Are classic games getting a free ride?

[TriGGeR_HaPPy]

It's an interesting question, but you also have to realise that some games (when excluding the graphics and sound etc.) are, in fact, better than some modern games.
E.g. I'd rather play Sonic 3 then play Sonic Unleashed. I'd rather play Duke Nukem 3D then play any recent release of Grand Theft Auto (that might just be a personal choice though ). Etc., etc.

Yes, while modern games are in some respects better, and while there are (of course) some classic games which were just no good at all, there are a few "good" classic games which just have a certain, hard to describe element that will simply last (if not forever, then) a very long time.

 

[Jandau]

Older games should be graded in context of the time they came out. If you compare the first Prince of Persia to the latest one on a "Right here right now!" basis, that's not really fair, especially when you consider that the original is a fairly revolutionary action game, and the latest one is a mildly flat and repetitive knockoff of the previous few PoP games...

And while it is true that older games get points for nostalgia value, it is also true that in some cases games simply are not as good anymore. Sure, the graphics have gotten better, but that's pretty much it. Take RPGs for instance: Has ANY RPG matched or exceeded Torment's story? Or the overall magnum opus that is Baldur's Gate 2?

RPGs today are (considering only the high-profile titles): Bethesda's vast semi-empty worlds devoid of interesting stories and characters, Obsidian's half-realized visions, Bioware's play-it-safe by-the-book blockbusters and Squeenix' generic JRPG #1972.

So yes, in some cases, old games still beat the pants off of many today's titles...

 

[sonidraw]

Well, I still play my ol' Gameboy and N64 from time to time. And I tried digging out my Sega Genesis, but it looks like I sold it.

For the most part, though, I enjoy games released in the last decade.

 

[RAWKSTAR]

Hmm, well I must say some old games do deserve the praise they get.
Most SNES games for me are far more inventive and intuitive than our modern day counter parts. I'd much rather play Earthbound than most RPGs out today for example, not because I played it as a child, just because it was far more fun and different.

I feel that it's the fact that most old games are allot different from each other which makes them stick in peoples mind more as being great games.

 

[veloper]

Older games should be graded in context of the time they came out.

Agreed.

Sure, the graphics have gotten better, but that's pretty much it. Take RPGs for instance: Has ANY RPG matched or exceeded Torment's story? Or the overall magnum opus that is Baldur's Gate 2?

I'm going to give the Witcher a try. I've been hearing good things about it.
There have been some great FP RPGS like Deus ex and Bloodlines after BG2 and that's seems to be the direction RPGs are now heading.

Also, Troika could come up with creative stories and good characters post BG2, but they too are now resting in pieces.

 

[Jandau]

I'm going to give the Witcher a try. I've been hearing good things about it.
There have been some great FP RPGS like Deus ex and Bloodlines after BG2 and that's seems to be the direction RPGs are now heading.

Also, Troika could come up with creative stories and good characters post BG2, but they too are now resting in pieces.

Witcher is good, but it can't measure up to the old classics. The combat is plain boring for one thing. The story is a bit fuzzy at times even though it's not bad. Also, the original release had some terrible translation and voiceovers. Enhanced edition fixed most of it though...

Deus Ex came out the same year as BG2 (IIRC), so they are in the same category. Bloodlines was a step in the right direction, however I disagree that it's the future, as shown by the fact that Troika is dead.

In fact, it seems to be something the RPG genre is moving AWAY from. About half of the RPG releases in the past few years have been action RPGs instead of story-driven games, and only a part of the remaining half is actually worth playing...

Granted, there's some light at the end of the tunnel with Bioware and DA:O + ME2. I'm also waiting to see how Obsidian's Alpha Protocol turns out, and I heard something about Baldur's Gate 3 that I'm not sure I'm happy about, but time will tell...

 

[RapidCrash]

I agree that games are sometimes put onto those lists just for being classics, but you really must realize what they mean by something such as "top 100 games of all time" or the sorts. Most games are rated by their innovation at the time and how fun they are.

One thing that does bug me though is how classic games are constantly remade and sold as a completely new game. Like we don't have enough copies of Bomberman already. Some companies spend too much time recreating the classics instead of coming out with *original* and *innovative* games.

 

[xenxander]

You always fall into a rut of "been there, done that". Also the "seen it" keeps spilling out over and over.

Games of this age don't interest me as much as when the old games were in fact, new games.

yes when you saw "Super Mario World" it was a new game -it trumped the others. (some still argue the power-ups were better in '3' but oh well).

