Do you value 'old' games?

Blitzkrug

Registered User
Sep 17, 2013
25,785
7,632
Winnipeg
Love the ignorance.

You're bagging on people for not appreciating your game, yet do the same thing by reducing Mass Effect to a "alien ****ing simulator" and assuming Super Mario Galaxy is the same game as the ones that came before it (only the NSMB games can really be nailed for that)

Not even gonna bother reading past that given the hipocracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lancer

Ducks in a row

Go Ducks Quack Quack
Dec 17, 2013
18,004
4,356
U.S.A.
I love old games and I tend to like a lot of them more on average then newer games I have played. 90's is my favorite decade of games.
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
Lots of people are technophiles and value technology and graphics more than gameplay. There are LOTS of old games I go back to and play. In fact just the other day I booted up Pharaoh (1999) on PC. Fantastic game. I like to think I got GOG to put it in their library a few years ago too. I emailed them and a few weeks later they had it available. GOG is fantastic by the way for any PC players.

Pharaoh%2B%25282%2529.png
 

Commander Clueless

Hiya, hiya. Pleased to meetcha.
Sep 10, 2008
15,237
2,922
Lots of people are technophiles and value technology and graphics more than gameplay. There are LOTS of old games I go back to and play. In fact just the other day I booted up Pharaoh (1999) on PC. Fantastic game. I like to think I got GOG to put it in their library a few years ago too. I emailed them and a few weeks later they had it available. GOG is fantastic by the way for any PC players.

Pharaoh%2B%25282%2529.png

Well Pharaoh is and was amazing, and was drop dead gorgeous for the time.

I'm a bit of a technophile, but I wouldn't say it matters OVER game play. That said, it does matter to me.

Not everything has to be ULTRA REALISM GRAFIX 9000, but modern technology makes a difference. I like to use Ori and the Blind Forest as an example. Does it require power to run? Not really. Is it drop dead friggin' gorgeous? Yes, and that really helps the game.

Technology plays an important part on game play as well. For example, these big open world RPGs so many people love these days wouldn't be possible on the same scale without compute power.

In my mind, the best games have great technology, great design, and great game play. It's like playing Game Dev Tycoon! :laugh:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lancer

tacogeoff

Registered User
Jul 18, 2011
11,590
1,801
Killarney, MB
Ha that was me that posted that.

"went with cod4. probably my favorite FPS multiplayer. never had the pleasure of playing bioshock and its too late to go back now."

Now the main reason I said it was to late was bc I don't have a 360 anymore. I always get rid of my older systems when I upgrade to a new gen. That is just how I roll.

@Osprey mentioned there was a remaster for the current gen.

Now will I go back and play it? I honestly don't know. I have quite a few games on the go. I also feel that if I did not buy it upon release that my interest is usually not there. Then again the witcher 3 has skewed this mind set a bit as I bought it on a whim and have played it through four times.​
 

KingBran

Three Eyed Raven
Apr 24, 2014
6,436
2,284
Well Pharaoh is and was amazing, and was drop dead gorgeous for the time.

I'm a bit of a technophile, but I wouldn't say it matters OVER game play. That said, it does matter to me.

Not everything has to be ULTRA REALISM GRAFIX 9000, but modern technology makes a difference. I like to use Ori and the Blind Forest as an example. Does it require power to run? Not really. Is it drop dead friggin' gorgeous? Yes, and that really helps the game.

Technology plays an important part on game play as well. For example, these big open world RPGs so many people love these days wouldn't be possible on the same scale without compute power.

In my mind, the best games have great technology, great design, and great game play. It's like playing Game Dev Tycoon! :laugh:
Is it bad that I read "ULTRA REALISM GRAFIX 9000" picturing Dragon Ball Z characters saying it? :laugh:

No doubt that stuff (graphics and tech) matters and I agree that personally gameplay matters more. In the case of Ori (loved that game!) I think part of its selling point was its art-style. Much like Braid or Limbo. It has kind of become a new genre of interactive art IMO over the past few years.

I wasn't trying to say tech doesn't make games better, I mean like you said with these huge open world RPG games and such the tech makes them possible. I think "great" games have everything for their time. I think "best" is just personal preference.

EDIT: Also never played Game Dev Tycoon lol. But I heard some fun things about it.
 

