Poll: Can You Still Enjoy Classic Games Despite The Advancements Of Modern Games?

[RJ 17]

Hello, my fellow Escapists! I come to you with a discussion I've been having with another member of our community regarding classic games vs modern games. His argument is essentially that classic games are obsolete. He doesn't enjoy playing them - or at least gets bored playing them - because of how advanced modern games are compared to them. He appreciates what classic games have done in terms of advancing the medium, but due to the fact that they were made with inferior designs (compared to today's games) he no longer cares to play them. That's all well and good, it's his taste after all and there's nothing wrong with that.

The point I'm trying to make to justify why I still enjoy playing classic games is simply this: a good game is a good game, regardless of what era it was made in, and regardless of what progress has been made since that game was released. And no amount of evolution/progress/advancement should be able to take away from the enjoyment one receives from playing a good game.

So I'd like your input on the matter. Are good classic games still good and enjoyable despite the fact that they're made with dated technology, design, and capabilities? Or are they obsolete due to the fact that modern games are objectively better in terms of technology, design, and capabilities?

Just as a side note: he's been trying to prove his point as an objective, logical fact since modern games are indeed objectively superior in terms of advancement...while I've said three times now that this is an entirely subjective discussion to begin with.

 

[Legion]

I think it largely depends on the game and what you mean by enjoy.

For example I replayed the "remake" of Halo: Combat Evolved which is the same game as the one from the original Xbox but with prettier graphics. I still found that game to be ten times more enjoyable than Halo 4.

I also did not play Shadow of the Colossus until the PS3, as well as near the end of it's cycle. Aside from the awkward controls I think it is one of the best games I have ever played and would love it if we could get a "real" remake that was identical except a graphical upgrade and a better control scheme. Silent Hill 2 I have a very similar opinion of.

On the other hand, despite playing Fallout 1+2 as well as System Shock 2 quite recently and really liking them. Their clunky and annoying interfaces and such mean that while I am pleased I finally got around to playing them, I cannot really play them again without getting frustrated.

 

[pookie101]

personal preference and opinion does not make something an objective fact

i still play a strategy game from the mid 80s and i love it.. the counters are just different coloured O's but despite all the modern graphics, modern games have yet to capture the same atmosphere

 

[DefunctTheory]

I think it comes down less to the games mechanics, and more to the controls.

You can always enjoy the old stuff - The NES/SNES Marios and Zeldas, Megaman, ancient Mechwarrior games, and so on are all fun, and their controls still hold up today. Games like Zelda: Ocarina of Time, however, are harder ones to keep playing - Its still a fantastic game, but the controls don't hold up, and that holds it back.

 

[WoJ]

I definitely can enjoy old games. I can pick up the original Final Fantasy and have more fun with that at times than a modern game. There is much to be said for the simplicity of older games in their mechanics and the way they tell their stories. That said, if an old game has terrible/broken gameplay it's not going to be fun to play. But that is not limited to older games; there are newer games that are prettier, better narratives, and have more shine. But the gameplay and mechanics are not strong. Ultimately gameplay makes or breaks a game for me in terms of playability, at least to a point.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

I've always been keen on retro games.

I just finished my first playthrough of Knights of the Old Republic last week and I found the whole thing more satisfying than many more modern games I've played in past years.

I didn't play Metal Gear Solid 2 until last year and I loved it.

I've been going through old Mega Man games (that I never before played when I was younger) off and on for the past several years and that's been tons of fun.

Truly good games are timeless, unless not having having up-to-date graphical quality is really important to you, in which case, you're probably shallow. Yeah, I said it.

 

[Evonisia]

If you listened to some people, older mechanics are inherently superior to newer ones.

And I'll mirror what people have said and say that it really depends on the game. So long as the game wasn't an unintuitive mess to begin with, there really isn't any detriment to playing older games beyond a tiny learning window and then you're golden. 2D Mario games on the SNES aren't suddenly made unplayable because Rayman Origins and Legends have pretty much perfected 2D Platformer mechanics.

 

[thewatergamer]

The poll is much to limited, it depends on the game, I can still go back and enjoy say super mario world a ton, but when I go and try to play a game like the original Deus Ex or Perfect Dark, they feel too dated

 

[Auron225]

Depends on how well the game has aged. I can handle hilariously bad graphics; in fact, I'm currently re-playing FF9... on an HD TV... with an HDMI cable (the graphics are beyond shit).

What can put me off is outdated gameplay mechanics, or extremely unintuitive puzzles... the sort that make you say aloud "How the hell was I to ever think of that?".

