In 20 years will the games of today be remebered like the classics of yesterday?

In this 1up article on the recent remakes of classic arcade games like Pac-Man, Galaga, Space Invaders, etc., the director of the remakes said this about why the classic games of the past are still remembered and enjoyable today. He also goes on to say that more than half of the modern games with huge budgets and realistic focus will become either stale or forgotten in 20 years.

Here's the qoute:

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169915

Interestingly, Iguchi's desire to make games similar to the clas-sics of the 80's is based in a deeper belief that the games of today simply don't match up to those that came before them. "I think more than half of the games you see today with huge budgets and such a 'realistic' focus will be either stale or forgotten in 20 years," he said. "On the other hand, the masterpieces of the 80's will definitely be enjoyed far into the future. The reason for this is simple -- many of these clas-sic titles have unique and fascinating mechanics that can't be diminished by the advancement of technology."

It does make sense and I kind of agree. Note, he did say more than half so he does recognize that there are clas-sics being made even today. But what about some of the one-hit wonder type of games? There are so many big-budgeted games that are popular or will be popular when they're released. But will they end up being forgotten or remembered? And will some of the games of today be also remade 20 years from now?

1up jokingly sums up the article by saying:

"While Iguchi's statement is certainly debatable, he does make an interesting point. Think about this: Do you see a remake of, say, Gears of War being necessary 20 years from now?"

Games like Tetris, Super Mario Bros. 3., Pac-Man, Galaga, etc., will still be played another 20 years from now and be remade many times. But what about Bioshock or Half-Life 2? Will there be a Halo remake? A remake of Grand Theft Auto IV? Do you think there would be a Mass Effect remake or a remake of Call of Duty 4? Do these modern masterpieces have the lasting mechanics that also can't be diminished by the advancement of technology like the masterpieces of the past?

I am 100% certain that these games will be known as Classics in 20 years.
------------
Half-life

Halo

Grand Theft Auto

World of Warcraft

Metal Gear Solid

Max Payne

Honestly, crap like Pac-Man, Galaga and Space Invaders hold no other value to me but nostalgia. As games, they're simplistic and boring. Sometimes the retro craze going on makes me want to puke. Yes, there are some true cIassics that hold up great even today, but in reality 99% of these oldies are complete garbage.

As far as I'm concerned, no game from the 80's holds a candle to instant modern cIassics such as Half-Life 2, The Longest Journey, Vice City, Knights of the Old Republic, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Civilization IV, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Homeworld 2, etc.

Amen Flames. :P

There will always be nostalgia. And nostalgia will always be lucrative for someone. Not to say there aren't classics from the 80s--I'm replaying Kings Quest IV and it's fiendishly difficult--but most of the things hailed as masterworks are probably just things we cut our gaming teeth on and so remember fondly. Like your first kiss... was it magical? Well you thought so at the time, but probably not so much. :P

Honestly, crap like Pac-Man, Galaga and Space Invaders hold no other value to me but nostalgia. As games, they're simplistic and boring. Sometimes the retro craze going on makes me want to puke. Yes, there are some true cIassics that hold up great even today, but in reality 99% of these oldies are complete garbage.

As far as I'm concerned, no game from the 80's holds a candle to instant modern cIassics such as Half-Life 2, The Longest Journey, Vice City, Knights of the Old Republic, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Civilization IV, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Homeworld 2, etc.

UpInFlames

Why? Because they look bad?

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Honestly, crap like Pac-Man, Galaga and Space Invaders hold no other value to me but nostalgia. As games, they're simplistic and boring. Sometimes the retro craze going on makes me want to puke. Yes, there are some true cIassics that hold up great even today, but in reality 99% of these oldies are complete garbage.

As far as I'm concerned, no game from the 80's holds a candle to instant modern cIassics such as Half-Life 2, The Longest Journey, Vice City, Knights of the Old Republic, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Civilization IV, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Homeworld 2, etc.

skp_16

Why? Because they look bad?