542365

2018-19 Cup Champs!
Sponsor
Mar 22, 2012
22,262
8,646
Graphics don't matter to me much at all. It's the controls that determine whether I can go back and play the game. As previously mentioned, Goldeneye is damn near unplayable to me. The controls are just so bad, yet I played the hell out of it as a kid with friends. I could still play Crash Team Racing no problem, even if the graphics are super dated. Hell, the game I think I have the most time played out of any game(maybe outside of Black Ops 1) is PUBG and that game looks and runs like trash a lot of the time. It's just fun to me. If an older game is still enjoyable I have no problem playing it.

EDIT: Never mind. I'm an idiot. Borderlands 2 is definitely my most played game. Graphics are pretty timeless on that I think. Not a super old game by any means, but I fire that thing up all the time still. I just love it. Borderlands 3 can't get here soon enough.
 

Kestrel

Registered User
Jan 30, 2005
5,814
129
I personally would see this as a suggestion that the adolescent version of you (like anyone) was ignorant of what made something good and ultimately ended up being wrong, based on what your older self thinks, and that you appear to be allowing nostalgia get in the way of that.

I was obsessed with Final Fantasy VII as a kid, and a lot of it had to do with the innovations and things that it got right. I don't love it so much anymore, although a lot of it I still appreciate. The flaws and imperfections became apparent over time, and the things that it did well aren't as profound and interesting as I used to think. All of the nostalgia I have about that period has nothing to do with the quality of the game, and the enthusiasm I had at one point doesn't count for much. The current version of me is right, and sees a more accurate picture of it, IMO. I just didn't know any better before.

I agree that it's possible for something new to eclipse something old (obviously), but I think that if that alone changes your perception of the quality of the old thing, then your view on the old thing was probably pretty skewed and inaccurate. I tend to think that our lasting opinions are the only ones that end up being meaningful, and the imperfections of our arguments crumble under their own weight over time.

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think that a lot of this stems from the fact that I don't think how good something is considered should have anything to do with the capabilities and limitations of the thing it's made in, or if comparable or better things are available at the time. That caveat and excuse that we factor in is what skews that perception, IMO. The only thing that matters, in my opinion, is how well something works in a vaccuum, irrespective of what I think is technically possible.

That said, I think that the original Mario Kart is still a ton of fun, and has a charm and simplicity to it that Mario Kart 8 doesn't (although it's better in a lot of other ways).
Meh, the Ford Model T was a great car at the time - if you ignored monetary value, I wouldn't trade my lowly Hyundai Accent for one. That doesn't diminish what the Model T was at the time, but technologically, it doesn't hold up. While I agree that yes, a game can be artificially propped up by technology, and as a result, age very poorly, I don't agree that how much you like or want to play a game now is necessarily a good measure of how good a game was.

Sometimes, innovations matter. Sometimes, something really stands out among what is available at the time, due to embracing, and properly using technology - but once it becomes outdated and replaced by newer games with further innovation, its relative playability just doesn't stack up.

As an example - text adventure games. There were cruddy ones, there were fantastic ones. However, they were very limited by what was available at the time. While text adventures do exist still, they are very niche, and most people would no longer consider them good games, because the games choose to eschew many of the technologies of today. The Apshai games, ie Temple of Apshai and Gateway to Apshai, I think were definitely good games for the time - the original Ultima and Kings Quest games were also good - but they have since been eclipsed by other games. It's not that the aforementioned games weren't good - it's that the games that eclipsed them weren't even remotely possible at the time, so it is only fair to judge them based on what was available to compete with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big McLargehuge

SpookyTsuki

Registered User
Dec 3, 2014
15,916
671
Graphics don't matter to me much at all. It's the controls that determine whether I can go back and play the game. As previously mentioned, Goldeneye is damn near unplayable to me. The controls are just so bad, yet I played the hell out of it as a kid with friends. I could still play Crash Team Racing no problem, even if the graphics are super dated. Hell, the game I think I have the most time played out of any game(maybe outside of Black Ops 1) is PUBG and that game looks and runs like trash a lot of the time. It's just fun to me. If an older game is still enjoyable I have no problem playing it.

EDIT: Never mind. I'm an idiot. Borderlands 2 is definitely my most played game. Graphics are pretty timeless on that I think. Not a super old game by any means, but I fire that thing up all the time still. I just love it. Borderlands 3 can't get here soon enough.

I love borderlands but I can never replay it like ever.
 

Rodgerwilco

Entertainment boards w/ some Hockey mixed in.
Feb 6, 2014
7,232
6,514
Yes, I value "old games" a lot.

