Game Persistence and Digital Preservation

[Manji187]

Kind of an academic title I know, so allow me to elaborate. There are certain (relatively) old games that despite their age keep coming back.

One of the best examples I can think of is Chrono Trigger. Originally released on the SNES back in 1995, it was ported to the PSX (PS1) in 1999. Subsequently it got an upgraded DS release in 2008 and a Virtual Console release in 2011. It isn't hard to see that this game is firmly lodged in "the collective memory" of gaming as a phenomenon. I see games like MGS3 and Zelda OoT slowly starting to walk the same path.

Several questions that come up in my mind:

-How long can a game persist before it becomes so antiquated or irrelevant to a new generation of gamers that it falls into oblivion?
-Are certain games to be considered timeless? For instance, who still plays Super Mario Bros. 3?
-Have certain games "earned the right" to live on eternally in a digital "Hall of Fame" of sorts for the next generations?

The last question ties in to the issue of digital preservation. Take Steam for instance. Officially released in 2004 it is now about 8 years old. Relatively young. It has lots of users, most of them having huge libraries.

But as hardware and software evolves, who will be technically able to play games like Grim Fandango (1998), Planescape: Torment (1999) or the first Half-Life (1998) in, say, ten years time (2022)? Who will even want to? They're great games, sure, but they have aged and some of them have aged badly. This trend will only continue.

Again, a couple of questions.

-How long should games be available and supported?
-Should certain games be allowed to "die off"? (think stuff like Too Human, Kane and Lynch 2, Call of Juarez The Cartel. In other words: crap)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TLDR: Games age and are forgotten. Should we preserve some/ all of them? If some, which ones and for how long?

 

[Skin]

Alot of RTSes hold up very well. For example, do a graphic job on Starcraft or Age of Empires 2, and they would be as good as new and hold up very well.

Shooters on the other hand do show their age. I would never play HL again (even though I loved it to bits), even if it got photorealistic graphics, because the gameplay is balls by todays standards. The Halo Anniversary held up quite well, but the flaws in level design and linearity became more and more apparent (though some levels were almost flawless).

RPG's wouldn't hold up I don't think. The gameplay is far too boring, even if the story is great.

 

[Scrustle]

It's obvious that some games should be preserved. Not all are worth being preserved but we shouldn't let the ones that are die off. I couldn't really say which games in particular should be saved. That's something that I think has a lot of subjectivity in it, but whatever we try to save we should aim to save them for as long as we can. Something truly great should never be forgotten, even if it doesn't seem to hold it's relevance any more. They should be kept as a symbol to remind us of what defined the age of gaming when the game was released. Like if you look at Goldeneye. People always remember that as being the first ever really good FPS on consoles which also offered great fun with it's multiplayer. But if you go back and play it now, it hasn't aged well at all. But it still deserves it's place in history and it's memory should be preserved.

 

[RanD00M]

-How long can a game persist before it becomes so antiquated or irrelevant to a new generation of gamers that it falls into oblivion?

For as long as people play them and keep reminding others of them. Most people remember the old SMB games, and some even play them to this day.
I also think that a game is relevant for as long as new games are taking notes of them. And most newer games are still taking notes from their elders.

-Are certain games to be considered timeless? For instance, who still plays Super Mario Bros. 3?

Well of course there are. And even if not that many people play them anymore doesn't mean that they aren't timeless. Not many people really remember Uriah Heep, that doesn't change the fact they are certainly timeless.

-Have certain games "earned the right" to live on eternally in a digital "Hall of Fame" of sorts for the next generations?

Some might I guess, I don't know. I don't really know of any, but some might.

-How long should games be available and supported?

Supply and demand. As long as there is demand for an older game it should be available and supported.

-Should certain games be allowed to "die off"? (think stuff like Too Human, Kane and Lynch 2, Call of Juarez The Cartel. In other words: crap)

See pervious Q&A

 

[Manji187]

Alot of RTSes hold up very well. For example, do a graphic job on Starcraft or Age of Empires 2, and they would be as good as new and hold up very well.

Shooters on the other hand do show their age. I would never play HL again (even though I loved it to bits), even if it got photorealistic graphics, because the gameplay is balls by todays standards. The Halo Anniversary held up quite well, but the flaws in level design and linearity became more and more apparent (though some levels were almost flawless).

RPG's wouldn't hold up I don't think. The gameplay is far too boring, even if the story is great.

I think the reason Starcraft 1 will live on is because of its huge popularity, especially in South Korea where it is literally a way of life. Also, the community around it will do its part.

As to RPGs, again, Chrono Trigger (predominantly because of the story). But that's the only exception I can think of, perhaps some FFs as well (VI and VII especially). But who knows...maybe in 10 years time (if there is no remake) they will all fade into oblivion.

 

[Chocomint]

For a long time I've wanted to play Grim Fandango, actually, after hearing some great reviews about it. I'm just not sure if I want to pay the $30 Amazon's asking for it. If it was available for a more affordable price on Steam, I would buy it without a second thought.

I think games should be supported as long as we can afford to. We can learn from bad games just as much as good ones, so if nothing else it's a reference guide for things to avoid.

Somewhere around here I still have discs for old point and click adventure games like Sam & Max, DOTT, and would replay them if I could find them, so I'd try to preserve these as long as I could.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Games will be preserved; good or bad.
The older games are easy. Besides many being re-released on the online stores for various current consoles, people also collect roms and things like that.
I recently (inspired by a thread here) started playing Soul Blazer (one of the better Zelda clones of the snes era) again but now I can play (the backup I made of it on my phone.
The tricky thing is that I think the current games will get a little lost in the future now that so many games rely on online multiplayer and that is often the most compelling part of the game and those servers get shut down eventually; even if the game has online pass apparently. Games like CoD (which are popular now) wont get much play again 8 years much less 20 years down the road. At least we'll probably be able to play the single player campaigns on our phones.
The same thing is going to happen with games that rely too heavily on dlc & patches.

 

[dimensional]

For instance, who still plays Super Mario Bros. 3?

That would be me not that often ill grant you probably only once or twice a year but I still love it still my favourite platformer ever made.

As for how long games can exist and still be regarded as classics well probably about the lifetime of the person who grew up playing them so unless they continually release them they will slowly fade from public conciousness regardless of how good they are/were. Of course some games were the product of an age and just dont stand up well today for instance I can still play games like Punch out, Super Mario Bros, FFVII, Secret of Mana, Legend of Zelda Link to the Past just fine but I really cant get on with games like Super Metroid now the controls are so antiquated same with Bubble Bobble they just dont function like I remember.

But as for a hall of fame thing well sure you could have something like that but there would be a hell of a lot of disagreements on things that get put in there and in the end its pretty pointless anyway. Same with any media look at old black and white films some see them as the high point of cinema while others find them unwatchable. Classic books for every one I have actually enjoyed there seem to be about 10 others I have tried and failed to read due to boredom and of course there are classic plays or should I just say Shakespeare and who honestly thinks they really are classics rather than a load of drivel *quiet you*

I would add that nothing is truly timeless though and by their very nature games age quicker than other media but it would be nice if all games did get preserved digitally somehow for future generations even though I believe very few would ever get played.

 

[LilithSlave]

-How long can a game persist before it becomes so antiquated or irrelevant to a new generation of gamers that it falls into oblivion?

When new games start becoming equal to them.

Seriously, this is like saying "when will Chaucer become irrelevant?".

Classics never die.