I sure would love to gaze into whatever crystal ball he's peering into. Thing is, that's something only a purist or someone whose enraptured by nostalgia would say. For all we know, it could be the other way around.

And I totally agree with what UIF said.

[QUOTE="skp_16"][QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Honestly, crap like Pac-Man, Galaga and Space Invaders hold no other value to me but nostalgia. As games, they're simplistic and boring. Sometimes the retro craze going on makes me want to puke. Yes, there are some true cIassics that hold up great even today, but in reality 99% of these oldies are complete garbage.

As far as I'm concerned, no game from the 80's holds a candle to instant modern cIassics such as Half-Life 2, The Longest Journey, Vice City, Knights of the Old Republic, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Civilization IV, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Homeworld 2, etc.

RK-Mara

Why? Because they look bad?

Naaah. Most 80's/90's games are still fun until now not becuase of nostalgia, but because it is still indeed fun.

Because we all know 100% of all games being released back then were cla-ssics? While the article does hint that some games being made today will be regarded as cla-ssics, he seems to imply that the ratio of potential cla-ssic games to forgettable games was somehow greater back in the day? I completely disagree. Some games are cla-ssics for a number of reasons, I doubt this has anything to do with the technology of a title, because the X factor that defines a game as a cla-ssic seems an impossibility to determine.

This generation is reletively young so it seems hard to find as many cla-ssics, however just looking back to the last generation there are tons of games people would consider as big a cla-ssic as any of the titles from the 80s (Shadow of the Colossus, ICO, Halo, Resident Evil 4, MGS3 etc just to name a small fraction). Not to mention titles that BIRTHED the industry as we know it are not neccesarily synomous with the idea of a cla-ssic game.

Honestly, crap like Pac-Man, Galaga and Space Invaders hold no other value to me but nostalgia. As games, they're simplistic and boring. Sometimes the retro craze going on makes me want to puke. Yes, there are some true cIassics that hold up great even today, but in reality 99% of these oldies are complete garbage.

As far as I'm concerned, no game from the 80's holds a candle to instant modern cIassics such as Half-Life 2, The Longest Journey, Vice City, Knights of the Old Republic, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Civilization IV, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Homeworld 2, etc.

UpInFlames

While Galaga and Space Invaders are super outdated and boring, I'd say that Pac-Man is a better game than a lot of what you named. In 20 years, I'll still be playing it every now and then. Its gameplay elements are implemented perfectly, and its simplicity makes it shine.

"Crap" like Half-Life 2, Vice City and KOTOR will be mega-outdated and downright unplayable in 20 years. From their terrible AI to their super limited levels, from their laughable combat mechanics to their lack of character development, there's nothing about them that makes me think that I'll even want to remember them a few years from now.

The Longest Journey and Shadow of the Colossus have tons of artistic value, and Civilization 4 and Homeworld 2 have strategic balance. Those games certainly won't be outdated in 20 years, and I do agree that they are "instant modern classics" that beat mostly anything from the 80s, unlike the previously named games.

They won't be. Here's a quote that is pretty much how I feel;

"The players find a new game with better graphics, and forget the very existence of the first game; why? Because most games, wait, scratch that, most *new* games only have one thing to offer; better design than the previous game, which only means better graphics, better sound, better weapons, etc. And such games are always beaten sooner or later, by the next big hit."

"Crap" like Half-Life 2, Vice City and KOTOR will be mega-outdated and downright unplayable in 20 years. From their terrible AI to their super limited levels, from their laughable combat mechanics to their lack of character development, there's nothing about them that makes me think that I'll even want to remember them a few years from now.

ReddestSkies

The irony is that sort of logic is just as applicable to as many of the 80's classics as it is to these modern masterpieces.

What constitutes as timeless and what is unplayable is purely subjective.

Two topics there, I'll answer the most obvious first and that would be that what becomes a cIassic is determined by the gaming collective's response to the game when they first played it. So all the games that have produced a feeling of wonderment when you first play them will be fondly remembered as cIassics.

