Avatar image for jduster
#1 Posted by jduster (41 posts) -

I have been playing lots of older classic games which were hailed to be some of the best of all time, but I honestly feel like much of that praise is nostalgia. Those games were really impactful back then, but with so many great games that came out in the past 10 years, much of the older games are obsolete.

Most acclaimed NES games had really rudimentary gameplay and inflated difficulty. I would say that there were probably more great indie games in 2015 than great NES games in general. Many N64/PS1 games have blurry textures and clunky mechanics, which were better refined in the 6th and 7th gen.

Final Fantasy VII for example was probably groundbreaking at the time, but since then, dozens of RPG's have mastered that formula ever better. The blurriness of visuals in the N64/PS1 era haven't aged well. Also, stories and plots which were once seen as profound are sort of cliche now.

Avatar image for asurastrike
#2 Edited by Asurastrike (2306 posts) -

@jduster said:

I have been playing lots of older classic games which were hailed to be some of the best of all time, but I honestly feel like much of that praise is nostalgia. Those games were really impactful back then, but with so many great games that came out in the past 10 years, much of the older games are obsolete.

Most acclaimed NES games had really rudimentary gameplay and inflated difficulty. I would say that there were probably more great indie games in 2015 than great NES games in general. Many N64/PS1 games have blurry textures and clunky mechanics, which were better refined in the 6th and 7th gen.

Final Fantasy VII for example was probably groundbreaking at the time, but since then, dozens of RPG's have mastered that formula ever better. The blurriness of visuals in the N64/PS1 era haven't aged well. Also, stories and plots which were once seen as profound are sort of cliche now.

I don't think anyone can really argue with you.

The NES is 31 years old, the PS1 is 22, the N64 is 20, so yeah, graphics are better now. Story beats and plot elements that were groundbreaking 20+ years ago have been copied and sometimes improved on.

Your argument could really extend to anything. Why collect old cars when new cars have better gas mileage, are more reliable, and are faster?

I guess my question for you would be, does a new Mario game in 2016 make Super Mario World obsolete? What about A Link to the Past? Is Street Fighter 2 bad now because Street Fighter 5 exists? Mortal Kombat 2 because Mortal Kombat X exists?

People like to throw the word "nostalgia" around a lot, but in many cases it does not really apply. I played Metal Gear Solid for the first time 10 years after it came out, when I was in college, but I still enjoyed it despite its "blurry textures," and "clunky mechanics."

Avatar image for tobbrobb
#3 Posted by TobbRobb (6582 posts) -

Contra is still awesome! I'll fite u m8!

Avatar image for sinusoidal
#4 Posted by Sinusoidal (3608 posts) -

Super Metroid, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, and Super Mario World beg to differ. I can't name a platformer or Metroidvania better than those that's come out since 2000. Hell, Tetris came out in 1984 and puzzle games have arguably not surpassed it yet. Megaman 2's sound track is easily (one of) the best ever. There are loads of pre-2000 shmups that are still great. Polygon counts and texture resolutions have certainly gone way up, but game play and aesthetic are far more subjective things. There's also a good reason some of those story beats became clichés.

Avatar image for hayt
#5 Edited by Hayt (1672 posts) -

I played System Shock 2 for the first time in 2013 and Thief 1/2 in 2011 they are now some of my favourite games of all time. I think everyone has different thresholds for what they can handle but if you aren't soft from years of casual modern videogames (this is a joke) then older games can still offer a lot.

Avatar image for flashflood_29
#6 Posted by FlashFlood_29 (4418 posts) -

Played MGS for the first time a few months ago and I absolutely loved it, including the combat.

Avatar image for danteveli
#7 Posted by Danteveli (1441 posts) -

I would argue that they have aged way better than all the post 2000 stuff. Now games released couple years ago feel clunky and obsolete. The older stuff has much more going for it. They pioneered many things and somehow bringing new ideas to the table made them special. Now we only have retreading on the same concepts with graphics that are not impressive after 1 year. Most of the nostalgic titles are benchmarks for their genre and they are hard to surpass by anything new. I guess your perspective may be different since you played copycats first and then trying the original may not be as big of an experience. But try to look at it from the way that the cool thing we seen now has already been done 20 or 30 years ago.

