Continuous over-praising of classic games, and why it's a problem. - Games

I have posted and lurked on forums for years, and during my time, I have noticed many die-hard gamers having extreme amounts of affection for the games of yesteryear. Games which shaped the way the medium functions and is played today, and which are deeply rooted in every gamer's personal, unspoken gospel. They are the founding of our love for interactive entertainment and the pillars of our devotion to this date. But therein lies the problem; we're not willing to admit that they may be obsolete by today's standards, much less that they may not have been the best games available even in the so-called golden age. Memory is strange in that not all the memories you have may be correct; in fact, simply hearing a message enough can change memories. You're probably wondering how this relates, and it's simple; if you played a game ages ago that you didn't particularly like, and people kept claiming the game was one of the best of all time, your memories are slightly distorted into believing you played an amazing game. Then there's the fact that memories are directly linked to how we felt in the moment; and positive memories seem to overwrite the negative ones. The Positivity Effect states that positive memories stay longer and more vivid in the mind while negative ones fade faster. This may affect everybody's judgement; we remember all the magical bits of a moment, but forget all the bad moment, and mediocre aspects. The Positivity Effect may also apply murkiness to how we view experiences such as video games, meaning we might remember all the great moments we had, but not the ones where we threw the controller at the television in frustration. I myself can admit to having one of those moments. Super Mario Bros was one of my favourite games when I was younger. For a while, it lived off of that game; I replayed it multiple times, over and over again. However, now, I simply can’t find the courage to pick it up, and replay it again. I can't finish it because the controls are difficult, the entire point of the game is to memorize the obstacles ahead, and it's difficult, but I remember surmounting the game and mastering the mechanics when I was younger. The game simply doesn't hold a candle to the advancements of game design, and as much as the fans may praise the game, it doesn't change the fact that it does not hold up by today's standards.  I don't mean to say that it's wrong to hold fondness for a game, or that your judgement is inherently wrong, but when I hear things like “there will never be a better first person shooter than the original Deus Ex,” or “Super Mario Galaxy does not compare in any way to Mario 64,” it brings me to question the objectivity, and truthfulness of that statement. I realize I made a major generalization with this thread, but it is something I wanted to express my opinion about.

This applies to most media. Books, TV, movies, games, all have "the best" classics. By 2100 (if we get there) we're going to have massive dictionaries of "classics".

I still enjoy Doom 1 and 2. They still have lively communities, and there are still people making full game changing wads more than 10 years after it was orginally released.

It bothers me that people will strike out when their old time favorites are insulted, even if they're completely outdated.

Is there anybody else at all willing to share their opinions?

I think you're wrong. Sorry. I think you're generalizing so much that it isn't even funny. I can still pick up any "old" game that I consider good by my standards, and have as much fun with it as I did when I played it as a child. While this isn't true for everyone, neither is what you said. Dante's Divine Comedy is still as good as it was when he wrote it, despite the numerous advances in literary technique that have evolved since then.

That wasn't my point. I was referring to the hard-core 'extremists' who refuse to admit that their old games could ever be surpassed, no matter the advancements in game design or technology.

Half Life 2. I don't see why it's that amazing.

Considering you're the guy I argued with over whether or not Half-Life 2 has been outdated by better-designed games, I find this thread [i]very[/i] ironic. [editline]8th February 2011[/editline] Referring to the OP, not the poster above me.

[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27945139]That wasn't my point. I was referring to the hard-core 'extremists' who refuse to admit that their old games could ever be surpassed, no matter the advancements in game design or technology.[/QUOTE] I agree, that's terrible. However, everyone [I]knows that.[/I] Extremism in almost any issue is a bad thing, no matter which way it goes. Saying everything new will [I]always [/I]be the best, is just as bad as saying everything old will [I]always [/I]be the best.

[QUOTE=postmanX3;27945141]Considering you're the guy I argued with over whether or not Half-Life 2 has been outdated by better-designed games, I find this thread [i]very[/i] ironic. [editline]8th February 2011[/editline] Referring to the OP, not the poster above me.[/QUOTE] Half-Life 2 is hardly a really old game. It was released in 2004; not too long ago, compared to games like Super Mario Bros, or even Deus Ex. And, again, you misunderstood me. I was not arguing against you for attacking Half-Life 2; you simply came to the false conclusion that Half-Life's story was 'pointless' and 'shallow,' which was absolutely fallacious.

[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27945230]Half-Life 2 is hardly a really old game. It was released in 2004; not too long ago, compared to games like Super Mario Bros, or even Deus Ex. And, again, you misunderstood me. I was not arguing against you for attacking Half-Life 2; you simply came to the false conclusion that Half-Life's story was 'pointless' and 'shallow.'[/QUOTE] You're funny.

I feel like I just read a teenager's persuasive essay on philosophy. You generalize way too much, and I can't even begin to really criticize. But really, talking about Mario. How is it hard? You run with the B button, Jump with A, and hold down the Right D-Pad. you jump from platform to platform to win. There is barely any "memorization", and besides. How does the gameplay even fit into this? Because it was too hard for you? Another thing is, I've never had my memories of something warped, due to outside influence, that sounds more like you have memory issues, or emotional issues, or giving in to peer pressure to feel accepted. Also, of course, SMB does not live to today's technological advacements, it's not 3D, it's not HD, but does it need to be? It was a great game at the time, and IT STILL IS. That's why people praise classics, because even though they age, and the graphics get older, and the music and sounds become much more primitive, they show that games don't need to be candy sprinke coated cupcakes to be fun. They don't need to be technological beasts to be amazing or creative or fun to pick up and play. Majora's Mask is my personal favorite game, and while I wish it had HD music and Graphics, it still stands up fine today, because everything in it, even the graphics and music I must admit, have aged wonderfully. That, is why people praise classics.

