Poll: Is Old Better?

[Simeon Ivanov]

Hello there fellow Escapists, recently I've started wondering about the quality of current and previous generation games. I first though about it when I read PC Gamer's review of Deus Ex Human Revolution, specifically, when they called it "The Deus Ex of the current time". Since I haven't played the original Deus Ex (and I haven't played DE:HR yet) I can't decide if this is true or false.

But it does sound familiar doesn't it? Like "Call of Duty 4 is better than Modern Warfare" or "Spyro 1,2,3 are better than the current ones" or "Devil May Cry is better than DMC4". I'm sure you've heard it at least once. But is it really true? Is the quality of today's games getting worse? Are there really no worthy sequels to the old games that are considered "The best game on ???"? Or is it a matter of Nostalgia?

Also I'd like to use Yahtzee as an example here. In one of his reviews (I can't remember which one really, since I've seen almost all of them) he said that he played Twilight Princess BEFORE Ocarina of Time and he enjoyed T.P. more. Since most Nintendo games are based of previous games (as I've heard) I think this is the perfect example.

I also consider the fact that when the "older legendary" games came out they were revolutionary for their time and changed or created something new, but c'mon now, it's really hard to be creative. Why can't the sequel of this revolutionary game be just as good if not even better? Because it doesn't have the same impact? So what? If it makes the already great game better, doesn't it deserve to be rated just as good or even better than the original?

So, as you've figured out by now, I suck at writing, so I'll get to the point - Are older video games better than the current, or is it just nostalgia and fanboyism that blinds us?

EDIT 1: I am talking about the first games that are part of a long running series (Street Fighter, Mario, The Legend of Zelda, Call of Duty, etc)

 

[TheDist]

A good game is good regardless of how old it is. The well known ET game for example isn't exactly good but it is sure old by gaming standards.

 

[mjc0961]

Are older video games better than the current, or is it just nostalgia and fanboyism that blinds us?

Sometimes it's the former such as your Spyro example (because the newer games were not by Insomniac and were put together poorly by some other people), or sometimes it's the latter such as people who are so certain that Pokémon Gold and Silver were the best games in the series.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

I don't think they always are, but the examples you gave are all true in my opinion. Call of Duty 4 was indeed much better than Modern Warfare 2.

On the other hand, the two most recent games in the Halo series (ODST and Reach) are the best, and that's coming from someone who was (and still is) an enormous fan of the original trilogy.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Usually old isn't better, but it's what the other games in a series are based on, and if the new games don't do anything different in comparison to the original, then it really feels like there's no point to having them, and people point to the original game as the best in the series because it was "original" and everything else is a "ripoff."

This means that even though a new iteration of the game might have better graphical fidelity, more features, etc. if there isn't much to distinguish it from the original game, the original game will still be considered better because of its novelty. After all, the original experience is always the most fondly remembered.

 

[pope_of_larry]

no the old games that are still played are just the good ones.

 

[C95J]

It doesn't really matter much if a game is old or not, some old games are good,but so are some newer games. I guess it is sort of a matter of nostalgia with older gamers, as they grew up playing certain games, and the world of gaming has changed a lot since then. I can guarantee that I won't find games in 20-30 years not as enjoyable as the ones now.

 

[Vie]

I think games are better when there is less pressure on them to appeal to the mass market. That is to say big budgets entail having to appeal to a wide audience, which in turn - in the minds of the marketing suits who run most companies today - means the resultant product has to be as safe and bland as possible.

Its still possible to make a good game, either by ignoring these people - and getting fired when the game fails to sell because its too "Challenging" for the mass market. Or to be part of a company that doesn't have them, and thus have a budget the size of America's budget surplus.

 

[madwarper]

Also I'd like to use Yahtzee as an example here. In one of his reviews (I can't remember which one really, since I've seen almost all of them) he said that he played Twilight Princess BEFORE Ocarina of Time and he enjoyed T.P. more.

Is this a factor of the superiority/inferiority of a new game vs an older game, or merely just the factor of the order the games were played?
ie. Do you think Yahtzee would still have the same opinion if he had played OoT when it first came out, and then played TP?

Personally, Oblivion was my first TES game. Then, after sinking a few hundred hours into it, I got the Morrowind GotY edition, booted it up and found it unplayable. Would I have liked Morrowind more if I had gotten it before Oblivion and was forced to adjust to Morrowind's constant failures, rather than being acclimated to Oblivion's instant gratification? Who knows?

