Why Are All Older Games Glorified?

because nowadays we are replaying the same games with less content, more restriction, but better graphics. In general at least. One thing I hate this gen is when I'm playing a sequel and I'm like why can't I do this, it was there in the prequel. Why is this not there, it was there in the prequel.

Because without them, we wouldn't have the games we have today.

madsnakehhh

Very true.

Nostalgia. Period.

Our memories of those games are always better than the actual games were.

So many people rub one out to N64/PS1 games like they are the greatest games ever, but if you actually go back and PLAY them (I.E. not remakes, the actual games) you will realize how much they suck compared to games of today. I popped in some of my old PSone games, Spyro, MGS1, etc, and realized just how badly these games age to current standards.

I find it annoying too tbh, nothing new can be good. It always "sucks" compared to the old games :roll:

StrongDeadlift

[QUOTE="clone01"]

2nd post nailed it, but nostalgia. I remember playing Resident Evil on the original Playstation. I was so blown away. Now, I find it almost unplayable.

Lucianu

Second post nailing it, my ass. Like Foxhound said, the theory that nostalgia in a absolute way, is the reason why people glorify older games is simply wrong. That's a matter of fact, not opinion. Relatively speaking, for some people out there, your opinion is correct, without a doubt.

It's a surprise that you, of all people, would agree with something so ridiculously wrong.

Because people are stupid.

But on a side note FF7 is the greatest game ever made.

phantomblade220

If a game sucked when it was older it's still going to suck. If a game was great when it was older, it's still going to be great. If you are a graphics whore than yes nothing older is going to please you. If you are all about gameplay it won't matter if it's new, old or somewhere in between if the gameplay is good then you will enjoy it. Glorification of a game doesn't necessarily mean it stands the test of time. It just means for what it accomplished at the time it should be glorified. Take for instance Wolfenstein 3D. While not necessarily as enjoyable today it still kicked off the modern FPS genre. It should be glorified for that. For great graphics or gameplay? Not so much anymore. For innovation and enjoyment factor at the time? Yes absolutely. Compared to now? Not so much. If you keep those things in mind when going back to memory lane or doing comparisons you should be just fine.

What would you rather play, Resident Evil or Resident Evil 4?clone01

Well, i would play the entire series if i had interest in it. I did a marathon of the Metal Gear Solid series, starting from the first one 'till the forth one. It took about 20 minutes to get used to those pixelated visuals for MGS1, but after that, it was smooth sailing. It's my favorite in the series, by far.

I believe the aged mechanics of game hindering the enjoyment for one is subjective, people will react differently. I mean, there are people out there that have played OoT recently and said it has aged horribly, wile others that have played it, yet again, recently, said that it has aged wonderfully, without playing it before.

I believe both of these groups are a hundreat percent correct, for their own experience. I know a lot of 13 year olds that own current generation consoles, and love playing much older consoles aswell, for example i myself wouldn't enjoy a Atari 2600 because the games are far to simplistic, but i know this kid that would. He has a channel on youtube aswell. It boggled my mind, why would he? But, he does. There are far more, detailed, examples, but i don't want to elaborate.

I mean, if i was talking out of my butt, i wouldn't disagree. But my own experience and observations have said otherwise.

I find that plenty of older games are better then this current gen. But that doesn't mean that this gen is horrible since there are a lot of great games that I like.

I mean, if i was talking out of my butt, i wouldn't disagree. But my own experience and observations have said otherwise.

Lucianu

And you certainly have valid points, but you seem to be presenting the logic that games don't progress in quality over time. That's where I argue the nostalgia factor. I'd say that a modern day Lexus is a better car than a 60's corvette. I realize that's not a perfect analogy, though.

Well people like to complain. Also, many older games aren't directly related to their new sequels. (Look at Mario and Zelda.) Plus, many older games are, simply put, fantastic.

And you certainly have valid points, but you seem to be presenting the logic that games don't progress in quality over time. That's where I argue the nostalgia factor. I'd say that a modern day Lexus is a better car than a 60's corvette. I realize that's not a perfect analogy, though.

clone01

I believe games progress in quality over time, i can't really debate that. More quality in their visuals, in their mechanics, 80s to 90s progression has given us a far better quality in the story department (from my experience, i never played text based games). But i don't believe that applies in a definite way for certain portions of a game. You see, I think that attribute means more wen put in a certain context, games are created with the intent of entertaining the person that's playing them. Since entertainment is completely subjective, i think that person would have a specific view of the quality of what he is playing.

That car comparison is natural, just like i would say.. DVD is of better quality than VCR. With games, it's more complicated. I know people are going to bring in a movie analogy from time to time, but i think that's a totally different experience. You may be immersed in the movie, you may be entertained and so on, but wen it comes to games, you're not only watching them, it's a different experience to play games than to watch movies, even though both share the same intent. Chess is a thousand years old. I don't think that game would make a good movie.