• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Can Games Become "dated?"

Hanyou

didn't build that
Do you think games can get worse with age? Why or why not? Do you believe people who prefer older games to newer ones are wearing "nostalgia goggles?"

I hear this argument a lot in the gaming community--that older games are somehow worse because the technology used to make them, the mechanics, and the stories have become "dated" with time.

This topic was prompted partly because of the positive response Ocarina of Time 3DS has been getting. We'll see if it sticks--I suspect its final score will be lower than the original game's in '98--but we can still compare scores of numerous games from their original releases to re-releases. This review particularly sparked my ire, because in the first few lines the writer said exactly what I've been thinking for years:

Eurogamer said:
We have such a strange attitude towards our past as gamers. Our neophilism is such that re-releases are often regarded as brazen attempts at daylight robbery. It's a bizarre mindset that isn't to be found anywhere else in entertainment. ("Remasted Beatles albums? But I already heard Abbey Road.")

A game which received a perfect score from critics and gamers 20 years ago may well get a much lower and have a worse reception today. Here are some examples:

Pikmin: 2001: 86.86%, 2009: 79.55%
Perfect Dark: 2000: 94.31%, 2010: 79.03%
Sonic Adventure: 1999: 86.51%, 2003: 63.98%, 2010: 52.92%

I realize that aggregate review sites can be dubious, but the trend really is telling, and it's undeniable at the very least that the attitude survives among gamers.

I've been told on countless occassions that I'm wearing "nostalgia goggles" for, for example, still calling Ocarina of Time my favorite game, as if I couldn't rationally analyze other games because I was blinded by my love for something old. People forget, of course, that when that game came out I thought quite fondly of even older games, and it supplanted them in my personal favorites. People also ignore that many of us gamers have played games years after they were released and enjoyed them every bit as much as people did back then. This was certainly my case when I sat down to play the 8-bit Phantasy Star (which laid the foundation for JRPGs) in 2009, even though my first JRPG was Tales of Symphonia, released in 2004!

What people should acknowledge is either that games were overhyped upon release and people did not rationally analyze them, or better games have simply come out, but they're not better simply because of superior tech.

How many movie critics worth their salt would have claimed Jurassic Park was superior to King Kong simply because the technology used to make it was better? I thought so. The fact is, gamers are very shortsighted. So many fail to respect older games, even though no other industry would reject something that's older simply because something allegedly "better" has come around. How many music critics would argue that Bach's music is inferior to Camille Saint Saens', simply because the music of the romantic period developed on some of Bach's ideas? Again, it's an odd case to make.

Critics and gamers should refuse to bash rereleases (would it be bad to get Ben-Hur re-released on Blu-Ray? Who'd be against that?) and should also reject this notion that old games can possibly be dated at all. It makes no sense and it's absolutely childish. Those of us who appreciate older games for the same reasons we did when they were released aren't "wearing nostalgia goggles," we're simply consistent. Meanwhile, gamers who would change their assessment of a 10 or even 5-year-old game simply because of alleged improvements in the industry are completely illogical.

In addition, people should learn to either appreciate older games for utilizing the available technology and mechanics well or simply admit that they're biased. There's no shame in that, but it's disingenuous to claim otherwise when you fail to appreciate an older game for "dated" graphics or somesuch. If you can't appreciate a game's visual design over its graphical technology, if you can't appreciate its brilliance of design over less modern menus and mechanics, then that is your own bias, not a fault of the game or the game's developers.

Thoughts?
 

MattWalker

Windfall Walker
Joined
Jun 14, 2011
Location
Georgia
I think (and I literally mean, 'This is Matt Walker's opinion) that Gameplay is how you rate a game; everything else is a bonus.

Games absolutely can age, and become 'dated.' But is this such a bad thing?

Let's take Ocarina of Time, for example. Technically, this game, if released today in the condition it was released in the 90's, would be out-dated. The music, the graphics, camera and controls - all dated, from a technical stand-point. BUT does that make the game ANY less fun to play? Is the gameplay good?

Think of a video game like people. There are some awesome and some not-so-awesome people in this world. Not all people are as pretty as others, no all people can perform music as well, and not everyone can tell a good story, but if they're fun to be around, they're good company - despite their age.

So, can games become 'dated?' Sure. Does a game's 'funness' deteriorate because of age? I don't think so.

Pong is still a heck of a lot of fun, especially if playing with someone. ;)

Also, nostalgia goggles do effect such attitudes as well.