 

[sonicneedslovetoo]

Really depends, a lot older RPGs are terrible today because they are so obtuse, some of them even have weird things like "if you don't use X weapon on the final boss you'll have to do everything all over again" and stuff like that. However there are some games that I think hold up fairly well, like daggerfall, I think of all the older western RPGs that I've played Daggerfall plays the best in a modern setting.
Its all about how well the gameplay, controls etc. have aged and in that respect I don't think a lot of old PC games (ZX Spectrum and the like) have aged all that well since they either use a one button joystick or make you do weird things like turn left with 4 move forward with 7 and turn right with 9.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I voted no, because the majority of older games that I've played in contemporary times are still fun to me. I don't expect everyone, especially younger gamers, to enjoy them, but there's the potential of fun for people who do not automatically dismiss anything older as crap.

There are many games that hold up just as well as they did when they were released and the lesser graphics (or even lack thereof) does not detract from the game itself nor what made it fun.

Still there are games I admit I enjoy solely because of nostalgia and doubt others who never experienced them would find the same joy from playing them that I do.

 

[Something Amyss]

Weirdly, I was just sort of talking about this with someone.

Like another poster said, it depends on part on how the game has aged. In essence, it doesn't matter if a game's 3 years old or 30, I tend to have issues with them both for the same reasons. I *might* forgive retro games more for the nostalgia factor.

But if a game looks bad (not as in, lacks 4K graphics or 900 FPS) or worse, plays bad, I'm inclined to not replay it. On the other hand, there are games from pretty much every generation I will or want to go back and play. Some games are bad, though. Some games are awkward. Some games are absolutely not as good as I remember.

 

[Hawki]

You really need better options in the poll, not to mention that how well a game ages is down to a variety of components. For instance, in experience, a platformer is going to hold up better than an RTS. The early Sonic games? Great. Games like Warcraft I? Not so much.

 

[Erttheking]

Depends.

I find some older games (Like Suikoden) to be better than the modern games in their genre. Others (Like Fallout) haven't aged that well.

 

[JohnnyDelRay]

I'd say it depends on the game, and what aspect about it that could put me off. I mean I can still play 16-bit classics like Streets of Rage anytime, and have a ball with it. However there are games that even though I loved and put in my most cherished memories pile, I still can't get back into due to crummy controls (Resident Evil 4). And some games I also remember being completely impressed by the graphics, but just looks so dull in comparison today (KoToR), doesn't stop it being one of the most epic games of all time though.

Some other retro games I love playing are Jagged Alliance 2 and Fallout, they're not really cutting edge for their time either but the simplicity and details that they do include (bodies getting spun around by bullets and blood splatters) are pretty cool. Plus the flexibility that they allow with such a straightforward point turn-based system are great, like toss a stun grenade, run up to the downed opponent, steal his gun and shoot him with it. Can't do that in most modern turn-based games.

 

[Joccaren]

Older games are definitely still playable. The only definitive 'advancement' is in the realm of graphics, sound, and overall presentation. Outside of that, I actually think a lot of games have regressed to worse mechanics in some cases, rather than progressed forward. First person shooters are an example for me. The ones today? Crap. I enjoy classic Quake way more than the new Call of Duty or Battlefield.

I also enjoy older RPGs more. Yeah, the interface was more obscure. They were often more in depth with their mechanics though, whereas in modern times we get action RPGs that focus on action gameplay rather than classic RPG fare. I actually enjoy Mass Effect 1s gameplay more than I do its successors because of this, even if it is a bit clunky to say the least.

Its preferences in what gameplay you enjoy, rather than objective progress. Some things have moved forward - I do now, after Brave New World [The base game was just utter shit], have to admit that Civ V is an overall improvement on Civ IV. I still prefer some aspects of Civ IV, but with Brave New World Civ V does bring sufficient depth to the table, whilst improving on most of the issues with Civ IV, like massive unit stacks. However, other games have simply changed. Some prefer the huge focus on iron sights and huge amounts of recoil + slow movement, I prefer really fast paced, high accuracy, no ADS, no regenerating health utter slugfest of the earlier FPS. It was just more fun.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

For example I replayed the "remake" of Halo: Combat Evolved which is the same game as the one from the original Xbox but with prettier graphics. I still found that game to be ten times more enjoyable than Halo 4

I could be mistaken but I'm pretty sure there were some minor tweaks made to the anniversary edition. I recall in the original Halo CE for example, the Needler and Plasma Pistol were useful and surprisingly powerful respectively. In the remastered edition I remember them being weaker.

---

I find that games that I haven't played from the years ago are harder to get into than something I'm more familiar with. That being said though, there are some games that I never played as a kid that I found really enjoyable later on like Thief 2, Shadow Warrior and, Deus Ex. I actually have the most trouble getting into games during the N64/PSX era. I can look past the graphics but the inability to control a camera in a 3D game is incredibly frustrating...

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Well graphics I can give a pass, but mechanics are harder to forgive.

 

[FPLOON]

Fuck yeah you can still enjoy the classic shit... Just subjectively, the level of one's overall enjoyment varies from player to player...

Other than that, there are times where you shouldn't judge something by something else and just experience it at face value...