Onto the second topic, will they get the re-make treatment in 20 years? A lot of the remakes have relied on prettying up the graphics, so if they were able to do that in 20 years and add some bonus content, then sure I don't see why not. I bet there are millions of people who right now would pay for re-makes of Halo or GTAIII with newer engines, and it's been just 1 generation.

As a former bookseller who knows what a classic is I ask the question which game could I put on the bookshelf in the classics section along with the great writers of the old days?

It would have to be Thief: The Dark Project. I urge you to try the demo, the succeeding Thief games never lived up to it in my opinion.

Great games for me were also:

The first Quake.

Half Life.

Deus Ex.

Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

I am playing two first person games at the moment; Alpha Prime and Pariah; good games in many ways but no technical support and very buggy. These days unless a game takes off and is a bestseller the developers won't bother to finish cleaning up the mess.

Remember you can no longer play some of the old games like Quake because the graphics cards no longer support them. That exposes the big lie about computing. Books last, games become unplayable as the graphics cards move on.

For that reason many of the great games we all love will be inaccessable and therefore unknown to our children so I spose that defeats the purpose of this thread!

[QUOTE="UpInFlames"]

Honestly, crap like Pac-Man, Galaga and Space Invaders hold no other value to me but nostalgia. As games, they're simplistic and boring. Sometimes the retro craze going on makes me want to puke. Yes, there are some true cIassics that hold up great even today, but in reality 99% of these oldies are complete garbage.

As far as I'm concerned, no game from the 80's holds a candle to instant modern cIassics such as Half-Life 2, The Longest Journey, Vice City, Knights of the Old Republic, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Civilization IV, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Homeworld 2, etc.

ReddestSkies

While Galaga and Space Invaders are super outdated and boring, I'd say that Pac-Man is a better game than a lot of what you named. In 20 years, I'll still be playing it every now and then. Its gameplay elements are implemented perfectly, and its simplicity makes it shine.

Because it's a small download or able to be played on a phone.

Face it, Pacman is outdated, simplistic, and boring. If there was a way to play the whole of Vice City on a phone, Pacman would be gone.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

"Crap" like Half-Life 2, Vice City and KOTOR will be mega-outdated and downright unplayable in 20 years. From their terrible AI to their super limited levels, from their laughable combat mechanics to their lack of character development, there's nothing about them that makes me think that I'll even want to remember them a few years from now.

BladesOfAthena

The irony is that sort of logic is just as applicable to as many of the 80's classics as it is to these modern masterpieces.

What constitutes as timeless and what is unplayable is purely subjective.

Many, but not all. You wouldn't want open-ended levels in Pac-Man, the AI gets the job done perfectly and the whole game is based around simplicity. It does what it tries to do perfectly. HL2, Vice City and KOTOR, on the other hand, rely on they semi-complexity but implements gameplay elements very poorly compared to what can be done, and what will be standard in 20 years.

Because it's a small download or able to be played on a phone.

Face it, Pacman is outdated, simplistic, and boring. If there was a way to play the whole of Vice City on a phone, Pacman would be gone.

Sexy_Pirate

No, because Pac-Man is a well-done skill-based game that relies on complexity and reflexes to keep me interested. I don't even play it on a phone; I play it on a computer.

Vice City is already outdated. It was outdated when it came out, to a certain extent. Its AI is terrible (think 1995 AI), its combat is insanely bad, its driving mechanics get the job done, but are super simplistic (not that this is a bad thing, but you seem to think so), its city is empty and dull, and it uses popups. I can't even imagine how laughable it will be when compared side-to-side to the living and breathing free roaming city games that will exist in 20 years.

i think that the games today won't be considered classics but just old. I think the classics we think of today will always be known as classics... even in 20 yearsMeyer1100

Honestly, crap like Pac-Man, Galaga and Space Invaders hold no other value to me but nostalgia. As games, they're simplistic and boring. Sometimes the retro craze going on makes me want to puke. Yes, there are some true cIassics that hold up great even today, but in reality 99% of these oldies are complete garbage.