'Die Another Die' was the first James Bond movie I ever saw, and I loved it - I still enjoy it a lot, despite it, technically, being an awful movie and everyone hating it. But when I watch it, I think 'I LOVED THIS AS A KID.' ;)
 

Hanyou

didn't build that
I think (and I literally mean, 'This is Matt Walker's opinion) that Gameplay is how you rate a game; everything else is a bonus.

I'd actually disagree. Like any other form of art, a video game is the sum of its parts; in many cases, gameplay simply cannot be separated from the visuals (point-and-click games are an example). But why would visuals from the 90's be dated at all? Again, silent films aren't particularly worse for lack of sound, even if their lack of sound is due to limited technology.

Think of a video game like people. There are some awesome and some not-so-awesome people in this world. Not all people are as pretty as others, no all people can perform music as well, and not everyone can tell a good story, but if they're fun to be around, they're good company - despite their age.

Of course, art doesn't actually age at all. It can't. It doesn't deteriorate. Its biological clock doesn't stop ticking. It's only as organic as the people willing to apply changes to it, but on its own, art is capable of staying the same.

Also, nostalgia goggles do effect such attitudes as well.

'Die Another Die' was the first James Bond movie I ever saw, and I loved it - I still enjoy it a lot, despite it, technically, being an awful movie and everyone hating it. But when I watch it, I think 'I LOVED THIS AS A KID.' ;)

You're allowed to do that, but for someone to automatically assume that's why you like it is a straw man.

Furthermore, its age (even though it's a new Bond film) has no impact on its quality. It will be just as good or just as bad ten years from now, nostalgia be damned.
 

DuckNoises

Gone (Wind) Fishin'
Joined
Jul 16, 2010
Location
Montreal, QC, Canada
I agree wholeheartedly. It's a bizarre stance; people have become obsessed with the games of today without realizing where they come from. I used to hear those at my school rave about how amazing Call of Duty was, and how revolutionary it's multiplayer was, without thinking at all about what made a game like that possible. Frankly, I see a game like that as a rehash of old ideas, but if I show the same person GoldenEye for N64, they complain about its graphics and its bizarre control scheme and don't give it a chance. Much of people's perceptions and the world around have been skewed to the point where, as a society, we tend not to look backwards.

I find it an odd notion that I can pick up and enjoy an old game whereas other people cannot; I notice the little differences between an old game and a new game and I like to make distinctions. I like to notice what makes a game tick, and think how it was designed. By extension, that sheds insight on how games are being designed today, and what influences they have. Just as every great artist has had their influences, every developer has probably played an old game and are probably basing a new game on the intricacies of an old one as we speak -- and that's not a bad thing. That's just learning from the past, something that has been lost on us as a society and medium for the better part of the second half of the last decade (or, at least, that's when I seem to see it). I had never played Mass Effect, and I heard someone explain it to me and its premise, and I immediately thought -- "Oh, that sounds like Chrono Trigger." He then asked what Chrono Trigger was, and I told him it was an old RPG for SNES that many called a breakthrough in gaming, and I had agreed. Although to a much smaller degree in mass effect, when he mentioned making choices in Mass Effect, I thought of how I did that in Chrono Trigger, deciding to save this person here or there and seeing it come to impact the game in different time periods. I saw a lot of Chrono Trigger in Mass Effect, and I enjoyed both games very much.

But, would he feel the same way about Chrono Trigger if I showed it to him? Would he be able to look back at it, and realize that this is where much of modern RPGs (Japanese or Western) come from? Could he see what I saw in that game? These are questions that I find are more resounding "no"s for the general public as time progresses forward. I want people to see games this way, and in my opinion, this is how they need to be seen for gaming to be taken as a serious art form. This element of building upon each other is one found in most serious media, which acknowledges the progress of the medium as a whole rather than dismissing it as derivative. As gamers, it is easy to take the pessimistic route, either as old fogies intent on claiming today's games are just those of yesterday with a new coat of paint (as I am sometimes guilty of), just as it is easy to ignore the past and dismiss the old as belonging in the dustbin of history because it is no longer revolutionary. A revolutionary notion should remain powerful; although its novel sense is gone, the idea itself is still engineered with the same sense of ingenuity that it was born with, and its impact can still be seen. Is the French Revolution deemed unimportant now because there are now democracies in Europe? Is Mozart outdated and inherently boring because of newer musical styles? The answers to questions like these are simple "no"s, because what is the past there for if we can make nothing of it?