When you played Castlevenia, it was a new type of game, apart from super mario bros. Bubble Bobble was new too, as was balloon fight (though that game kind of copied from joust).

Metroid was one of the first non-linear platform games of its time, and Battletoads offered a spray of things that felt like it didn't know what it wanted to do, but arguably the one-player game is quite good.

FF 6 was quite different from FF 4 (Our U.S. version was FF 2).

My point is things were new because they were, well, new. If you play Call of Duty, or Halo, it's just one more FPS game. If you play FFXII or FFX, it's "JARPG" (just another rpg) of the same type.

Games started to be 'samey' when platforming had 'been done', or a company tried the 'cop-out' method.. for instance "Sunsoft" tried "Fester's Quest" when it had already made "Blaster Master", and "Fester" was complete rip-off of "Blaster", but done worse in my mind.

We started to see "Life Force", IE Gradius 2, taking the same game but adding things that made it 'better'. We saw then "Gradius III" and thought "best of the series", due to graphics. But now graphics are pretty much standard "good" in all games, so eyes can't be fooled any longer by saying "this game's 'better' because, well, just 'look at it!'. It makes retro gamers shake their heads and wonder "do they really think we can't tell it's the same game?".

You wonder if retro games are given "free rides" on the "top 100 board", but I don't think so. If a game is honestly improved, like "Life force" over "Gradius" then I do admit "Life force" is better. If a game is merely a re-skinned game, like the numerous "Fear" expansion packs, or 'GTA (insert number here)', it just receives my "yawn" and I move on.

 

[squid5580]

No they don't. Just because a game did something new and or innovative back in the day that everyone has done to death now doesn't mean the first game to do it was good. Take Final Fantasy 7, PLEASE (hardy har har har)! Sure it made RPGs what they are today. It wasn't very good though. The plot was ridiculous. The graphics were OK for its time. And the combat system was mediocore at best. And better RPGs have come out since. Yet I am sure someone will read this and tell me how wrong I am and tell me what a moron I am for not appreciating it. When the truth of the matter is I did like it back when it first came out. It just doesn't hold a candle to todays standards of games.

 

[super_smash_jesus]

With this generations gaming becoming a huge suckfest, I enjoy looking back to retro games and praising them for what they are worth. I don't necessarily mean pong and tetris, although classics, were more stepping stones than actual gems. But gaming hit a lot of great games in the next few generations with the nintendo, snes, genesis, n64 and ps1. That was when gaming was the most exciting for me, there was variation in games (not the same thing again and again with prettier graphic), focus was more on fun gameplay because they couldn't have the online "crutch", and they came out with some of the highest regarded titles.

So no, they aren't getting a free ride, I think they deserve every bit of praise they get, especially if compared to todays gaming which has become stale and repetitive.

 

[Dale Cooper]

Both Mario and Sonic need to be put down...

 

[Nazulu]

Completely different games played for different reasons. When you play a game like Asteroids or Tetris you are going for the highest score, you can come back to it anytime and it's a very simple but very challenging game.

Then you got games like Half Life with great graphics, big detailed adventures and many other things however, that is not what everyone looks for in a game and could you say it is more fun? No you can not.

These old games are great for a reason and it's not like all the old games back then got the same praise, some just weren't as good.

 

[manicfoot]

It isn't fair to hold an old game to today's standards. The best way judge them get some context by researching what other games of the time were like. You'll then see why people praise Pong, Mario Bros, Ocarina of Time etc.
Btw I think Pong is pretty fun even today. That's not nostalgia talking either because I wasn't even born when it came out. It has a simple competitive appeal to it that can be quite addictive.

 

[Strafe Mcgee]

Return To Castle Wolfenstein, the last good FPS with a health bar, also happens to be the best FPS. Why? It's a long and solid game that does everything right. Everything improved upon after the release of that game is graphics.

Apart from Half-Life 2, which caused physics engines to be a necessity for modern gaming.

Anyway, most retro games aren't given a 'free ride', they're generally included in Top 100 lists because they were important for their time and they're still fun to play today. Space Invaders I agree with you about, it's a bit too dated and not particularly fun to play any more. Same goes for Pong. But what about Monkey Island? What About Civilisation 2? What about Sonic The Hedgehog 2? What about Doom? each and every one of these games is still fun to play, regardless of their graphical flaws.