Guilty as charged! Some of the retro games are true classics, some are just trials of endurance that make you earn your bragging rights, and some are just big piles of steaming turd.
There's no point in claiming an argument of "be honest" - you are basing your argument on the perception of one: yourself. Whereas the cult status and following of the games, and their true merit as being worth of discourse and whether they were a good idea or not is down to the opinions of many.
Both Mario and Zelda are not just culture icons, but have gone on to define and redefine their respective genres many times during their long histories. They are benchmark games franchises, and people refer to them with regards to what should be in a classic game of their type. They are considered the foundation from which all others games work from - and you can see this methodology in the casual and browser games industry, as well as the neo-retro market.
If they were released now, another game would have the position that Mario and Zelda have in their genres, but these games continue to push boundaries and evolve in terms of gameplay, because this is something that Nintendo is noted for. So even if they weren't benchmark games, they would still likely have merit for pushing boundaries and trying new things.
This is a massive misconception. While many fans of these franchises do buy them because of their cult following, there are many that do buy them and play them because of their gameplay, and continue to do so, with each iteration gaining new generations of fans.Robert Ewing said:I don't mind retro games, I think a few are awesome, while a few are shit. No different to modern games.
The things I do hate are retro gamers themselves. Not all of them of course, the ones that claim that they know EVERYTHING about the past, present and future of gaming because they were there when it all began. I hate it, they are so proud of playing those 8 bit shit-balls, that for the most part, are only popular because of the cool geek culture they've created.
For example, if Zelda or Mario hadn't of existed, and was released today in all modern graphics glory, nobody would give a shit. It would be a terrible idea. Be honest, it would. They are only popular because they were released at the right time, and spawned a massive, MASSIVE geek culture lineage.
There's no point in claiming an argument of "be honest" - you are basing your argument on the perception of one: yourself. Whereas the cult status and following of the games, and their true merit as being worth of discourse and whether they were a good idea or not is down to the opinions of many.
Both Mario and Zelda are not just culture icons, but have gone on to define and redefine their respective genres many times during their long histories. They are benchmark games franchises, and people refer to them with regards to what should be in a classic game of their type. They are considered the foundation from which all others games work from - and you can see this methodology in the casual and browser games industry, as well as the neo-retro market.
If they were released now, another game would have the position that Mario and Zelda have in their genres, but these games continue to push boundaries and evolve in terms of gameplay, because this is something that Nintendo is noted for. So even if they weren't benchmark games, they would still likely have merit for pushing boundaries and trying new things.