The pessimism we see from older gamers towards newer games is equally unwarranted, because, granted, some of them continue to build on what has come before them. These games should be embraced; in their own right, they are games that will one day be considered revolutionary. But the influx of the new does not mean we can forget the old, because the old is the foundation of the new. There are games that are universally embraced as classics, as there are works of art in every medium that are regarded as timeless. Not everything fits into that upper echelon of reverence, but that doesn't mean that every little stepping stone from then to now should be left unappreciated. That being said, neither should works of art that are leaps and bounds forward. Unfortunately, there are embittered individuals who tend to forget these ideas, and this is the reason for those gradually plummeting scores of greats that Hanyou cited. As a gaming community, we must remember our Ocarina of Time, our Street Fighter II, our GoldenEye 64, our Super Metroid -- games like these forge the future. This is a future that is still in the making, and it is a future that will be forever shifting with the ebb and flow of our medium. The old should not dismiss the new and the new should not dismiss the old -- only a synergy of new and old yields progression.

We can all appreciate the past, because we can learn from it.
 

SinkingBadges

The Quiet Man
I think it boils down to two reasons: What the game could do within its limits AND The mindset of the player in question. I'll try to explain each:

Limits: I've heard some gaming sites which I respect calling games such as Tetris and Portal as "the best games ever" (their words, not mine) mainly because the basic concept of each is so simple that the appeal is, how could I say it? Wider? Harder to lose? Those games did something within their limits and got the most out of their respective concept.

I think some truth could be found in the statement. Many games from the 16-bit era have been said to age well because their technology allowed for the ideas to be developed to full potential. Chrono Trigger is a popular example of that. The technology allowed for the battle mechanics and time travel to be fully exploited and the game is still in many "Best of all time" lists.

The first Final Fantasy, on the other side, tried to do much more than technology allowed and ended up pulling it off in shallow, undeveloped ways. If I'm not wrong, half of the game didn't even work how it was supposed to. It is said to be mainly through nostalgia that it keeps a fanbase.

Mindset: The average gamer today (people who have only been into the hobby for a year or two) has gotten into the Hollywood-esqe mindset that there is only one right way to do things. That way is the way of flashy graphics and extreme personalization of playstyles (a.k.a. perks). Anything that doesn't fit within that image hits them as unlikable. Therefore, they avoid it.

A game like Pong or Tetris, which have very simple arcade-like concepts don't fit the image that you must "kill" something to win (an idea that a lot of games today seem to take as a given). Others like CT are not that liked because of the lack of flashiness.

People who grew up with games like that, though, don't find a problem with their style because they grew used to those ideals.

So, to sum it up: I think it's a combination of those factors. Gamers who are used to more "old-school" styles could be just as biased as a gamer from more recent times may just be close minded. See that I'm not stating anything I believe to be facts here, just my thoughts on the overall situation.

I grew up with games like OOT, Mario 64, and Rayman. I am also fond of them to these day. But I can see why a lot of people at my school would say "no thanks" at the thought of those.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 5, 2010
Location
Canada
I've always considered that an older game can still be enjoyable or better than a newer game (take Sonic 2006, for example). But for me, what bugs me a little bit are the graphics. Not an issue for some people but nowadays, I'm having an issue with 64-bit graphics. I don't know why but I can't find any enjoyments for those types of games unless I've played them in those days. What I find even weirder is that I don't have any problems for 8-bit, 16-bit or 32-bit games. I guess it's a matter of opinion.
 

Turo602

Vocare Ad Pugnam
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Location
Gotham City
Games can be considered dated. As time goes, there are major improvements on certain games and game types. Even though you love a game a lot and you try to go back to it many years later after you've already played more advanced and more fluid games it just doesn't feel the same. That's why I welcome remakes all the time. They help people enjoy a game they still like but make it playable for today's standards. This is usually the case for 3D games since that is what is constantly being upgraded as where 2D games are left for dead but still enjoyable. No one has really came up with a new way to improve 2D besides making it graphically better and fluid. But 3D has gone through many changes over the years. For example, GoldenEye was the best FPS in its time and it couldn't keep up with time because Halo gave us a new way to play FPS that still works today and has even been improved on through the years. I myself tried to go back to Spider-Man on the N64 and it just wasn't the same no matter how much I denied it. I still love the hell outta the game but it's hard to enjoy. But that doesn't mean that all games suffer from being dated.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
I both agree and disagree. I do agree that the game industry suffers from a level of immaturity that keeps it from being regarded as the equal of the movie or music industries, and that most certainly bleeds into this topic. I agree that a game is exactly the same as when it came out.