My most-played game, without a doubt, is Runescape. The development of the game over time since 2001 has led to it being saturated with items, economy massively over-inflated, toxic player base (at times), and just generally over-done. So in 2013 Jagex (the developer) decided to dig up the code from August 2007 and re-release it as a new stand-alone game to the current day version. They dubbed their 2007 version "Old School Runescape". Of course the game has been updated and changed since the re-release, however, the core game is still over a decade old, at this point.

It is massively popular among RS players, and at times has more active members than the current version that began in 2001.


Anyway, RS rant over:

I never ever consider a game "too old" to play. I am planning to try Chrono Trigger for the first time (played Cross many times). I play through Final Fantasy 7 at least once a year/every other. I'm always trying to find new PS1 games, or classics that I skipped over. This weekend, we are going to a store called "The Exchange" to find new Sega Genesis games and controllers.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
Meh, the Ford Model T was a great car at the time - if you ignored monetary value, I wouldn't trade my lowly Hyundai Accent for one. That doesn't diminish what the Model T was at the time, but technologically, it doesn't hold up. While I agree that yes, a game can be artificially propped up by technology, and as a result, age very poorly, I don't agree that how much you like or want to play a game now is necessarily a good measure of how good a game was.

Sometimes, innovations matter. Sometimes, something really stands out among what is available at the time, due to embracing, and properly using technology - but once it becomes outdated and replaced by newer games with further innovation, its relative playability just doesn't stack up.

As an example - text adventure games. There were cruddy ones, there were fantastic ones. However, they were very limited by what was available at the time. While text adventures do exist still, they are very niche, and most people would no longer consider them good games, because the games choose to eschew many of the technologies of today. The Apshai games, ie Temple of Apshai and Gateway to Apshai, I think were definitely good games for the time - the original Ultima and Kings Quest games were also good - but they have since been eclipsed by other games. It's not that the aforementioned games weren't good - it's that the games that eclipsed them weren't even remotely possible at the time, so it is only fair to judge them based on what was available to compete with them.
I disagree that this is how it works, although I understand that many/most people see it this way. The constant evolution and outclassing that you're describing is how science and technology works (thus the car example), but not how art works, and I prefer to value the latter over the former when it comes to videogames. Modern films have not outclassed older films due to technology, for example, and I think videogames work similarly-- most people will not give a silent film a chance because it's become less accessible due to technological limitations, but there exist silent films that are still fantastic when viewed today, even ignoring the context of their impact on history. Unlike with technology, a videogame is something where more is not necessarily more. You can make a creative decision to go backwards and do less than what technology is capable of and feasible craft a more effective and appropriate experience. A game's greatness could be benefited by advanced technology, depending on what it's trying to do, but it is not proportional to it, which means that a game made under limitations CAN become outdated and improved upon but is not necessarily doomed to that fate.

There happen to not be any text adventure games that still hold up (I wouldn't know, I haven't tried many), but I don't think it's impossible to imagine one that still holds up, if it truly is done that well. Even if a lastingly good one was made, it would be niche, and most people would not appreciate it even if they tried it because most are stuck on the bells and whistles of modern technology, but that's more of a comment on general ignorance and open-mindedness than quality.

Personally, I find actual forward thinking innovation to be an overstated quality. It's a factor, and can play into how inspired a game feels, but it's by no means the required thing that makes something great.

I think that judging things relative to what was possible at the time and not expecting them to hold up gives people the wrong impression about how worthwhile the experiences can be and does a disservice to things that actually still hold up.

The fact that things can be timeless and hold up forever is probably what I like most about things like videogames, films, and music, and if that were not true, I would be very disinterested in keeping up with never-ending meaningless escalator that just continuously goes up and up and makes all previous things redundant (which is why keeping up with technology and record-based athletics kind of bores me).
 
Last edited:

Kestrel

Registered User
Jan 30, 2005
5,814
129
I disagree that this is how it works, although I understand that many/most people see it this way. The constant evolution and outclassing that you're describing is how science and technology works (thus the car example), but not how art works, and I prefer to value the latter over the former when it comes to videogames. Modern films have not outclassed older films due to technology, for example, and I think videogames work similarly-- most people will not give a silent film a chance because it's become less accessible due to technological limitations, but there exist silent films that are still fantastic when viewed today, even ignoring the context of their impact on history. Unlike with technology, a videogame is something where more is not necessarily more. You can make a creative decision to go backwards and do less than what technology is capable of and feasible craft a more effective and appropriate experience. A game's greatness could be benefited by advanced technology, depending on what it's trying to do, but it is not proportional to it, which means that a game made under limitations CAN become outdated and improved upon but is not necessarily doomed to that fate.