Avatar image for mems1224
#8 Posted by mems1224 (2505 posts) -

I think SNES games have mostly aged great. Ps1/N64 games have aged the worst. All of those games were made before developers figured out good controls and they all look terrible. Even ps2/gamecube/xbox games aren't looking too hot.

Avatar image for viking_funeral
#9 Edited by viking_funeral (2881 posts) -

Ctrl+F - SNES. 0 hits.

Well, there's one of your problems. SNES games have aged very well and many are still playable today.

Granted, some did not, like Super Mario Kart, but I still stand by my point that SNES games have aged well, and that the pixel graphics are on par with many of today's offerings.

PC Gaming also had a good run from 1995-2000:

Diablo II, Deus Ex, and Thief 2 all came out in 2000, so I'm not including them on this list, but they are of the same era and are still very playable today.

I will agree that a vast majority of NES games, (non-RPG) PS1 games, and 3rd party N64 games are hard to get into these days, but I don't think it's exclusively due to nostalgia that people appreciate those games. There were of a different era, and while they may not hold up today, for their time and place they were incredible.

Could anyone appreciate Goldeneye for N64 today? Almost impossible. Those controls are ludicrous. However, that didn't stop entire generations from enjoying that game for hours every day after school or practice.

Oh, and Contra and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night are both outstanding, no matter what era you play them in.

Avatar image for davidh219
#10 Edited by davidh219 (904 posts) -

Let me let you in a little secret--nothing ages well, even independent of technology improvements. I don't think anyone would argue that 400 years have made Shakespeare more difficult to engage with and his stories more simplistic. I also don't think anyone in their right mind would argue that, despite that, his work is still some of the best that has ever been written, even today. Progress marches forward, but some things are, for whatever reason, never improved upon and never matched. For something to be obsolete, you have to do it better in every way. That's not always an easy thing with art, even an art that is so dependent on technology.

To put it in video game terms, many games either still have no equal or did certain things way better than those that came after and for that reason still have immense value. The original Deus Ex is better than the new one in almost every way. Just is. The original Thief games are still the best stealth games around. They just are. Super Mario World still has better controls than that indie platformer you're playing. The Oddworld games are still better puzzlers than most of what you can find on Steam. Fallout 1 & 2 are still 1000x funnier than the new games, and still give the player far more options than the new games. Sometimes technology improvements actually prevent games from being as deep and varied as they once were. Fallout moving to full voice was both a blessing and a curse, for instance.

So yes, while most games from that time have aged into obsolescence there are plenty of exceptions. It all just depends on what has followed and how expectations have changed. You mention JRPGs, but they've been stagnant for a long time, which makes the old games hold up really well in every area but graphics (and if we're talking SNES, the graphics may very well be better than many current 2D titles). Shooters on the other hand are hard to go back to because they've been so popular for so long that we've refined the controls to a science and made every kind of variant you could possible want. There's just no reason to play GoldenEye anymore.

Avatar image for bollard
#11 Posted by Bollard (8165 posts) -

Super. Mario. World.

Avatar image for stonyman65
#12 Posted by Stonyman65 (3806 posts) -

Early PS1 games and pretty much anything on the N64 is pretty rough these days, to be fair though they were pretty rough at the time too since everyone was just trying to figure out the whole 3D thing back then. I think a lot of your older NES and SNES games still hold up though. There was a lot of trash that was just bad, cheaply-made games, but you can't really blame that on the systems themselves. For every Final Fantasy, half-life or Super Mario Bros. there were 10 or 12 shitty third-rate games usually made by LJN, Acclaim, or similar companies.