As far as I'm concerned, no game from the 80's holds a candle to instant modern cIassics such as Half-Life 2, The Longest Journey, Vice City, Knights of the Old Republic, Heroes of Might and Magic III, Civilization IV, Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Homeworld 2, etc.

UpInFlames

I completely agree.

Many, but not all. You wouldn't want open-ended levels in Pac-Man, the AI gets the job done perfectly and the whole game is based around simplicity. It does what it tries to do perfectly. HL2, Vice City and KOTOR, on the other hand, rely on they semi-complexity but implements gameplay elements very poorly compared to what can be done, and what will be standard in 20 years.

ReddestSkies

No matter how good graphics and combat systems get, KOTOR will still tell an interesting story.

Many, but not all. You wouldn't want open-ended levels in Pac-Man, the AI gets the job done perfectly and the whole game is based around simplicity. It does what it tries to do perfectly. HL2, Vice City and KOTOR, on the other hand, rely on they semi-complexity but implements gameplay elements very poorly compared to what can be done, and what will be standard in 20 years.ReddestSkies

Does this standard hold true in every case? What if I applied this yardstick with Loco Roco vs the likes of, say, Metroid Prime, Ninja Gaiden Black, and Zelda TP? Would it still be just as valid? Is simplicity always better than what is semi or fully complex?

And according to Gameranking, HL2, VC, and KOTOR all received much higher score averages than Pac-Man.

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]

Many, but not all. You wouldn't want open-ended levels in Pac-Man, the AI gets the job done perfectly and the whole game is based around simplicity. It does what it tries to do perfectly. HL2, Vice City and KOTOR, on the other hand, rely on they semi-complexity but implements gameplay elements very poorly compared to what can be done, and what will be standard in 20 years.

SophinaK

No matter how good graphics and combat systems get, KOTOR will still tell an interesting story.

It could have been much better, and I wouldn't play it only for its story. I played it a while ago and my memories of the KOTOR storyline are tainted by the god-awful KOTOR2 plot and storytelling, though, so I guess that you should take that comment with a grain of salt. :P

[QUOTE="ReddestSkies"]Many, but not all. You wouldn't want open-ended levels in Pac-Man, the AI gets the job done perfectly and the whole game is based around simplicity. It does what it tries to do perfectly. HL2, Vice City and KOTOR, on the other hand, rely on they semi-complexity but implements gameplay elements very poorly compared to what can be done, and what will be standard in 20 years.BladesOfAthena

Does this standard hold true in every case? What if I applied this yardstick with Loco Roco vs the likes of, say, Metroid Prime, Ninja Gaiden Black, and Zelda TP? Would it still be just as valid? Is simplicity always better than what is semi or fully complex?

And according to Gameranking, HL2, VC, and KOTOR all received much higher score averages than Pac-Man.

I haven't played Loco Roco, so I won't comment on that, but no, simplicity isn't always better. Perfectly executed simplicity is better than lousy semi-complexity in the long run, though. Also, Metroid Prime's gameplay is quite simple and really, really well implemented: I expect it to stand the test of time (like Super Metroid did). Ninja Gaiden Black is fairly simple and super well done, too. Its general concept is based on simplicity; it only seems semi-complex because it gives you a lot of moves. I expect it to still be awesome in 20 years.

Zelda: TP is about the semi-complex mish-mashing of a bunch of lousily executed gameplay elements, and it is already outdated. In 20 years, it will be even more obvious that its combat is shallow, repetitive and unrewarding, its world is small, empty and dull and its characters are insanely shallow (why bother telling a story if you're not going to present decent characters?).

Those Pac-Man reviews were made 25 years after its release by graphic-whoring "professional reviewers" who probably never played a game for score in their life and gave scores based on how much they think that 15 years old MTV kids are likely to enjoy it. They reviewed it as a mobile game for hip teens who don't know what to do in class, not as a real, full-fledged game that is based on reflexes and memorization where you constantly try to improve just enough to beat your previous high score. They probably thought that it was too hard, too, since they couldn't make it past level 4 after the 5 minutes that they spent with it before writing their review. Also, you can't even compare scores across genres.