I should start with the most forgotten era of gaming... 1972-1983 BC, or "Before the Crash." Pong around here is usually mentioned jokingly when referring to the oldest of old games and unless you're over 40 or your parents still have a working Pong machine, chances are you've never played the real deal. Well, I never played the real thing, but Pong gets a lot of respect in my book as being the first mainstream game and revolutionized the entertainment medium. Hell, even Barack Obama has had some Pong experience. Most around these parts also neglect the impact the Atari 2600, Intellivision, and Colecovision has on gaming as well. Yes, some events in this period were bleek, but for every E.T., there was a Pac-Man, Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, and Pitfall! I had some early memories of playing Intellivision and the Atari 2600 and that got me interested in games... although the NES sealed the deal for me. If you don't believe me, just look at every list of greatest games by users and gaming publications. Everybody has done a top 100 list by now, but the pre-crash era is largely forgotten in favor of more recent games. You might occasionally see Pac-Man or Pong if Giant Bomb decided to cause some controversy and create a top 100 list, but if you check out these very forums at the greatest games among the community, you see a dramatic shift towards the post-crash era... with more emphasis on last gen and current gen games.
For the record, I consider the NES era to be the greatest time to be a gamer, but that's just me.
However, the people who cling to the classics (nostalgia whores) also have a good case. The advanced tech and the complexity of current generation consoles can have a negative effect on the fun factor for many people and we shouldn't forget what we used to play and the excitement of playing something from your youth. Almost every major title is too complex for some retro purists and look elsewhere for their gaming fix. To go back to the Zelda example, Ocarina of Time in 1998 was universally hailed as a masterpiece and arguably the best game in the history of gaming, but although Twilight Princess was a prettier, deeper Zelda, it is often considered inferior to Ocarina of Time for a number of reasons. How can a game be better, yet worse? It all comes down to the time period and the major improvements in graphics, AI, and physics that has taken place in the 8 years between the two. I was 17 when Ocarina of Time came out and loved every minute of it... even the Water Temple. And a few months ago, I played through the entire game for probably the 8th or 9th time in my life and it might look primitive compared to Twilight Princess, but it's as fun as ever.
So where does a gamer with a taste for nostalgia go to? Well, they either they go to handheld games which are more friendly to the classic gamer or they dust off the old NES or Genesis for satisfaction. Others might also check out the downloadable goodies via XBLA, PSN, or WiiWare. Games like Bionic Commando Rearmed, Braid, and World of Goo are brilliant examples of games that could have been made in an earlier time... with a graphical downgrade of course. However, the most friendly game for the retro gamer in recent memory has to be Mega Man 9, which has gotten a lot of cheers, but also some jeers. If you are under the age of 18, chances are you never even thought about buying it because of its pixelated look (8-bit) or simple gameplay (run and shoot.) The graphics whore clique would rather see a hi-def Mega Man in glorious 1080p, but it was not to be. Nostalgia whores looked at its inner beauty and shed tears of joy.
So, nostalgia. Is it healthy to look back at the huge catalog of classic games with fondness or is it bad for gamers to live in the past?
Log in to comment