Also, I think games in general just used to be more simple, too. You can look back now and go "man, how was this was a good game back then?!" but at the the that's just what we had, for better or worse. If you weren't there I can't expect you to understand it. Oddly enough while console games have generally got more complex as time goes on, PC games have got more simple. Games like Fallout and Rainbow Six were par for the course for PC games back in the day but now are impenetrable for most people these days who grew up with more modern games.

These are probably the same people who think Halo was the first/best FPS game ever made but have never played anything made before 2001.

I feel old now.

/Rant

Avatar image for johntunoku
#13 Edited by JohnTunoku (418 posts) -

This is the sort of impression you get when you only play each game for an hour or two tops. Once you get past that hurdle you'll find that you get used to the older mechanics and graphics and the games become more enjoyable. Some games don't have this hurdle, usually very simple and straight forward games like the sidescrolling mario games.

Lot of old bad games out there though, no doubt.

Avatar image for clairvoyantvibrations
#14 Posted by ClairvoyantVibrations (1616 posts) -

May I present the following:

Super Mario World
Half-Life
Diablo II

Avatar image for paliv
#15 Posted by Paliv (250 posts) -

I feel old now...

Avatar image for thewildcard
#16 Posted by TheWildCard (694 posts) -

Sure most older games haven't aged that well in that most anything doesn't age that well after decades (or weren't that good to begin with). If you're talking about the classics, it's only fair to compare it to their peers. Not every impactful game ages well, but that doesn't mean it's bad, just more of a product of its' time. Sometimes you just miss the boat.

Avatar image for bigsocrates
#17 Posted by BigSocrates (1966 posts) -

I have been playing games since the NES era and I disagree with your assessment, mostly because I think you're going about it the wrong way. See for classic 'great' games you need to separate them into two types. "Super polished" games that do everything right, and "groundbreaking games" that advance the medium. Groundbreaking games do not age well, because whatever advances they bring to video games get copied and spread around and soon what was once the cutting edge is now hopeless behind the times. Super polished games, on the other hand, age like a fine wine because their polished visuals, sound, and mechanics never go out of style.

Most great NES games were groundbreaking. They did things nobody had seen before, but they did them with rough edges. There were some super polished titles on the NES, like Super Mario Bros. 3 and Contra (if you can get past the difficulty) but they were relatively rare.

The SNES on the other hand had a lot of games with wonderful polish that still play great today. Super Mario World. A Link to the Past. Chrono Trigger. These games enact their vision perfectly, and they are still very engaging, and much longer and more polished than almost any of the recent "retro indies."

Doom is a PC game from that era that came out super polished, and let me tell you, Doom (the original) is still amazing to play today. In contrast the groundbreaking Wolfenstein 3D is kind of hard to go back to.

The PS1 and N64 were another generation where the focus was learning on how to make 3D games and also how to use CD media. That means that games like Final Fantasy VII were groundbreaking in terms of scope and graphics but of course they didn't age well. Let me let you in on a little secret. Nobody (except literal children) thought FF VII had a great plot at the time of release. We'd all read books and seen movies. We understood it was trite and overlong and made no sense. But it was GROUNDBREAKING to play a game of such scope with somewhat developed characters and big epic moments with that amazing musical score. We were blown away. In retrospect of course it's much less impressive, but even at the time the flaws were apparent.

Have you noticed how many of the Giant Bomb guys never actually finished FF VII even back in the day? There's a reason for that. Resident Evil was a huge hit but EVERYONE at the time complained about the controls and laughed at the "Jill Sandwich" line. We knew.

If you want to be blown away by old games seek out super polished experiences, not those that were groundbreaking at the time. If you can play Super Mario World and react with an 'eh' then you just don't like 2D platformers.

Avatar image for artisanbreads
#18 Edited by ArtisanBreads (9107 posts) -

Oh man so tired of the "aged" discussion that has suddenly become so huge on this site. They are just old games. Enjoy them for what they are and when they came out.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a00c029ab7c1
#19 Edited by deactivated-5a00c029ab7c1 (1777 posts) -

MK2,MK3 and UMK3 haven't age bad at all for games that are over 20 years old god now I feel old fuck.