 

[BRex21]

there are many games that held up to the point where they are more fun than new releases, i would say i find Serious Sam and Ultima Underworld are as much fun as anything new that has been released lately.

 

[Exterminas]

If you mean original by better, then yes.

If you mean more casual friendly, more intuitive, better graphics, more refined by better then no.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Sorry, but that Poll is stupid. Why? You can't answer that with a simple "yes" or "no", because it depends on so many factors. There are aspects that were better back then and others that weren't. Besides that there are always exceptions.
Some games develop and make progress, some don't.
As for the industry:
I'd say it was (somehow) better back then:

This poll is stupid yes, but there are so many factors and I can't think of them all ... but I love the picture you posted, it's ... it's so sadly accurate it's funny

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

Sorry I forgot to say this, but I was thinking about the original games that is part of a series or a franchise.

 

[devotedsniper]

I'm going to have to say yes, they were alot longer than modern games, older games in my opinion stuck to there genre rather than trying please everyone *looks over at EA* they also weren't as focused on graphics (which is where all the space for story and campaign go now a days), i love the graphics of new games but i usually finish a game in a day or two due to the fact that developers are to fixed on HD graphics and multiplayer (yes multiplayer can be fun too but come on how many games do you know that pull off both well without leaving the single player at a measly 6-7 hours gameplay, in my opinion multiplayer should come as free DLC or if you really have to a 2nd CD so not to compromise single player).

Maybe it is nostalgia but i seem to remember being able to put 30 hours into a game (e.g. Skies of Arcadia, or any of the final fantasys from the PS1/2, i know theres 13 but to me thats just an interactive movie with lots of running down corridors) and only then nearly completing it (and this is without really doing any of the side mission,) whats the eqivilant to that now a days? Well i guess the Witcher series which is a brilliant game (damn thats a bad example lol! I was hoping to put a modern game down but i just can't do it to that...i know! FF13 is your bad example) although it seems only pc gamers seem to really appreciate it, but the reason both those are long are due to the fact theres no multiplayer.

I guess at the end of the day multiplayer makes or breaks a game, you can have long single player only games like the above mentioned, or ones which try to balance but still cut the single player experience (COD series), and then theres games which more or less rely on multiplayer such as chromehounds, it had an ok single player but it was designed for multiplayer and i remember playing that for hours and hours without getting bored (shame the servers were shut down a few month ago).

I like a game with a good story and those usually only come with single player games, because lets be honest you can't really fit a story into multiplayer since it usually just involves killing each other (co-op story excluded). I just don't see the point in buying a game where the story suffers just so i can do more or less the same thing on multiplayer which you can do on any other multiplayer of that genre/gameplay style.

I'll probably be moaned at for this but it's my opinion on modern games which tend to disappoint me, maybe i'm just getting old (i'm only 20 lol). I'm not saying there all bad but alot of them don't leave me impressed like the older ones did (i still play older ones on emulators from time to time and still enjoy them).

 

[Crazy Zaul]

Mona Lisa thing is so true.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

No.

Well made games are better. There just happens to be more in the past than there are in the present - and that will probably never change.

Many games these days suffer from having the legacy behind them, but every so often you get something truly awesome.

Today's games are better at developing followers/fans; but there's been a lot more shocking travesties created these days than there ever was.

Cobra was bad, but Fight Club? Worse.

Which, to you, is worse...Superman 64 or Spore? Daikatana or Duke Nukem Forever? Lemmings Paintball or Dino D-Day

 

[Kae]

Yes because anything that's different from Ultima Underworld sucks.

 

[Richardplex]

Are older video games better than the current, or is it just nostalgia and fanboyism that blinds us?

Sometimes it's the former such as your Spyro example (because the newer games were not by Insomniac and were put together poorly by some other people), or sometimes it's the latter such as people who are so certain that Pokémon Gold and Silver were the best games in the series.

But, let's be honest here, Spyro 1,2 and 3 are better than ALL other games
OT: no. There was just as much shovelwear back then as there is now. We just remember the gems and forget the sea of mediocrity. Back before, the teams were smaller and lest restricted, increasing innovation. Today, we can learn from the success and failures, and the higher budget gives higher quality music, graphics, which can produce better aesthetics... In theory.

 

[ELD3RGoD]

Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee/Abe's Exoddus, in my opinion, are the best 2 games ever made. Fuck graphics, the stories of today hold nothing on that game.

 

[MercurySteam]

Nowadays I'm physically unable to play any game made before 2005. I even had trouble going back an playing the original The Witcher which is ironic, because my computer only plays the older games properly.