I disagree however that games don't age or can't become dated. Take for example Final Fantasy X, which when it first came out was revolutionary. The best graphics, full voice-acting, just an all-around amazing game. I played it and I think it's somewhat mediocre in many ways. The voice-acting is terrible, the graphics look alright now, and the game's actual construction and pacing is grating. But at the time it was one of the best things you could play.

A similar case can be made with the Metal Gear Solid series. Metal Gear Solid was an amazing game when it first came out, and it actually still is, but it and its sequel Metal Gear Solid 2 I would say have been completely overshadowed by the third game, Snake Eater. Snake Eater is likely to be the most remembered of the series, because it just did everything better.

The very notion of judging quality is based on comparison, so naturally when more games come out and more technology comes out (better or just different), our comparative assessments will change. We will have different games to compare it to now, we will have better technology to compare it to, and even our own personality and tastes will have changed and how the game stacks up to them will be different.

Bottom line is, some games do become dated. Some don't as much, although it's impossible to argue that the technology hasn't surpassed them (superior technology might not be that important, but it's still a fact). I think the elements that make a game timeless are things like artistic value and balanced construction. Ocarina of Time for example is not only beautiful, but it's perfectly balanced. It will be remembered dearly by many people for a long time. Twilight Princess or The Wind Waker will not, simply because they don't have that perfect balance. The Wind Waker will almost certainly be remembered more because its highly stylized visuals won't feel as degraded when technology has improved. Realistic graphics are dependent on cutting edge technology, and they become outdated the easiest. Some games can actually release and be outdated the second they come out.

Even with say the Mario series, I'd say the original Super Mario Bros. has nearly perfect construction, and although primitive, its graphics are top-notch and don't look ugly. But Mario 64 both looks ugly and feels clunky when playing now, when compared to both earlier and later titles in the series.
 

Turo602

Vocare Ad Pugnam
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Location
Gotham City
Yeah, 2D games don't age as fast as 3D games. The reason being that 3D is continuously being improved on so it makes other games feel awkward when going back to them. Of course back then it was the best but after having better its just not the same. That's why remakes exist. But 2D games are a different story. You can't really do much with them except make it look better and make the physics and gameplay smoother. It's the same old same old, moving from left to right while doing various things. It's still a hell of a lot more enjoyable then an old blocky, choppy, and awkward feeling 3D game, only because their have been major improvements with 3D gaming.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Yeah, 2D games don't age as fast as 3D games. The reason being that 3D is continuously being improved on so it makes other games feel awkward when going back to them. Of course back then it was the best but after having better its just not the same. That's why remakes exist. But 2D games are a different story. You can't really do much with them except make it look better and make the physics and gameplay smoother. It's the same old same old, moving from left to right while doing various things. It's still a hell of a lot more enjoyable then an old blocky, choppy, and awkward feeling 3D game, only because their have been major improvements with 3D gaming.
I don't agree that 2D is always the same old thing; there's tons if innovation in 2D games. But I do agree that quality 2D graphics are far more timeless than ANY 3D graphics. More stylization automatically means the game will look better for a much longer time (possibly forever), and this is especially true of 2D sprite-based titles. Super Metroid, SMW2: Yoshi's Island... these games still look breathtaking. Even many (if not all) 8-bit games still look pretty good. Although to be fair, 2D games can still look terrible and/or age poorly graphically, such as the original Mortal Kombat, but again that's an attempt at high-realism.
 

Turo602

Vocare Ad Pugnam
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Location
Gotham City
I don't agree that 2D is always the same old thing; there's tons if innovation in 2D games. But I do agree that quality 2D graphics are far more timeless than ANY 3D graphics. More stylization automatically means the game will look better for a much longer time (possibly forever), and this is especially true of 2D sprite-based titles. Super Metroid, SMW2: Yoshi's Island... these games still look breathtaking. Even many (if not all) 8-bit games still look pretty good. Although to be fair, 2D games can still look terrible and/or age poorly graphically, such as the original Mortal Kombat, but again that's an attempt at high-realism.

I didn't really mean same old same old, more like you can't really take 2D gaming as far as 3D gaming, but of course it's the game's job to be fun and innovative.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2010
This is an excellent topic. I'll reply to your questions bit by bit.

Do you think games can get worse with age? Why or why not? Do you believe people who prefer older games to newer ones are wearing "nostalgia goggles?"