Avatar image for stonyman65
#20 Posted by Stonyman65 (3806 posts) -

@jec03: I still consider UMK3 as the best fighting game of all time, and easily the best MK game of all time. I know I'm crazy. I don't care.

Avatar image for jduster
#21 Edited by jduster (41 posts) -

I just played Jet Force Gemini for a few hours. It was the N64 game that everyone told me was underrated. Back then, it probably was. But I think most of the people who hyped it up are thinking about their memories when they played it 20 years ago, because if they played it recently, they would've seen it was a pretty average game.

Avatar image for mezza
#22 Posted by MezZa (3048 posts) -

SNES is where it's at if you want classic games that are more playable. I have a really hard time going back to any N64 game that doesn't have zelda in the title personally.

Avatar image for mellotronrules
#23 Posted by mellotronrules (2591 posts) -

i mean- if you're holding 20+ year old games to the technical standards of today, then duh. of course many are, in your words, 'obsolete.'

but you can still appreciate great design, fun factor and working within the limitations of their time. creative work is always a collaborative process, and the best stuff is always standing on the shoulders of what came before. if you're not willing to assess stuff based on its historical context- why look backwards at all?

Avatar image for jesna
#24 Edited by Jesna (362 posts) -

I'm going to second what @bigsocrates is saying, as I think you probably need to re-examine your criteria for "classic" games. There are plenty of games from every generation that are still perfectly fun to play, but people often praised games for their innovations rather than their execution. Games that seemed photorealistic to players in 1998 will look laughably outdated now, and fresh gameplay systems have likely been iterated on or forgotten, but that doesn't mean that all aspects of these games are without merit. Nostalgia may be involved for some people, but I played Megaman 3 for the first time last year and I love it to death now. And it literally can't be nostalgia, because that game came out before I was born.

Unlike some other posters here, I'd even argue that many PS1 and N64 games hold up well enough to be enjoyable today, you just need to keep your expectations in check. FFVII may not be blowing your mind graphically anymore, and the story is still pretty dumb, but look past that and you still have a fun JRPG. Resident Evil 1 was novel but kind of a mess to play (even at the time), but I played RE2 for the first time not long ago and thought it was great.

Avatar image for lv4monk
#26 Posted by Lv4Monk (494 posts) -

@viking_funeral: I agree with you on all counts except Secret of Mana. Boy does that game feel rough to me these days. I mean fo sho, beautiful music, beautiful sprite work, fun animations, but man...almost non-existant AI and a frustratingly stop-and-go combat system are some of the low-lights.

Avatar image for deactivated-5a00c029ab7c1
#27 Posted by deactivated-5a00c029ab7c1 (1777 posts) -

@jec03: I still consider UMK3 as the best fighting game of all time, and easily the best MK game of all time. I know I'm crazy. I don't care.

I agree!! UMK3 had the most insane combo system I got into UMK3 big time back in 04 when I discovered Mame never knew back in the day all the ridiculous combos you could do in the game it's so good.

Avatar image for belegorm
#28 Posted by Belegorm (1848 posts) -

I feel like complaining about a PS1's blurry textures is like complaining that a daguerreotype photo from the Civil War looks too small and primitive.

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is incredibly playable and a real joy no matter what year you play it.

Also saying "most classics," I assume you've played most classic games then?

Avatar image for artisanbreads
#29 Edited by ArtisanBreads (9107 posts) -

@jduster said:

I just played Jet Force Gemini for a few hours. It was the N64 game that everyone told me was underrated. Back then, it probably was. But I think most of the people who hyped it up are thinking about their memories when they played it 20 years ago, because if they played it recently, they would've seen it was a pretty average game.

I am trying to make sure this post isn't a sarcastic joke and I'm just being the guy who doesn't realize that. Hopefully you realize it doesn't add up at all. Yeah they are thinking back on their memories, it's a game that came out 20 years ago. At the time it was a game a lot of people liked. Now it's an old game. No surprise.