There happen to not be any text adventure games that still hold up (I wouldn't know, I haven't tried many), but I don't think it's impossible to imagine one that still holds up, if it truly is done that well. Even if a lastingly good one was made, it would be niche, and most people would not appreciate it even if they tried it because most are stuck on the bells and whistles of modern technology, but that's more of a comment on general ignorance and open-mindedness than quality.

Personally, I find actual forward thinking innovation to be an overstated quality. It's a factor, and can play into how inspired a game feels, but it's by no means the required thing that makes something great.

I think that judging things relative to what was possible at the time and not expecting them to hold up gives people the wrong impression about how worthwhile the experiences can be and does a disservice to things that actually still hold up.

The fact that things can be timeless and hold up forever is probably what I like most about things like videogames, films, and music, and if that were not true, I would be very disinterested in keeping up with never-ending meaningless escalator that just continuously goes up and up and makes all previous things redundant (which is why keeping up with technology and record-based athletics kind of bores me).
I don't think you can actually fully divorce video games from technology. Films aren't really analogous - once you get past talkies - or colour if you prefer - the technology is the same. Sure, it has become refined, but there is nothing drastically different about it. That's not true of video games. There are no "mechanics" really to watching a movie, but there definitely are to a video game. The distance from CGA to UHD is massive compared from the distance of SD to UHD. Movies never had a 1MB or less capacity limit, or a 640k (or much less) memory limit. Films never had load time issues. Films eventually had the option of watching in 3D, but that still isn't really analogous to having to use a keyboard, or eventually having an option to use a mouse, then a controller. Technology, and the changes it makes are such an integral part of gaming - while it can flavour the movie watching experience, it really isn't so integral for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Big McLargehuge

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
I don't think you can actually fully divorce video games from technology. Films aren't really analogous - once you get past talkies - or colour if you prefer - the technology is the same. Sure, it has become refined, but there is nothing drastically different about it. That's not true of video games. There are no "mechanics" really to watching a movie, but there definitely are to a video game. The distance from CGA to UHD is massive compared from the distance of SD to UHD. Movies never had a 1MB or less capacity limit, or a 640k (or much less) memory limit. Films never had load time issues. Films eventually had the option of watching in 3D, but that still isn't really analogous to having to use a keyboard, or eventually having an option to use a mouse, then a controller. Technology, and the changes it makes are such an integral part of gaming - while it can flavour the movie watching experience, it really isn't so integral for them.
The principle is the same, though (especially if you get into what technology is involved in MAKING the movies). Films still had to work within their limitations, and old films had fewer tools and lesser capabilities than they do now. But how good films can be have not been proportional to those capabilities. The same thing applies to videogames, although I agree, to a much greater extent that involves interaction and hardware. Old videogames have far fewer options (and as a result, you can't get as much variety from it), but just like with old movies, what they do within those limitations can reach equally great heights. Improved technology allows you to do more with the mechanics, but more isn't necessarily better, and in some cases, it can be worse. Chess wouldn't be improved if you add more complexity to the rules, for example, and it isn't any less effective of a game than other games that dominate it in terms of complexity.

As long as the effectiveness of minimalism applies in a medium (which I would argue that it does in games or videogames as strongly as I would in movies or music), it's never going to ONLY progress in one direction and continuously make every previous iteration inferior, IMO, at least not when it's done well.

If you were to argue that with old technology, it's impossible for controls and responsiveness to feel effective due to these limitations, then okay, I think that would be a workable way of looking at it if it were the case (because that would be a truly integral requirement), but from what I can see, games that work well within their limitations haven't gotten noticeably more responsive over time, at least not to a degree that makes a big difference.

We also don't necessarily NEED to take controller limitations as part of the equation when talking about how good old games are. We can play old games on whatever device we want now. You don't judge old music purely by considering the inconveniences of tape cassettes or vinyl (not that I think those inconveniences are a huge factor anyways). Playing old music on modern formats isn't cheating, nor is playing old games on modern formats.
 
Last edited:

H3ckt1k

Registered User
Jan 9, 2015
2,153
1,384
Would never sell/give away any of my old games. I want to be able to play them with my children when I'm older, just like my dad did with me. I also never know when I may get a craving to play some random game, so I would hate to get rid of a game just to want to play it later. I know I can always emulate it, but it just isn't the same.

I also don't really care too much about graphic quality or anything like that, so I have no problem going from a new game to a game from 15 years ago. If it's a fun game, I will have fun playing it, no matter how old it is.
 

Aladyyn

they praying for the death of a rockstar
Apr 6, 2015
18,091
7,213
Czech Republic
Great games will always hold up. If a game feels outdated when you play it, it's probably just not that good.
 