I hear this argument a lot in the gaming community--that older games are somehow worse because the technology used to make them, the mechanics, and the stories have become "dated" with time.

1 and 2. Games obviously stay the same, provided you can find a system to run them properly. What changes is context, and since our ratings of games are subjective when the context changes our view of how great a game is will change.
3. Most of my favourite games are not even on current gen systems, and in times of economic hardship bringing out the old consoles has proved a viable source of entertainment. But maybe I'm just a nostalgic old fool :P But more on that later.

I've been told on countless occassions that I'm wearing "nostalgia goggles" for, for example, still calling Ocarina of Time my favorite game, as if I couldn't rationally analyze other games because I was blinded by my love for something old. People forget, of course, that when that game came out I thought quite fondly of even older games, and it supplanted them in my personal favorites. People also ignore that many of us gamers have played games years after they were released and enjoyed them every bit as much as people did back then. This was certainly my case when I sat down to play the 8-bit Phantasy Star (which laid the foundation for JRPGs) in 2009, even though my first JRPG was Tales of Symphonia, released in 2004!

What people should acknowledge is either that games were overhyped upon release and people did not rationally analyze them, or better games have simply come out, but they're not better simply because of superior tech.

It's really frustrating for people to hear older generations go "things were better in my day". Now most gamers worth their salt will have a few games they like that were released when they were too young to play them or even before they were born. (Yes I am a snob. People who only play new games and ignore old ones are lesser gamers than those that don't. But that's another argument.) I think there is a lot to be said for something being of your generation. The TV Show Friends might not be as celebrated as Cheers, but it was on when I was a teenager and it will forever be mine. Similarly OoT is mine, but I can't really say the same for TP, and perhaps that is one of the reasons I'm not such a fan. (It's also a worse game. Trolololol)

How many movie critics worth their salt would have claimed Jurassic Park was superior to King Kong simply because the technology used to make it was better? I thought so. The fact is, gamers are very shortsighted. So many fail to respect older games, even though no other industry would reject something that's older simply because something allegedly "better" has come around. How many music critics would argue that Bach's music is inferior to Camille Saint Saens', simply because the music of the romantic period developed on some of Bach's ideas? Again, it's an odd case to make.

I think you'll find that there are music fans who never listen to classical music or even much from the 20th century and who treat older music with contempt. The difference is that those music fans are less likely to hang around on message boards whining about it. You know my music tastes and people often say I won't bother listening to anything that was recorded later than '74. People don't like it when they feel someone threatens their tastes, but people who enjoy older media are often more intelligent and better educated in it, because you have to be interested in music to go back and listen to the classics. It's a war of snobbery versus rebelliousness.

You also have to bear in mind that sequels don't exist in music like they do in videogames. The FIFA series has released much the same game every year with enough tweaks to make it feel different and justify its purchase. There is no Abbey Road 2. Nor is there a Wuthering Heights 2. Even film sequels are treated with suspicion by discerning audiences. Which brings us nicely on to the topic of re-releases.

Critics and gamers should refuse to bash rereleases (would it be bad to get Ben-Hur re-released on Blu-Ray? Who'd be against that?) and should also reject this notion that old games can possibly be dated at all. It makes no sense and it's absolutely childish. Those of us who appreciate older games for the same reasons we did when they were released aren't "wearing nostalgia goggles," we're simply consistent. Meanwhile, gamers who would change their assessment of a 10 or even 5-year-old game simply because of alleged improvements in the industry are completely illogical.

I think there are several reasons for people resenting re-releases. Number 1 is that often it feels like game companies are re-releasing an old game instead of developing a new one, and that is frustrating for fans who own the original. What would most Zelda fans really prefer: Ocarina of Time 3D or a brand new Zelda 3DS game? I'm for the latter, although there is something to be said for playing the best game of all time in shiny new graphics.

That said, most people seem happy to buy re-releases, just as most people will happily buy the same sport sim ever year, despite the minimal changes between versions.

In addition, people should learn to either appreciate older games for utilizing the available technology and mechanics well or simply admit that they're biased. There's no shame in that, but it's disingenuous to claim otherwise when you fail to appreciate an older game for "dated" graphics or somesuch. If you can't appreciate a game's visual design over its graphical technology, if you can't appreciate its brilliance of design over less modern menus and mechanics, then that is your own bias, not a fault of the game or the game's developers.

Thoughts?

I find as my tastes change my appreciation of anything in life will do to. There was a time in my life where I loved the Redwall series of books, now I find them childish (partly because they are written for children). Similarly, older games are often lumbered with primitive mechanics - even the best games - that make them less accessible for newer gamers.

