" from what i can only describe as modern gamers. they have obviously never played Unreal Tournament. so effin what if the graphics are shit! the game play rocks!

also, if you are one of those who push for HD remakes: you do not enjoy the game for what it is, because it can kick ass with turn of the millenuim graphics

 

[BeeGeenie]

How do we judge old games? With Nostalgia Goggles on, of course!

but, yeah. Graphics do matter. Early 3D was fugly, even compared to some 8 bit games and there's no denying it. It was an important step to take, but it doesn't change the facts.

Difficulty... is a trickier issue, because the culture of video games has changed.
Difficulty wasn't just a relic of arcade machines gobbling up quarters, it served a purpose by giving the game longevity. If you blasted through all 10 levels of a game in an hour on your very first run through, you might feel cheated. If you have to slog through it over days and weeks of practice, then you feel you've accomplished something.
Also, in the olden days it was harder to tell a good story, so you had to make the gameplay challenging to keep people interested. Nobody played Super Mario Bros. for the story, and if you breezed through it on your first run through you'd say "meh, no big thing", not "OMG this is an iconic game that changed the face of gaming for all time!".

Old games that had a decent story tended to have more forgiving gameplay, saves and level codes, so that you could keep the story going.
Now, games are nerfed so that everyone can make it all the way to the end and see the whole story... because the devs think the games actually have a story worth telling (they're not always right.) And because we expect to get a lot of content for our gaming dollar.

TL;DR: Graphics matter in context, Games were difficult for a reason: extending game life.

 

[Mirroga]

snip

I know some annoying younger generation people who keep asking me why I keep playing Einhander or Monster Rancher 2 even though its old and looks like complete shit to their standards. So I grew up with the mindset that you should never compare the new from the old even if they're complete remakes simply because of the huge dissonance present between gaming generations.

 

[cjacks]

There are plenty on both sides of this argument, but I back those in support of old games because I think everyone should have to play old games at some point to call themselves a gamer <--(not that anyone wants to call themselves that lol)

We really aren't ale to appreciate how far games have come unless we look back, and if we don't know where to go with new games we have to look back for cues. Take Psychonauts for example, I replayed it recently, and it has way more in common with old games than with games since its release, yet it still looks beautiful. I think we can agree that while good graphics can help a game, bad graphics can't really hurt it if it's fun anyway.

Expects Wolfenstein 3D which can go suck a dick

 

[EHKOS]

There is only really one thing old games should be judged on "Do I find it fun?" Anything else doesn't really matter. I extend that to modern games too. A game could be the most gorgeous looking and sounding thing in existence but if I don't find it fun then so what......

This. If I can't enjoy myself then there is no point. Many people disliked Borderlands for the repetitiveness, and lack of story. I squealed with joy every time I saw a weapons crate and got lost in gun statistics. To each his own.

Did you really sequel? Because that's pretty nerdy cute

I actually did once. When I went into Knoxx's Armory.

 

[FoolKiller]

We judge them based on the standards of the time they came from. Its amazing no one has said this yet.

Impressive. It took 10 people to come up with the logical answer. There is one problem with this. To judge a ten year old game, you now would have to play a lot of ten year old games to be able to compare them in that respect.

The other part that makes this difficult is that you have to be able to pretend like everything in the past ten years hasn't happened. For some (I think the ones who actually played in that era) it is easier to do than others. I think that if it is the a generation of gaming that you grew up with, you can appreciate it warts and all.

 

[OldDirtyCrusty]

I have the (maybe) strange believe that this time it´s the first console generation were i`m able to play 3d games up to the next 10 years. I take a look at early ps3 games like Heavenly Sword or the first Uncharted and they still look fine despite the age (ok there are not that old but still). There`s no need of nostalgia goggles for these games. Since i can't replay most of the really old 3d titles anymore, i just keep them in good memories instead of destroying the nostalgia with the bitter truth of visuals and gameplay compared to todays standards (there are a few exceptions i still like).

I had an SNES back in 94 and everytime i`m seeing screens i`m suprised how good they look. 16bit 2D has still some really pretty things to offer and titles like Rayman Orgins won`t look ugly even in 20 years. Games like this are timeless.

The old adventures of the nineties are still awesome, but i wish for a HD remake for let´s say all of them. While Monkey Island is meant to be pixelated and i can understand that many don`t like how they transfered the games into a own artstyle (mostly the characters) there are other adventures like Day of the Tentacle or Full Throttle. Those games would look great in HD.

What do we have to expect from the upcomming games? Maybe future open world games will be able to go into detail like the high production corridor titles and add more elements/game mechanics but then there are the already astronomical production costs on the other side and i somehow doubt that we will see something else than more crispy detailed graphics in true HD. I still hope we get to see a more open "back to the roots" gameplay in the future, away from corridors.
Doom is still a mighty fine game and the upcomming Dishonored looks like a step in the right direction.

note: i just read my own post and now i`m pretty sure i`m just another graphics whore.

 

[Zhukov]

By the same standards that I judge new games.

Which is why I rarely find an old game worth my attention.

 

[Guffe]

If a game is fun age doesn't matter.
I don't play a N64 game I don't find fun, same applies to a Wii game.
Of course it migth be niec with new(er, we are talking about NIntendo after all ) graphics and controll systems etc but FUN/enjoyable is the main thing for me.

 

[King Billi]

I would say it is fair to judge an older game based on how well it holds up over time.

After I bought a PS3 I downloaded a couple classic PS1 games I'd heard alot about such as Driver, Final Fantasy VII, Syphon Filter and Oddworld.

I had no problem getting into and enjoying Oddworld and Driver but I just couldn't wind my mind back to be able to deal with the controls of the others.

I wouldn't use this as an reason to criticise these games quality or importance but it is a problem alot of the time.

Just wondering, what was bothering you about FFVII's controls?

I should admit I'd never played any Final Fantasy game before this one and none afterward so perhaps my problem with it is just with the way these games control it may not have anything to do with this games age.

I didn't like the turn based combat and I couldn't properly figure out how to select and use an attack, I don't know how far I made it into the game before I just couldn't be bothered anymore.

I also didn't like the game visually, I don't care that much for graphics but I really didn't like how the character models changed depending upon which kind of screen you were in.

I was only curious in trying the game out based on its reputation, I didn't give much thought to whether or not it was the kind of game which would interest me.

 

[Fappy]

It's not like every old game is a grotesque monster. For many people, 8-bit graphics can be quite charming. Sixteen bit graphics can be downright beautiful. The ugly games tend to come from the dawn of 3D graphics. They don't tend to bother me all that much (with exceptions. Some games were ugly even for the time). But it's part of the experience and I don't know if you can honestly disregard it when you're forming your opinion.

Totally agree. I love new sprite-based games now because invokes the old 16-Bit feel... even if the pixel count is waaaaay higher.

 

[cjacks]

I'm sure I a way this argument comes down to the first games you played as a child. Like for me I played NES Mario and Duck Hunt and Dr. Mario.

I didn't play them new by the way, I had cousins who still had the consoles in the early ninetys, but my point is that if your first game experience was something warm and fuzzy and 8 bit than I'm sure that looks beautiful to you, but if you played like Babies First Cyrsis or something like that than you consider all earlier games to be unplayable.

And olddirtycrusty, you are a graphics whore lol

 

[StriderShinryu]

By modern standards of course. You can discuss their historical significance while holding their context in mind, but if you're going to compare Mario 3 with Rayman Origins then it has to stand up on its own merits. It may be at a disadvantage in being limited by the graphics, sound and designs of the time but if it can't overcome those then it doesn't stand up as a modern piece of entertainment.

Absolutely.

There is nothing wrong with looking at a game within the context of it's originating time and place and discussing it's merits "back then." But that's a historical perspective.

If, however, you're judging a game in the here and now, you can't just ignore decades of innovation and advancement. It may have been good for it's time, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's good for all time. Note that I'm not saying we should judge games solely on technical issues like graphics or sound fidelity, but the core aspects of the game have to hold up to modern standards. The fact that there are so many games that defiintely do hold up to current standards decades after release proves this is a valid way of critique.

 

[ThrobbingEgo]

We're talking about a generation that was raised on Minecraft and shitty browser games. Super Mario Bros 3 holds up just fine.