I don't watch The Thing and go "boy... the special effects in this are supposed to be good I heard but man, I just watched Avatar and then this after and they suck!" I watch it and think for a movie that came out in '82 the practical effects are bad ass. Games have more to them to possibly make them feel dated (controls and graphics are bigger issues than things movies often face as they age) but I don't think it's really that different. That's why I don't get the "how has this aged?" obsession. It's about context. Compared to what else is on the N64, that's still an interesting game in the action adventure space. If you don't like it now, I get it. For sure. That doesn't mean others are wrong. Saying someone's memories are invalid because they go back to when something actually came out is weird. That person has good context. Yeah, the game might be better in their mind but that's because it often had the impact of context.

If your goal is to constantly evaluate all past games under a modern lens... go for it. I just think it's going to be "this didn't age well" about almost every game and then not appreciating the context, innovation, and quality all these games could have had at release. It will not be an interesting analysis. I just think it's an odd way to go about it. I never viewed movies, books, music, or any media this way. Games have aspects that have clearly made them change quite a bit in a short amount of time, but nonetheless I really don't feel differently about them compared to those other media types. It's about time and place.

Avatar image for teaoverlord
#30 Posted by teaoverlord (592 posts) -

SNES games have aged better than a lot of early 2000s games.

Avatar image for imsh_pl
#31 Posted by imsh_pl (4208 posts) -

@jec03: I still consider UMK3 as the best fighting game of all time, and easily the best MK game of all time. I know I'm crazy. I don't care.

Have you done the science?

Avatar image for hippie_genocide
#32 Posted by hippie_genocide (2434 posts) -

Just about every 3D game from the PS1 and N64 is going to look like garbage now. It was a new technology, at least for consoles, and those are always going to show their age. The SNES was kind of the perfection of 2D gaming, and that system's best games are just as playable now as they were 20+ years ago.

Avatar image for belowstupid
#33 Edited by BelowStupid (496 posts) -

When you're younger you boil down comparisons to "New shit is better than old shit". But once you get older and have context you become less harsh when looking back on things. I grew up in the PS1 era and when I look back at Atari games I can appreciate what they were going for. You need to adjust how you analyze anything when your looking at things that didn't try to match our modern expectations.

Guaranteed there will be kids in 2030 who think PS3 and PS4 games won't hold up. I mean hopefully, otherwise that will mean Video Games got very stale, and very boring.

Avatar image for hatking
#34 Posted by HatKing (7451 posts) -

@belegorm said:

I feel like complaining about a PS1's blurry textures is like complaining that a daguerreotype photo from the Civil War looks too small and primitive.

Castlevania: Symphony of the Night is incredibly playable and a real joy no matter what year you play it.

Also saying "most classics," I assume you've played most classic games then?

Yep. There's a lot of analogies here. Video games are a relatively new medium, and the tech is just getting to a place where it's going to be comfortable for the masses. Just like black and white or silent films aren't for everybody, games with primitive controls, 2D graphics, and inflated difficulty are probably only going to appeal to hardcore fans of the medium. And don't get me wrong, despite loving these things, watching silent films, listening to records, and playing NES games have their drawbacks. It's not an all-the-time thing. But, it's important to look at and acknowledge the history of a medium, and to take into account the technology that made it easier to consume while doing so.

I will admit that video game, by their very nature, are going to be one of the most difficult to go back to. Silent movies are still, even when being critically analyzed, a mostly passive activity. It happens whether you participate or not. Video game require an audience participation that's probably closest to literature than any other medium. You have to do something in order to advance a narrative. And, games are singular in art of being a thing that's designed to stop a player. So, yes, the hill is a lot tougher to climb with old games. But, they're every bit as important, and the technology doesn't make them inherently inferior.

Avatar image for bigsocrates
#35 Posted by BigSocrates (1966 posts) -

@hatking: I think saying that old games have "primitive" controls is an overstatement. Some do, but then look at Super Mario 3. They JUST made a hugely successful game based on the controls from the old Mario games and how perfect they are. It didn't sell just to nostalgic old timers. Likewise a lot of old shooters, like R-type, have pretty much perfect controls (and in many ways aesthetics.) Beat 'em ups died out in part because they couldn't improve on Final Fight or Streets of Rage. A lot of those old forms were perfected.

I would compare it more to music. Genres go into and out of style. Jazz arguably peaked in the 40s-60s, and while new jazz is made today it isn't "better" than Miles Davis and Charlie Parker.

Likewise certain genres of games had their peaks at different points. Modern platformers may be more technically accomplished than the 16-bit games but they're not better than the greats. Likewise unless you like bullet hell shooters, you're not going to find many better than Radiant Silvergun.

Now people might have genre preferences that mean that they like 3D cinematic action games like Uncharted or modern FPS like Call of Duty more than those old genres, but for those who truly love the out of favor genres they will still be able to appreciate the best of the older stuff with as much pleasure as anyone experienced at the time.

Now do they need to play the mediocre filler games? No. Nobody needs to play Cool Spot or Croc: Legend of the Gobbos ever again except out of historical curiosity. Just like only true fanatics need to hear the 107th best jazz album from 1953. But to say categorically that the old stuff is crap and the new stuff even in the same genre is better, well, that's a very narrow perspective.

Avatar image for kasaioni
#36 Posted by kasaioni (2397 posts) -

Where's Matt Rorie? Doesn't he generally dislike going back and playing older games (aside from WoW).

Avatar image for belegorm
#37 Posted by Belegorm (1848 posts) -

@hatking: Also Super Castlevania IV had great controls that fit with the series, and the game still looks great with its pixel gothic art

Avatar image for jduster
#38 Posted by jduster (41 posts) -

I just played Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. That one has aged well!

Avatar image for shindig
#39 Edited by Shindig (4914 posts) -

International Karate + is almost as old as me and is holding up much better.

Avatar image for adequatelyprepared
#40 Posted by AdequatelyPrepared (2522 posts) -

A lot of games have aged quite well.
Not Persona 1 though. That game has aged like milk.

Avatar image for redking56
#41 Posted by redking56 (225 posts) -

Nobody (except literal children) thought FF VII had a great plot at the time of release.

While I agree that FFVII isn't in any shape or form a polished game and that it's overall plot is basic shounen manga fare, the criticism is a little overblown. Part of the criticism can be laid at the feet of the translation which is terrible and was done as a huge text dump with little to no context for anything other than basic character details so they could get the pronouns right most of the time, it was are sick.

I'm not saying it's the best thing ever or anything but I feel that people are a little dismissive of the game because of it's popularity and don't look beneath the surface a bit, there is a lot to unpack if you look close enough and more than most films or books.

FFVII was a pretty convoluted story that is more conveyed in it's setting than in it's characters. So much is conveyed in Midgar alone that it would've just worked if the characters said nothing at all about the world, most people probably remember the locations of the game more than anything.

It's not quite this generation's Great Gatsby or On the Road, but it captures the turn-of-the-century Zeitgeist like no previous game could and which few games have been able to surpass. Concepts of hypercapitalism, terrorism, nuclear danger, and most poignant of all, the post-industrial dissatisfaction that is very brutally depicted almost throughout the game and most especially in Barret's story in North Corel with Dyne. It reflected a world that didn't seem that far from reality especially given recent times, the Tokyo subway sarin attack, the increasing workers strikes around the world and the closure of many old community industries, the rise of superconglomerates. All this 3 years before Deus Ex would be lauded for it.

These are all heavy subjects and I would agree that they aren't conveyed very well through the dialogue but I feel the game does well regardless.

