How Do We Judge Old Games?

[cjacks]

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.

 

[Ruedyn]

Without reading, really well for poorly justified reasons.

After actually reading like someone who isn't a tard, I agree. And anyone who thinks MW3 looks prettier is wrong in my opinion.

 

[cjspyres]

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.

Absolutely agree. Reminds me of a discussion I had with someone I knew in the gaming community I'm in. I can't remember the game, but it was an SNES rpg. He made a mention of how he can't play old games because of "shit graphics". I just told him it was his loss, and he was really missing out.

 

[Tallim]

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......

 

[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.

 

[cjspyres]

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?

 

[ZedLeg]

It's hard to justify why old games are fun a lot of the time. I've been playing the KOTOR games on my 360 recently and they run like shit. Not the game's fault but I bet it would still put people off if they had never played them before. Yet I still played both games through to the end because I love those little bastards.

Although you could say that about a lot of new games as well, I'm looking at you Fallout: New Vegas. So I'm not entirely sure what my point is.

Going back and reviewing old games in direct comparison to new games is folly. Yeah that's it.

 

[Mirroga]

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.

So it all comes down to the judgment done to every game in its simplest version. Is it fun?

 

[Keoul]

We don't
It's been judged by people living at the time of it's release, leave it at that. Without context, obviously you'd find most of them shit, it's not their fault of course, since they had plenty of hardware limitations at the time they couldn't be any better.

If you enjoy an old game then enjoy it.

 

[DustyDrB]

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.

 

[Kroxile]

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

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

I'd say you can judge them fresh by just discounting things imposed by technical limitations (primarily graphics complexity). Other than that, an old game with better gameplay than a new game is still the better game, while the opposite is also true.

I actually have a friend who insists new games are inherently better than old ones, by virtue of having better technology and simply by being new. I strongly, strongly disagree, but I feel that's relevant to the thread!

 

[SonicWaffle]

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......

You said a thing, but I was going to say that thing, and now I cannot say my thing without looking like I copied you. Why would you do that to me? Now I'm left with nothing to say, so I'm just going to sit here and stare blankly at you for a while.

o_o

 

[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.

 

[Rack]

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.

 

[AD-Stu]

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

That only works if you're talking about them as items of historical interest though. If you're talking about them as games to be played now then that standard simply doesn't work, because the issue you're considering is whether you'll get more out of playing Old Game A than New Game B.

Some people have suggested that you shouldn't consider graphics - again, I say that you should if you're talking about the game in the context of playing it now, as opposed to history. How many times have we heard, for example, that Deus Ex still holds up in terms of gameplay, but it's incredibly difficult to look at? I still love Ultima VII but dear gawd it's aged poorly in terms of its graphics (which were cutting edge at the time of its release).

IMO, unless you are talking about the game in a purely historical context, the only way to judge it is to take everything into account, graphics, sound, gameplay, story (not a strong point for most old games, FWIW), replayability, the lot, and ask yourself one question: is it still fun to play?

 

[theblindedhunter]

I think older games deserve sort of... twice the reviewing.
It isn't unfair, I think, to discuss whether it is likely to feel playable now. There are some very aged games out there that are still extremely enjoyable, and compare easily to games being released today. Others don't hold up and, while this doesn't make them bad games per say, it seems more honest to say to the reader "we've come a long way in the industry since this came out, and the design decisions, features, and graphical fidelity really show their age".
However, they also deserve a mention of their place in history. How did they fare in their time? Did they do groundbreaking things? Is there a reason for them to be enjoyed from a historic or nostalgic viewpoint?
That sort of thing.

 

[TehCookie]

Other than forgiving a few things based on technical limitations you judge it like you would judge any other game. Graphics don't have to be photorealistic to be good, I judge graphics by if I can clearly tell everything that's going on. Besides older games can do some things better than newer games, like NPC dialog. Since they didn't have voice acting it didn't cost them anything to give people different lines or long paragraphs. Not to mention since you imagined the voice you could imagine them all sounding different.