Does time diminish a game's impact?

[mαrkαsscoρ]

This is a bit tricky to word, but say a game comes out and features something really innovative or in general was just a standout game when it came out on the system it came out on. But many years pass and that game may not be seen as special as it was compared to when it came out. Does it take away from how impactful it was if we're unable to compare it to it's contemporaries? Or more importantly, is that game only as good as it was because of the context of when it came out, and over time becomes "less" good?

 

[Chevywolf30]

OoT comes to mind. It was super groundbreaking when it came out, and it holds up pretty well today, but it's not as good as some of the newer games such as WW or TP.

 

[Dizzi]

I think its more other games have done that thing yknow so its not as impactful??

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

I've never been one to rate a game based on its impact on release. A truly great game should be timeless. Limited technology didn't hold the industry back from making games that still play reasonably well today like SMB3, Ocarina of Time, Earthbound, the list is exhaustive honestly

similarly to the thread about criticizing old games, I think one is well within right to criticize a game for bad design that was commonplace for its era

 

[Fraxinus]

I think the time may be a relative thing, and potential impact in this case probably can't be measured as a whole but rather the impact it has on individual players. If a game pulls something extraordinary, that feat may dull with time to collective fans, especially as other games follow in its footsteps. But if it was something that managed to really touch individual people, then what those people felt will likely stick with them over the years; those games will find a special place in their heart no matter how much time passes. It's probably why people who go back to play older games who'ce already experienced newer games that have done what these older games may have pioneered, may not feel as much of the magic as people who played those older games as being their first experience with such a thing.

Me having played so few games, I probably overhype some of my gaming experiences for being so much of new things at once, when they're probably not like that for other people. But my marvel at these games doesn't really dull with time because I have those memories and shocks of first playthroughs forever in my heart.

 

[mαrkαsscoρ]

I've never been one to rate a game based on its impact on release. A truly great game should be timeless. Limited technology didn't hold the industry back from making games that still play reasonably well today like SMB3, Ocarina of Time, Earthbound, the list is exhaustive honestly

similarly to the thread about criticizing old games, I think one is well within right to criticize a game for bad design that was commonplace for its era

by the way, this thread could slightly be in line to what you mentioned earlier about TP having a higher score to TP HD

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

by the way, this thread could slightly be in line to what you mentioned earlier about TP having a higher score to TP HD

it could be. I'm wondering if remasters in general have lower critic scores than the initial releases, or if twilight princess' initial ratings were based on it being the NEW ZELDA GAME and TPHD's critic score is more in line with how the game actually sits in truth

 

[Uwu_Oocoo2]

I feel as though it's almost the opposite. A lot of games can do a certain thing, but something about being that first one is special. For example, Mario64 was one of Nintendo's first 3D games. Despite recent leaps in graphical and gameplay quality, it's still considered a very good game for it's time and is beloved by many. It hasn't become a worse game because better games have come out since, the limitations it has are things you wouldn't see in games today and are what make it special.

 

[Bowsette Plus-Ultra]

Time doesn't diminish a game's impact, but a game being impactful at the time of release doesn't translate to quality when placed next to contemporary games. Something like Ocarina of Time looked and played alright at the time of its release, but now looks like a muddy soup bowl of an overworld running at a whole 17 frames per second.

 

[A Link In Time]

I think if a game really stands out for its time, people can still understand its historical significance. Play any NES game and then play Super Mario Bros. 3, and you can see how much more expansive SMB3 is than any other game of its time. The graphics and all the secrets are also really impressive for its time.

 

[Princess Niki]

it could be. I'm wondering if remasters in general have lower critic scores than the initial releases, or if twilight princess' initial ratings were based on it being the NEW ZELDA GAME and TPHD's critic score is more in line with how the game actually sits in truth

I would say remasters in general, remember the Too Much Water review when ORAS came out. There are exceptions but I feel like remasters score lower in general which is just ridiculous.

 

[twilitfalchion]

A game's impact will remain the same regardless of how many years pass between its release and the present. Will newer generations appreciate that impact as much as those who were there at a game's release? It depends. But a game's influence on the industry will always be felt despite that. Examples have been given about games like Ocarina of Time, Mario 64, etc. setting standards for the industry. It doesn't matter how old these games are; the innovation they introduced is permanently ingrained into game development as a whole now.

As far as quality is concerned, that's a different issue entirely, as succeeding generations of games will inevitably improve on their predecessors in at least one way or another, to the extent that previous generations will look dated or archaic in some respects. However, something like that is rather difficult to measure, as a game's quality is highly dependent on what each individual thinks of said game. For every person who prefers more modern releases in a series, there will always be others who prefer the older ones, with plenty of variation in that. At that point it's purely a matter of opinion.

 

[Fext]

I do think the impact for a new player can be diminished - for example, I've seen a lot of people complain about some older games, movies, TV shows, etc. as being "cliche" without realizing that the reason the cliche exists is that game broke new ground and then everybody and their mother followed them.

That being said, if you enter into it with a mind open to the idea that it is what inspired all of the things that came after it, you can still enjoy a lot of older media, including games, perfectly fine. It's a shame when controls end up being a detractor, but other than that I've had a lot of fun going back to older games. For example, I finally got around to playing System Shock 2 earlier this year, and after reconfiguring the controls to something passable (do you seriously expect me to walk backwards with X and turn with A and D rather than strafe???) I must say I very much enjoyed the experience, and it's super cool to see where future games took inspiration from its systems, mechanics, tone, and storytelling approach.