[QUOTE=postmanX3;27945255]You're funny.[/QUOTE] "I can't think of an actual reply..."

[QUOTE=Achilles123;27945185]I agree, that's terrible. However, everyone [I]knows that.[/I] Extremism in almost any issue is a bad thing, no matter which way it goes. Saying everything new will [I]always [/I]be the best, is just as bad as saying everything old will [I]always [/I]be the best.[/QUOTE] I think it's different for games though, as games rely almost solely on technology to immerse the player and create a memorable experience, while other mediums like books and movies can do so with just the most basic tools. That's why games will always be better, by default, as technology improves. Whereas films are not necessarily better just because they have improved special effects.

Your argument is saying that older games are suddenly less fun because they aren't as complex. Which makes you wrong. I look at every game I own in mind to what I'm playing it on and the time period it came out in. I think 007: The World is not Enough is a great FPS on n64. Do I think its better than any shooter of today? No, it can't be compared it came out in an earlier console generation, not after. If a game like 007: TWINE came out on PS3 today it would not hold up to the standards of today.

[QUOTE=stepat201;27945301]I think it's different for games though, as games rely almost solely on technology to immerse the player and create a memorable experience, while other mediums like books and movies can do so with just the most basic tools. That's why games will always be better, by default, as technology improves. Whereas films are not necessarily better just because they have improved special effects.[/QUOTE] Games don't solely rely on Tech, and that's a very sweeping generalization. Hell, Nintendo's Wii is just a refitted gamecube.

I played Half Life 1 like 3 years after Half Life 2 was released, and it was an awesome experience anyway.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;27945272]I feel like I just read a teenager's persuasive essay on philosophy. [b]You generalize way too much[/b], and I can't even begin to really criticize. [/QUOTE] Which is why I specifically admitted that at the end of my original post. [QUOTE] But really, talking about Mario. How is it hard? You run with the B button, Jump with A, and hold down the Right D-Pad. you jump from platform to platform to win. There is barely any "memorization", and besides. How does the gameplay even fit into this? Because it was too hard for you? Another thing is, I've never had my memories of something warped, due to outside influence, that sounds more like you have memory issues, or emotional issues, or giving in to peer pressure to feel accepted. Also, of course, SMB does not live to today's technological advacements, it's not 3D, it's not HD, but does it need to be? It was a great game at the time, and IT STILL IS. That's why people praise classics, because even though they age, and the graphics get older, and the music and sounds become much more primitive, they show that games don't need to be candy sprinke coated cupcakes to be fun. They don't need to be technological beasts to be amazing or creative or fun to pick up and play. Majora's Mask is my personal favorite game, and while I wish it had HD music and Graphics, it still stands up fine today, because everything in it, even the graphics and music I must admit, have aged wonderfully. That, is why people praise classics.[/QUOTE] Like I said, there is nothing wrong with praising classic games. But when one refuses to admit that there are newer, better games, and that the older game has become outdated, that is the problem.

i went back and played 15 hours of thps2 this weekend... it was better than i remembered

There will always be better games. But to think older games are worse, simply because they have aged, is childish and immature. Games don't need pretty graphics and pretty music and all kinds of sprinkly shiny doodie daddles to be fun and be a great game.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;27945450]There will always be better games. But to think older games are worse, simply because they have aged, is childish and immature. Games don't need pretty graphics and pretty music and all kinds of sprinkly shiny doodie daddles to be fun and be a great game.[/QUOTE] this

[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27945279]"I can't think of an actual reply..."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=postmanX3;27802424]You're a funny guy. Even if it makes me look like a fool, I'm withdrawing from this argument because I'm arguing with someone that apparently believes his [i]opinion[/i] that Half-Life's story is good is [i]fact.[/i][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=doommarine23;27945450]There will always be better games. But to think older games are worse, simply because they have aged, is childish and immature. Games don't need pretty graphics and pretty music and all kinds of sprinkly shiny doodie daddles to be fun and be a great game.[/QUOTE] There will always be the classics. But what OP is saying I think is we don't need to go violent defending them.

[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27945410]Which is why I specifically admitted that at the end of my original post. Like I said, there is nothing wrong with praising classic games. But when one refuses to admit that there are newer, better games, and that the older game has become outdated, that is the problem.[/QUOTE] You aren't looking at it the same way others do. I don't see older games as outdated. If its fun to play its fun to play. In board games newer versions of scrabble don't make classic scrabble outdated. Adding more doesn't always mean better.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;27945450]Games don't need pretty graphics and pretty music and all kinds of sprinkly shiny doodie daddles to be fun and be a great game.[/QUOTE] I never said that. For the people who know me, you should already be familiar with my views on technology, and it's progression.

[QUOTE=CommanderMayhem;27945473]There will always be the classics. But what OP is saying I think is we don't need to go violent defending them.[/QUOTE] No, he's saying that older games can't live up to the technological advancement and thus are shit. Which is just :frogdowns:

[QUOTE=doommarine23;27945357]Games don't solely rely on Tech, and that's a very sweeping generalization. Hell, Nintendo's Wii is just a refitted gamecube.[/QUOTE] But that's how they evolve. Sure, Nintendo games may be a fun distraction today, but they're not the games that are pushing the envelope and leading to advances in graphics and overall immersion.

[QUOTE=ChosenOne54;27945487]I never said that. For the people who know me, you should already be familiar with my views on technology, and it's progression.[/QUOTE] You did say that in your posts. Also, I don't know you, Not to sound rude, but this is a BIG forum, man.

[QUOTE=doommarine23;27945489]No, he's saying that older games can't live up to the technological advancement and thus are shit.[/QUOTE] You are taking my argument to the extreme. That is not true in any way.