As well as technology changing, I would argue that developers have got better at creating a smooth learning curve, telling stories through games and creating good control systems. That doesn't mean there aren't old games that don't do all those things well, I just believe it is now more common. Like many people I love Goldneye 007 for the N64, but compared to Halo or Call of Duty or Team Fortress 2 the control system is awful.

I often find there is a strange effect of buying old retro games. Let's call it "Would Have Loved It At The Time Syndrome". There are many older games I've gone back to play and found them to be sadly wanting, but I often wonder if only I had to benefit of nostalgia would I be able to enjoy them. That is probably what people are referring to when they call "Nostalgia Goggles" on you. With some games if you can't remember how great they were at the time, you just won't get them.
 

Emma

Eye See You
Site Staff
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Location
Vegas
Gender
Female
I actually am not sure this is a totally fair question to ask. Better or worse for a game is extremely subjective. What's better for one person, is worse for another. There are people that refuse to play older games because they're old, and there are those that will not play new games because they feel there is some flaw with gaming today. There are so many different opinions on what makes a game good or not, it's next to impossible to say objectively how a game ages with time. For example, graphics. That's one of the major things that changes with time. Some people care very little about graphics when it comes to if a game is good or not. So if the game is roughly equivalent to modern otherwise besides graphics, for these people the game will still be great. It's really an impossible question to answer with one answer that works sufficiently for everyone.
 

Majora's Cat

How about that
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Location
NJ
I absolutely believe that games can become "dated". Why? It's rather simple: a game developer's goal is to improve video games and strive for something greater. Video games today improve on nearly everything from past games. Video games from the past are given lower scores because they just can't stack up to games of the present. Graphics are improved, gameplay is improved, music is improved, etc. We all need to face it - video games were meant to improve over time (though this may not always be so). I feel that the industry has taken a wrong turn and focuses far too much on first-person shooters, which have cornered the market. And if a game's dated, it's only because it wasn't good enough to stand the test of time. Ocarina of Time, Majora's Mask and other such classics haven't lost much of their luster over time and that certainly shows. Majora's Mask is becoming more appreciated than it ever has been, which is a sure-fire sign that it isn't a victim of "being dated". However, most other games aren't as enduring. I've played many old games that many consider to be classics, but I too feel that they're being completely outclassed by the new generation of video games (for example, Super Smash Brothers, Super Mario 64, Mario Kart 64, etc.). I'm not in any way biased towards games when I play them. I either thoroughly enjoy a classic game or feel that it's outdated and no longer enjoyable. Older games can be classified as either.

Critics and gamers should refuse to bash rereleases (would it be bad to get Ben-Hur re-released on Blu-Ray? Who'd be against that?) and should also reject this notion that old games can possibly be dated at all. It makes no sense and it's absolutely childish. Those of us who appreciate older games for the same reasons we did when they were released aren't "wearing nostalgia goggles," we're simply consistent. Meanwhile, gamers who would change their assessment of a 10 or even 5-year-old game simply because of alleged improvements in the industry are completely illogical.

In addition, people should learn to either appreciate older games for utilizing the available technology and mechanics well or simply admit that they're biased. There's no shame in that, but it's disingenuous to claim otherwise when you fail to appreciate an older game for "dated" graphics or somesuch. If you can't appreciate a game's visual design over its graphical technology, if you can't appreciate its brilliance of design over less modern menus and mechanics, then that is your own bias, not a fault of the game or the game's developers.

Older games do utilize the available technology, but that doesn't mean they can be compared to newer games and still hold their previous critic scores. I'd rather compare older games to newer games on an even playing field. The fact is, people seem biased toward older games because they're "classics" and "nostalgic". I genuinely don't believe the majority of older games can possibly compare to the new generation (excluding all those generic FPS games), there are indeed a few gems that stand the test of time rather well. And this "brilliance of design" in older games can be seen in newer ones as well. Video games don't just look more modern nowadays, the gameplay mechanics are truly fine-tuned and are actually better than they were in the past. There's no hiding from that fact.

I'm just sick of people saying that newer installments in video games series (like Twilight Princess and Halo: Reach) still can't compare to the "classics". While older games may acquire higher scores in their times, that doesn't mean that new games are inferior. The standard for gaming has skyrocketed since the 90s, meaning that a modern game in a series can be far superior to previous installments but receive a lower score. With that, I also believe that critics are right to give some older games lower scores than before.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom