Are old games necessarily better games?

I hear a lot of people saying that old games are better games. But does a game being old make it a better game. Many people believe that the top games from the SNES are obviously better than the top games of now. But are they really better games? Would an independent adjudicator prefer the old games?

Well, a game being old doesn't instantly make it a good game, for instance the majority of atari 2600 failures, but alot of older games have more substance in them than games that are much newer, because most of the ideas hadn't been done yet and were new conceptsgarathe_den

Interesting point. Especially after completing Fallout 3's obviously cut down story...

I hear a lot of people saying that old games are better games. But does a game being old make it a better game. Many people believe that the top games from the SNES are obviously better than the top games of now. But are they really better games? Would an independent adjudicator prefer the old games?

FlaminNoraa

Some games are indeed capable of providing a deeper gameplay experience, and some of those happen to be old games that have not been surpassed by any recent games. While shooters have evolved, adventure games haven't - aside from superficial qualities. Not that strange because that's where the focus of the industry is today. That's not to say there aren't bad shooters - there are, and plenty of them. It's just that in the 80s and particularly in the early 90s, so many gameplay concepts were new, and no genre of games was really that much bigger than any other. There was more variety. Kinda makes one think that hardware limitations are a good thing. Today it's mostly about the flash and the action, much like in Hollywood movies. It has become a mass industry. It's become too predictable and boring with sequel after sequel to every hit game flooding the market. Though back in the early 80s with companies riding on the space shooter wave to make money the situation wasn't that different I suppose.

No-one is really independent.

[QUOTE="FlaminNoraa"]

I hear a lot of people saying that old games are better games. But does a game being old make it a better game. Many people believe that the top games from the SNES are obviously better than the top games of now. But are they really better games? Would an independent adjudicator prefer the old games?

doubutsuteki

Some games are indeed capable of providing a deeper gameplay experience, and some of those happen to be old games that have not been surpassed by any recent games. One genre that has evolved is the shooter genre. One genre that hasn't is the adventure genre - aside from superficial qualities. Not that strange because that's where the focus of the industry is today. That's not to say there aren't bad shooters - there are, and plenty of them. It's just that in the 80s and particularly in the early 90s, so many gameplay concepts were new, and no genre of games was really that much bigger than any other. There was more variety. Kinda makes one think that hardware limitations are a good thing. Today it's mostly about the flash and the action, much like in Hollywood movies. It has become a mass industry. It's become too predictable and boring with sequel after sequel to every hit game flooding the market. Though back in the early 80s with companies riding on the space shooter wave to make money the situation wasn't that different I suppose.

No-one is really independent.

You really should get a job in journalism.

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="FlaminNoraa"]

I hear a lot of people saying that old games are better games. But does a game being old make it a better game. Many people believe that the top games from the SNES are obviously better than the top games of now. But are they really better games? Would an independent adjudicator prefer the old games?

FlaminNoraa

Some games are indeed capable of providing a deeper gameplay experience, and some of those happen to be old games that have not been surpassed by any recent games. One genre that has evolved is the shooter genre. One genre that hasn't is the adventure genre - aside from superficial qualities. Not that strange because that's where the focus of the industry is today. That's not to say there aren't bad shooters - there are, and plenty of them. It's just that in the 80s and particularly in the early 90s, so many gameplay concepts were new, and no genre of games was really that much bigger than any other. There was more variety. Kinda makes one think that hardware limitations are a good thing. Today it's mostly about the flash and the action, much like in Hollywood movies. It has become a mass industry. It's become too predictable and boring with sequel after sequel to every hit game flooding the market. Though back in the early 80s with companies riding on the space shooter wave to make money the situation wasn't that different I suppose.

No-one is really independent.

You really should get a job in journalism.

To add to that, I think old games are not necessarily better games but I feel there is a connection between gamers and games. The connection starts when you first play a game, for example, when I first started plaing video games I was young and I played a lot of different games, some were bad and some were good. When I play those games now I enjoy them because I played them when I was very young. It reminds me of what I was like when I was young and I guess you could say it reminds me of the good old days, of having no worries. To get the point, it brings back memories of being young and I think that is why games are still being played by people that are 20 to 25 years old.

[QUOTE="doubutsuteki"][QUOTE="FlaminNoraa"]

I hear a lot of people saying that old games are better games. But does a game being old make it a better game. Many people believe that the top games from the SNES are obviously better than the top games of now. But are they really better games? Would an independent adjudicator prefer the old games?

FlaminNoraa

Some games are indeed capable of providing a deeper gameplay experience, and some of those happen to be old games that have not been surpassed by any recent games. One genre that has evolved is the shooter genre. One genre that hasn't is the adventure genre - aside from superficial qualities. Not that strange because that's where the focus of the industry is today. That's not to say there aren't bad shooters - there are, and plenty of them. It's just that in the 80s and particularly in the early 90s, so many gameplay concepts were new, and no genre of games was really that much bigger than any other. There was more variety. Kinda makes one think that hardware limitations are a good thing. Today it's mostly about the flash and the action, much like in Hollywood movies. It has become a mass industry. It's become too predictable and boring with sequel after sequel to every hit game flooding the market. Though back in the early 80s with companies riding on the space shooter wave to make money the situation wasn't that different I suppose.

No-one is really independent.

You really should get a job in journalism.

No thanks, I'll just stick to what I like. Games don't matter THAT much to me. But more than they do to some; to those who just buy in to the hype of things. Yeah.

