How Do We Judge Old Games?

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I try not to have a standardized bunch of criteria when judging games, old or new. When I judge a game, it mostly boils down to "did I have fun with this game?"

If the graphics or game mechanics are (to me, anyway) so bad that the game is unplayable, then the game isn't fun, and clearly wasn't the right choice for me.

Sometimes though I'm willing to power through graphics/mechanics that bother me if it's a game that the gaming community as a whole seems to think very highly of. For example, Planescape: Torment. I missed this game somehow when it came out. When it went on sale a few months back on GoG, a friend suggested that I try it out. The graphics are fine (very similar to Fallout/Fallout 2, which I adore), but I found early on that I really couldn't get into a lot of the gameplay mechanics. It really didn't feel like it was the right game for me, but because of its amazingly good reputation, I continued onward. I'm glad I did, because the game was awesome and had some of the best writing I've personally experienced in a game.

 

[TrevHead]

Games are as much an artistic medium as science, we all feel something as we play our games and different games make us feel different things, not just through the art and visuals but through the gameplay.

It's very much a personal choice which makes it so difficult to communicate to others just like music, which also has a science to it but most ppl don't mention octaves in conversations with friends. Still we are all nerds so what can we expect

I think each game should be judged both on it's own merits and all others. I would normally say I don't like QTEs but I liked them in Bayonetta.

It's also difficult when you bring money into the equation, games can be expensive both for us and the guys who make them. Publishers also only think of good games as a means to make money, I would hazard a guess that it's had a big impact on game design through the years

 

[scorptatious]

I mostly judge games, new or old, based on how fun they are. It doesn't really matter all that much how the graphics look. If I'm having fun with the game, then everything is cool.

 

[RobfromtheGulag]

It's usually a disconnect when recommending a game you always loved to someone who's never played it, because you're [still] judging it on standards from when it was released. They, however, will be judging it based on modern day, or slightly altered modern standards.

So I say something like Clock Tower was scary. Then some teen pops in an emulator and laughs all game long because the graphics, gameplay, and story are lacking.

 

[veloper]

A retrospective review of an old game should be all about gameplay.
If you must bring graphics into it, judge them by the technical limitations of the time of release.

You could ofcourse be an ass and bash an old game for having primitive graphics, but then you're just wasting everyone's time including yours.
Graphics whores should know enough to stick with new games and be upfront about their preferences when they do a review.

 

[The Heik]

I have heard this argued in several other threads, but what are fair criteria to judge older games of any era.

Should Graphics really play a role in a modern review of old FPSes? Does a NES game's obnoxious difficulty really count against it?

I personally believe that we should only judge a game based on storytelling, gameplay mechanics, and entertainment value once it's generation is past. Because really, what is to be gained from point out that MW3 looks prettier that Half-Life? Nothing, that's what.

For me, me only criteria for a judging if a game is good (whether it be new or old) is threefold:

1)Mechanics. Really the most straightforward criteria of the three. Is the act of interacting with the various aspects of the game straightforward and challenging, without bogging the player down with useless or redundant features? Tetris is a good example of this. It's mechanics are insanely simple (Seriously, it's a game about putting blocks into holes), and yet because of how it's structured the game is incredibly addictive because the way the mechanics work together is so well done.

2)Aesthetics. While fidelity might be the things most developers seem to care about nowadays, there's a more important facet of visual and audio design that exists, namely the aforementioned aesthetics. The original Mario game came out over 30 years ago, and yet I can guarantee that any person who's played those games (no matter how long ago) can tell you exactly what he looks like or what the main theme song is, because despite the simplicity of the original versions the they are so striking and interesting that we can't help but find them memorable. Good visual and audio design also lends into the enjoyment of the mechanics, as when you can tell what everything is and what's going on it's far easier to play the game. I can't tell you how many times I've played games that are "realistic" and could not honestly tell what was going on because everything was the same colour of "grunge".

3)Narrative. Now I'm not saying storytelling here because games are a bit different from your standard storytelling template. You see games are an interactive medium, so most of what the player is going to know about the world comes from gameplay. That means that a lot of the game world's information is going to come from exploration and trying things out. Just throwing an exposition dump every level isn't going to cut it if one want's to truly immerse the player in the game. Little moments like a customer arguing with a shopkeeper over the price of a cut of meat while you walk by or your allies and comrades having some fun without you needing to do anything, while not necessary to the main plot, gives credence to the game by adding a layer of depth to the characters and the game world, making it seem more like an actual place rather than a simple simulation for the player's enjoyment. That makes it easier for the player to immerse in the story and start giving a damn about events that happen to.

 

[Desworks]

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

I'm of the opinion that there are 2 ways to judge old games, this being one of them. The problem with this method, though, is it's very difficult for the new generation's of gamers to be able to judge games like this, because they weren't around when the game was released.

My gaming history goes back to 1990-1991, which was when I started properly playing games as a hobby, rather than just playing the occasional one for funsies. As such, from then on I know the standard of the times from then on, but can only try to picture the standard of earlier periods. So for me, judging games from before the NES generation is a lot harder.

Of course, the other way of judging old games is to compare them to today's standards, which is entirely possible without ragging on them. While their graphic and sound may seem primitive, you can still look at their underlying mechanics and learn from what worked and where improvements have been made since. And while graphics and sound may seem to be unfair places to compare old games to today's standards, there are still some examples that stand the test of time. For example, despite being a NES game, Mega Man 2 has one of the best videogame soundtracks ever made.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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!

And I wouldn't exactly call the graphics shit, either. Epic Games had some good art direction back in the day, and the engine itself is good enough to show it off. The original Unreal, which is even older than UT99, is downright gorgeous even today.

OT: See above. Once you can separate the technical limitations from the art design, it's entirely possible to judge old games on the same standards as you would modern games. The whole "technical limitations" thing applies across the board, though - for example, you can't really judge the first Armored Core for the awkward-by-modern-standards control scheme, since the dual shock controller hadn't been invented yet. Armored Core 2, on the other hand, could have stood to support dual analog controls. But then it's still an awesome game. The controls aren't /bad/, they're just different from modern games. They're actually quite tight and well designed for a set of controls that ignore everything about the analog sticks aside from the R3 button.

 

[cjacks]

This is completely off topic, but I just want to thank everyone in the thread so far because this was my first Topic on the escapist forum. I've always hated forums for various reasons but last night I decided to join this one and my first topic has over 50 replies and about 800 views. This really is a great community which never ceases to amaze me.......

That said I look forward to arguing with you all in the future until the very sight your names sends me into a primitive undignified rage.

Thanks

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I personally believe that we should only judge a game based on storytelling, gameplay mechanics, and entertainment value once it's generation is past. Because really, what is to be gained from point out that MW3 looks prettier that Half-Life? Nothing, that's what.

I'm not sure if Storytelling would be the best judge of older games depending on how far back you go. For games like Metal Gear or Ninja Gaiden on the NES, the plot seemed like icing on the cake. It seemed like outside of J/RPGs and point-n-click adventure games, most titles didn't really have much of a story to speak of until about the Super Nintendo days and even then games where story/plot were the main focus were definitely in the minority.

---

If you're into retro gaming or are say, 20 years old or older then you probably remember enough of the games you played in days long past to know what you liked back then and make your own assertions: You played those games and liked them or, you didn't and, didn't. Otherwise, I would say game play, fun factor and, time loss would be the best indicators of what makes an old game great. By time loss I mean that familiar scenario in which you say to yourself "Maybe 5 minutes of Dr. Mario before I start on my homework" at 4pm then, next time you check the clock, its midnight.

 

[kingthrall]

easy. I judge old games by the fact if you can still play them today then its most likely a good game. Ie the graphics have not aged too much to make it unbearable if you play new games as well. The game-play is still good ect ect.

 

[OpticalJunction]

How far it pushed technology, how balanced the gameplay was, how much depth and lore was added compared to other games of that time, etc.

 

[Savo]

When I play older games, I judge them by today's standards. I didn't grow up with 99% of these games, so I can't rely on nostalgia glasses to distort how good a game is by today's standards. I'm lenient on graphics, but I am a harsh critic on several factors:

-Does the game feel dated?
-How good is the writing? We've come leaps and bounds in terms of storytelling over the last decade and it makes older game stories harder to appreciate.
-How good is the gameplay? Do I get the feeling that "Oh, I've played a refined/better version of this 18 times already"?

These and more are how I judge older games. Honestly, few older games I've played pass the test. I won't bag on them though for being bad games, I'll just dismiss them as dated and leave it at that.

 

[Overusedname]

I still consider FF9, Majora's Mask and okami to be gorgeous, same for Chrono Trigger and Donkey Kong Country. They have distinct, expressive styles and some really stirring environments.

That's probably because they actually had concept artists, not people trying to recreate photographs. I think that games with graphics that claim to be realistic are the ugliest. I've honestly seen NES games with more personality and art direction than many modern FPS's. And no, I'm not kidding. And no, I didn't grow up with them. Megaman's art on the NES was more expressive and varied than anything I've seen in Battlefield.

I think TF2 is the best looking FPS because it has some genuine artistry to it, and you can tell a lot about the personalities of the characters just by looking at them. Bioshock is another great game because it uses realistic graphics to achieve a surreal environment, and again, bioshock had actual art direction. Same with Silent Hill: Realistic graphics, but achieves a surreal effect.

I judge games based on how much I enjoyed them. Givin my age, I should have grown to enjoy halo and the like but...I never did. Then I picked up a PS1, some old JRPs and platformers and started branching out from there. I also happen to think that a lot of the mechanics, gameplay and stories of several old games hold up and genuinely rival their modern counterparts. Citizen Kane had to be black and white to achieve it's effect just like Chrono Trigger had to be 2D for it's gorgeous artstyle, animation and color pallet to work.

I still think Ocarina and Majora's mask have some of the most emotional and thought-provoking stories in the franchise, for example. And Majora's Mask is still just...haunting.

 

[Yopaz]

I judge old games the same way I judge new games. Am I having fun? Is the gameplay fluent and the controls good?

Now I will go against the popular opinion on this site and say that graphics do matter. If I can't make out details clearly because they are blurry or looks too much like the background that's awful. This is the problem I have with the recent Call of Duty games. I often have problems determining the grey of the background and the grey of an enemy. Then there are games like Donkey Kong Country where they put a lot of effort into making it look good. That game is very old and the graphics are very outdated and the level of details could be better by our standards. However even today it shows a whole lot of contrast and makes it easy to make out those little touches.

I recently started playing the original Max Payne game and I must say that I do not hold its limitations against it in my judgement. I am simply amazed by how well things work, how the story is told both through full cut scene using the game engine and in sequences that remind me of a comic book. The game is awesome and I do not hold age against it.

 

[RipRoaringWaterfowl]

I have heard this argued in several other threads, but what are fair criteria to judge older games of any era.

Should Graphics really play a role in a modern review of old FPSes? Does a NES game's obnoxious difficulty really count against it?

I personally believe that we should only judge a game based on storytelling, gameplay mechanics, and entertainment value once it's generation is past. Because really, what is to be gained from point out that MW3 looks prettier that Half-Life? Nothing, that's what.

For me, me only criteria for a judging if a game is good (whether it be new or old) is threefold:

1)Mechanics. Really the most straightforward criteria of the three. Is the act of interacting with the various aspects of the game straightforward and challenging, without bogging the player down with useless or redundant features? Tetris is a good example of this. It's mechanics are insanely simple (Seriously, it's a game about putting blocks into holes), and yet because of how it's structured the game is incredibly addictive because the way the mechanics work together is so well done.

2)Aesthetics. While fidelity might be the things most developers seem to care about nowadays, there's a more important facet of visual and audio design that exists, namely the aforementioned aesthetics. The original Mario game came out over 30 years ago, and yet I can guarantee that any person who's played those games (no matter how long ago) can tell you exactly what he looks like or what the main theme song is, because despite the simplicity of the original versions the they are so striking and interesting that we can't help but find them memorable. Good visual and audio design also lends into the enjoyment of the mechanics, as when you can tell what everything is and what's going on it's far easier to play the game. I can't tell you how many times I've played games that are "realistic" and could not honestly tell what was going on because everything was the same colour of "grunge".

3)Narrative. Now I'm not saying storytelling here because games are a bit different from your standard storytelling template. You see games are an interactive medium, so most of what the player is going to know about the world comes from gameplay. That means that a lot of the game world's information is going to come from exploration and trying things out. Just throwing an exposition dump every level isn't going to cut it if one want's to truly immerse the player in the game. Little moments like a customer arguing with a shopkeeper over the price of a cut of meat while you walk by or your allies and comrades having some fun without you needing to do anything, while not necessary to the main plot, gives credence to the game by adding a layer of depth to the characters and the game world, making it seem more like an actual place rather than a simple simulation for the player's enjoyment. That makes it easier for the player to immerse in the story and start giving a damn about events that happen to.

This sounds like a very good way to judge old games. And aesthetic still is important today, since the best looking games don't need the best graphics, just the best use of them and other world-building tools. You can learn from timeless SNES games.

This is completely off topic, but I just want to thank everyone in the thread so far because this was my first Topic on the escapist forum. I've always hated forums for various reasons but last night I decided to join this one and my first topic has over 50 replies and about 800 views. This really is a great community which never ceases to amaze me.......

That said I look forward to arguing with you all in the future until the very sight your names sends me into a primitive undignified rage.

Thanks

Welcome then! Check out the forum rules and all that our not-so-humble website has to offer, and you should be able to enjoy your experience. Just stay out of the Religion and Politics forum if you want to live.

And perhaps you may come to love the two-dudes-shaking-hands-one-of-which-is-on-fire, or maybe not. We'll see.

[sub][sub]No insulting Pink Floyd, the Playstation 2, or the SNES.[/sub][/sub]

 

[cjacks]

I firmly believe in video games as an art form, so to me playing old video games is the same as looking at old art or watching an old movie. It helps give context to the moment that we need to move forward. If that makes sense.

 

[Dragonclaw]

I jugde older games the same way I judge older music...do I still enjoy firing this game/album up? Many games are pretty basic but fun as hell, they have stood the test of time and if I can pop it in and jam on it for an hour or so and have a blast that's all that matters to me.

 

[Conner42]

There are really many ways you can judge them. Sure, many games are going to be outdated, even the supposed classic ones, but it's a way we can learn about video games.

Most of the games that hold up are the ones that are actually simpler than the more complex ones back then. Platformers and Adventure games that have simple controls and don't really try to do anything complicatedly. Mario, Contra, Sonic can be played even to this day because of its simplicity.

Even if a game doesn't hold up because we've made system improvements to make things go more smoothly and easily, it's still better to remember why it was good during the time. Sure, a game like Goldeneye might not exactly hold up to today because of its controls, its outdated graphics, and its pretty awful frame-rate(though, that may be due to how much dust is in my 64, but I'm honestly not sure, I haven't been able to clean it out), you still have to remember what made it so good when it first came out. Heck, you can even argue that it wasn't even good in the first place.

And then you can apply it to what it means for the present. What can we learn from it? It's fair to say that there's probably a lot of people out there that won't like it because it's outdated and it doesn't exactly work anymore, but you should be asking why that is as well.

That was kind of the case with Goldeneye and me. It was a bit of a learning curve, but after I got used to the controls and how the game works, it's honestly a pretty awesome game to me! I didn't get to play it until 2007, but I can see why it was popular. After playing through Goldeneye, it was really easy for me to get into its spiritual successor, Perfect Dark. It's pretty much just Goldeneye with a different main character, but I really liked it.

So, really, contextualize and then apply it to the present as a learning kind of thing. But don't just pass it off as outdated, because we'll never really progress that way. New games should not deem old games as crap. Things will never work that way!

 

[lord.jeff]

I judge them the same as I do modern games, I'm not gonna play an older game if it's not as enjoyable as newer games just because it's older.