Knave

Registered User
Mar 6, 2007
21,627
2,226
Ottawa
Games are exponentially better now despite my lack of time these days to play them.

I miss the days of playing Age of Empires, Starcraft and then moving on to Runescape for a short little while and then Guild Wars when that released. I played a bit of WoW because my friends did but never really got into it personally. GunZ The Duel online was another game maybe around the time of Runescape/Guild Wars that I really enjoyed. I bought Age of Empires as they released which they stopped doing at around the time Guild Wars came out. I played some League of Legends/World of Tanks after Guild Wars started dying.

But personally I recognize that's nostalgia. I'm back at Age of Empires because they re-released it with updated graphics and a slightly better engine. It helps a lot but ultimately it's about the community, playing with and against each other and trying new things.... and at a certain point the game does become stale and there's no going back or rediscovering.

I value old games for the great experiences they gave me and for my interest in history, science and technology (Age of Empires + Starcraft). I miss those days of discovering a new strategy and technique. But there is no going back. The games of today do feel much better even if I'm not getting that same sense of wonderment - perhaps because everything now is so instant that once something is discovered it's put out there for everyone to see, attempt and master immediately.
 

syz

[1, 5, 6, 14]
Jul 13, 2007
28,864
12,262
I feel sorry for people who can't get past the graphics of games because they are missing out on many great old games.

They're missing out on many new great games as well. The mainstream market is fixated on resolution and graphical fidelity to the point where it's become detrimental for big budget video game development.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
Nostalgia only skews perception when it comes to bad games that weren't ever as good as you thought initially or games that you don't bother to actually revisit-- it has way less influence than people suggest because, like you mentioned, most of the time, when you revisit something, you can see through it pretty easily and understand how good or bad it actually is. The argument that praise for old games is due to nostalgia doesn't hold up because there are numerous instances where you can play old games that you were unaware of when you were younger, and still be blown away when they actually happen to be good. There's a bit of an accessibility barrier to overcome when you do that, but that has more to do with familiarity than actual quality.
 
Last edited:

Knave

Registered User
Mar 6, 2007
21,627
2,226
Ottawa
Nostalgia only skews perception when it comes to bad games that weren't ever as good as you thought initially or games that you don't bother to actually revisit-- it has way less influence than people suggest because, like you mentioned, most of the time, when you revisit something, you can see through it pretty easily and understand how good or bad it actually is. The argument that praise for old games is due to nostalgia doesn't hold up because there are numerous instances where you can play old games that you were unaware of when you were younger, and still be blown away when they actually happen to be good. There's a bit of an accessibility barrier to overcome when you do that, but that has more to do with familiarity than actual quality.

That has never happened to me. It is nostalgia.
 

syz

[1, 5, 6, 14]
Jul 13, 2007
28,864
12,262
You can't claim to miss StarCraft and then call it nostalgia, considering that genre has literally died since then.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,875
3,570
Vancouver, BC
That has never happened to me. It is nostalgia.
Right, I'm just saying that it isn't something that can be made as a blanket statement about the idea as a whole.

Recently, I've been going through the whole SNES Classic customization worm-hole, and I've been discovering NES/SNES games that I previously didn't know about and re-assessing the ones that I do, and my feelings are completely different than what they were when I was younger and more ignorant. I've gained an appreciation of some of them (Mario: Lost Levels, Donkey Kong Country 3, Wild Guns which I had never played before) and lost appreciation of some of them (Star Fox, Donkey Kong 1). I also discovered Earthbound within the past five years, and it's honestly up there with my favorites.

Hell, I had never played any NES games until now because I previously dismissed them as outdated and ugly way back when I was ten years old, but now I'm realizing that some of them are surprisingly brilliant and actually hold up (although let's face it, 95% of those games are pretty lame and borderline unplayable).
 
Last edited:

bambamcam4ever

107 and counting
Feb 16, 2012
14,303
6,344
One thing I've noticed is that Nintendo games have held up much better than other consoles, likely due to their focus on game-play over graphics or expansive worlds. For example, I've probably only played 3 games from Xbox 360 since I got a PS4.
 

GlassesJacketShirt

Registered User
Aug 4, 2010
11,398
4,133
Sherbrooke
Mechanics and design remain the two main pillars of gaming: those whose strengths fall into these categories will always survive the test of time.

As such, those who refuse to try something because of its "age" really are closing doors and potentially memorable experiences.

Which is perfectly fine.
 
Last edited:

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->