Depends on what genre you like. If you like platformers, adventure games, and 2D games (I consider 2D a genre--not a graphics quality), the old stuff has yet to be surpassed in most catergories. If you like FPS/MMO, this age is your best friend.

That said, I think older games had a lot more heart and soul. To me, when I play Kyrandia, Space Quest, or Full Throttle, I can tell that the people behind it were truly using their skills for what they love. Some games still have that today, but most seem to be more "Hey, I can make a good game, so let's crank it out" rather than "What do I want my game to be?" As always, there are exceptions (Portal comes to mind, along with zack and wiki), but when I walk down the PC games section of Best Buy, there is nothing that has the soul of olden times. To me, even Zelda: TP and SMG seemed more empty than their older counterparts, but that may just be nostalgia.

To add to that, I think old games are not necessarily better games but I feel there is a connection between gamers and games. The connection starts when you first play a game, for example, when I first started plaing video games I was young and I played a lot of different games, some were bad and some were good. When I play those games now I enjoy them because I played them when I was very young. It reminds me of what I was like when I was young and I guess you could say it reminds me of the good old days, of having no worries. To get the point, it brings back memories of being young and I think that is why games are still being played by people that are 20 to 25 years old.

badkarma1591

Can't say you're wrong there. That's nostalgia. And sure we all feel nostalgic sometimes. But that's also why I appreciate people like The Angry Video Game Nerd. He likes oldschool games. It's evident, even though he spends most of his time in his videos swearing and making fun of old BAD games. The bottom line is that old games aren't good or bad because they're old. But back then there was a different focus in the industry, and console games were much different from computer games, and they were in their own - often simplistic - fashion. In other words, they aren't just OLD games - like technically inferior Halo clones played from a top-down perspective with 2D graphics -: They're oldschool. And that's a style.

The question is when we go beyond old-/newschool. Since the transition to 3D, it seems to me that graphics have gained the upper hand over gameplay - again, not very strange considering it's just entertainment; it's commercial, and generally the industry has no ambitions to go against and beyond any trends (superficial or not) in society at large. But it's not really that different to before, it's just gotten out of proportions to an extent that I couldn't even imagine as a kid, when the thought of not being excited with games seemed strange. I'm not saying that all new games are crap, I don't think they are. But overall, it seems so different from the early 90s.

It's strange to find that most of today's good adventure games are made by small groups of people without any particular means - fan communities. I've also found myself playing more boardgames recently than computer and console games. Somewhere along the way I guess I went astray and forgot that technology was only supposed to make things better. Or perhaps it is that those who currently operate the technology are feeble dabblers in that particular art, and/or have lost interest in games and instead gained an interest in the money involved in the games industry. I think it is the latter.

well it really does depend on the following

is or was the follow up better

, like perfect dark zero for example

was that better then the n64 ,, of course not, i mean they stripped half the features found in the original for the graphics,

so it depends, an old game can be the better one, or a inferior enough one, to just be called a classic

example, timesplitters 2 was a good sequal , possibily the best in series, timesplitters 1 was basic, they improved on it ,

meaning the first one is now inferier, in terms of everything not just graphics,

so ya,

it depends, theres more fun in older games i can say that much , super mario bros is certainly more fun then the 3d series

then theres games that werent as fun as the newer ones like , rainbow six,

play that youll be bored of it , in 10 minutes play vegas, 1/2 youd have fun ,

It really just depends on the taste of the person you're talking to.ramboturd72

Developers were basing more time and attention into fun gameplay as opposed to the stunning visuals of today.

I hear a lot of people saying that old games are better games. But does a game being old make it a better game. Many people believe that the top games from the SNES are obviously better than the top games of now. But are they really better games? Would an independent adjudicator prefer the old games?

FlaminNoraa

well since rating a game is mostly opinion, you wont get a uniform answer to this one. BUT in my opinion games were more unique and had more imagination in the earlier days of gaming. Now its more just about making $, rehashing, sequels, and trying to improve graphics.

However there are a few great games every Generation of consoles. And consoles like the wii are trying to be innovative and make games more fun. (even if its only a hand-full of great games each year).

Alot of what people see in old games is just the memories of their childhood. People like to reminisce about how much fun they had with Super Mario Bros. But back when it came out, it was the best game. Retro gaming is much happier and relaxing compared to the mature, complicated games of today. I never sell my games, but my nes games like SMB3, Duckhunt, and Punchout would be the last to go. Some older games just can't be beat if you ask me.

yes and no. it depends on the game and the gamer him/herself

my personal opinion is obviously depended on the game itself, mega man x is a far better game for me then....little big planet, why? because at the time it made more of an impact on me then LBP does now,

but then, MGS4 trounces many, many older games, so it really depends on the game

Not necesarilly, since older games had more technical limitaions, yet many boast of great content, since gaming was taken more seriously by developers (more quality, less profit ambitions).

Other important factors (maybe the most important of all) are how were your gaming tastes in the past versus your immersion on videogames. Many of us were still kids, and we pretty much didn't complained about games as long as they were fun. Try to compare Atari PONG to Ping Pong on Mario & Sonic @ OO GG. Of course the most modern has better graphics and more complex mechanics, yet videogames were way much more of a novelty during the 1970's than in the 2000's. Many of those old videogames were considered better because we didn't expect that much of them (either by being young or by not knowing so well videogames).