Avatar image for bigsocrates
#42 Posted by BigSocrates (1966 posts) -

@redking56: I played it at the time and while I agree that the settings and themes of the game were interesting and evocative the 'story' (as in the events that happen in the game) and the dialog were, in many places, bad. It suffers from the typical JRPG issue of being overstuffed and cobbled together with wild tonal shifts and long stretches of dull grinding, and of course in the end it doesn't really make any sense. Much of what you're terming 'story' is more visual design and even music and sound design than anything like a plot. I mean this is a game which wants to talk about postindustrial malaise and corporate power but also features a superintelligent dog and a lengthy snowboarding section. It is vast and contains multitudes and those multitudes clash with each other.

At the time nobody had played a game this epic with this much evocative art and so it was groundbreaking, and an amazing experience, but going back now you're just like "Why is this paced like it is? What is any of this supposed to MEAN?"

And yes, some of the fault may lie with the translation but that was the translation we played, and the translation people are likely to play if they pick it up through any legal channel today. My point is that FFVII was both an incredible achievement in gaming and kind of a mess, so it's not surprising that the mess part stands out now when orchestral scores are common place and the amazing FMV has long since been surpassed and there are games like Fallout 4 and the Witcher 3 that explore adult themes and evocative settings in more focused interesting ways.

Avatar image for devil240z
#43 Edited by Devil240Z (5704 posts) -

Most of my favorite games are from that era. Some of them have not aged well but many of them are still great. Maybe the average quality of games is better these days but there are far fewer stand outs.

Avatar image for finaldasa
#44 Posted by FinalDasa (3190 posts) -

At some point yes, none of those games will hold up. The few that do are usually classics or influence today's games heavily.

Like movies, at some point the technology and artistry of the industry will outpace the past.

Moderator
Avatar image for shinofkod
#45 Posted by shinofkod (173 posts) -

I think most 3D games have not held up well. Most of the PSX/N64 era 3D games I find to be insufferable now. However I feel classic 2D titles are still top tier games.

Avatar image for giantstalker
#46 Edited by Giantstalker (2401 posts) -

I can't wait for the inevitable sequel to this thread, "I think most pre-2020 classic video games haven't aged well."

Huge hits like CoD4 or Dark Souls or whatever are going to seem like limited, primitive messes in the future.

More productive is to see how old games have aged relative to each other, the classics are going to seem like gold compared to most other titles they were contemporary to

Avatar image for oursin_360
#47 Posted by OurSin_360 (6162 posts) -

I think a lot of games hold up, just some of the ones that were great because of graphics (especially ps1/n64 era) don't tend to hold up. Also playing some earlier nintendo/snes games with an emulator can kill some of the fun/challenge by allowing saves whenever you want etc. I think early 3d is the toughest to go back to.

Avatar image for bigsocrates
#48 Edited by BigSocrates (1966 posts) -

@oursin_360: I don't know. Have you tried going back to pre-NES 2D games? There definitely are some that remain playable but most are just completely impenetrable. Rare Replay provided a pretty good reminder of this with its ZX Spectrum titles (though Jetpack is still OK.) People forget that the NES was the second gen of popular 2D machines.

Avatar image for redking56
#49 Posted by redking56 (225 posts) -

@bigsocrates: I agree with you especially on some of the mini games which was obviously an attempt to break up the monotony of running, random battle, running, random battle with some different moments of action. My guess on Red XIII was they just wanted a cool looking polygon model and then made him the connection to Cosmo Canyon to guide the story there. His character's point was to being part of the "old world" that was dying out much like Wutai and every other community in the world.

My only real objection is that visual design is a major part of story telling in things like films and video games and I feel FFVII deserves some credit for the world they created. Films like Blade Runner, 2001: a Space Odyssey and Oshii's Ghost in the Shell aren't lauded for their dialogue or "story" but for their visual settings that convey their message. I wouldn't put FFVII in the same pedestal but I would maybe put it underneath one of the legs to prop it up.

Avatar image for sammo21
#50 Posted by sammo21 (5968 posts) -

Depends on the era. Many 64/PS1 games don't hold up because of them pushing the tech and going into 3D for the first time. Shooters on consoles, and even PC, during this era all the way up to Halo are the same way. However, praised "retro" consoles like NES, Genesis, SNES, etc hold up pretty well.