How Do We Judge Old Games?

[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 That game is very old and the graphics are very outdated and the level of details could be better by our standards.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.