Why is Pong so overrated?

Just played it yesterday. The graphics are ass, and the gameplay is clunky and slow.

Don't see why this game gets such praise tbh. I found Wii Tennis to be much more robust.

Take off your rose colored glasses people!

Troll?

No, I legit just played pong for the first time and decided to post about it.

Lol. This was THE video game before video games were really a thing. Today it is pretty lame but virtual ping pong was da shiiiiiit back in the day.

This seems like a troll thread, but I'm going to give a serious response anyway. Did you play Pong with paddle controllers or some other type of controller? If you played Pong with anything other than paddle controllers then you played it wrong and that's why it's not fun.

So you're saying I shouldn't judge it by today's standards, but rather by how innovative it was at the time of release?

This is about that asinine pathetic final fantasy 6 post isnt it?

Fair play.

@DocSanchez: Partly, mostly just to illustrate how ridiculous it is to play a game for the first time more than 20 years after release, and then feel the need to let everyone know how "meh" you felt it was.

I'm sure if I watched Casablanca right now, I probably wouldn't feel the same way my Grandparents do about it :P

It has one of the best stories in video games

@lrdfancypants: I cry every time when the Right Paddle's son is slain by the Void King right in front of him.

Left Paddle could have saved him, but he did nothing. NOTHING!

Sure, there can be a certain "wow" factor at the time of a games release that can't be understood by those who play it later. Though if anything, those people who did play it later are really coming from a more "objective" place with their views. Nothing wrong with that.

A lot of old games that I thought were the best thing ever in their time turned out to be a bit mediocre upon reinspection. Sometimes standards just get better. Sometimes we were just willing to overlook the flaws that were always there. Sometimes we were just young and way too impressionable.

FFVII for example. I played it when it first came out and I thought it was the best game ever. Now? That game wouldn't even scratch my top 200 lol. And it's not because it's an old game. There are plenty of games that pre-date it that I find to be much, much better games. But at the time I was young, impressionable, and more than willing to overlook FFVII's many flaws. So I can't fault someone who plays it today for coming away underwhelmed.

Truly great games do stand the test of time though. I can replay some old games and come away with even more appreciation for them now than I had for them back then. Stuff like Super Metroid and Link to the Past for example. Those games didn't age a day because the design was always on point to begin with. There's never going to be a time when SMB3 ceases to be a good platformer, Ninja Gaiden Black ceases to be a good beat em up, or Super Turbo ceases to be a good fighting game. These games had their core design nailed on day 1, not depending on the aspects of games that do age in order to get by.

Good solid mechanics, level design, game-feel, etc. don't erode with the passing of time.

And as for your Casablanca point, I'd argue the same is true of film. Earlier this year I started watching Kurosawa flicks for the first time. Some of them old as me, some of them old as my dad lol. And ya know what? They were some of the best movies I've seen in a long while. Recently re-watched Lawrence of Arabia again for the first time since I was a kid. Again, great movie.

Casablanca is an excellent movie, and all things considered Pong isn't all that impressive of a game. It was a technical achievement for its day, but that's all it was. As a game it didn't exactly have depth, notice how Go and Chess have endured for centuries. So that line of thinking is so fundamentally flawed, given the examples used.

Tech ages, but great game design is timeless. Game's that get shat on for their gameplay years later, are getting a some proper readjustment from people who aren't going to be blinded by "look how pretty and new it is". Because there are plenty of examples of games that are still great to this day: Super Metroid, Tetris, Thief 2, Starcraft, Street Fighter 2.

This whole aging and "limitations of tech' are shit excuses people make because they can't handle a game they liked as a kid, being picked on.

@baron_machina:

It's such a touching moment.

how do you figure?

Taken in context though Pong was awesome because it was the first commerically successful video game.

There was nothing that could compare to it because literally there were no other video games.

It's kind of different when you're talking about the first version of anything. It's not the same as comparing it to say Tetris or those other games that came along when the context of gaming was already established.

In the context of what Pong does, it's still timeless. It's simulated Ping Pong. People still play Ping Pong. It's not as old as Go or Chess but it's still endured too.

I think the philosophy that there's no such thing as a GOAT, just the greatest of any era, is a good way to look at it. For its era Pong was great.

I know I played the crap out of it as a kid. But, hey times were simpler then. This was also the 70s when pet rocks were a thing ????

@appariti0n:

Basically yes. Its not much fun these days.

@ConanTheStoner: Not going to quote your post, because for the most part I don't really disagree with you.

However, when one is compiling a list of greatest of all times, you can't measure old games by today's standards. The only real impartial judgement, is to ask "how well received and revolutionary was this when it released, compared to it's competition at the time?" Otherwise almost nothing older than 5-10 years could ever have a chance to make it into the list.

If one wants to make another topic, asking "how does ____ stack up today?" that's totally fine of course.

@jg4xchamp: Casablanca was totally overrated. Sam was just a token black dude who plays piano with zero character development, despite supposedly being one of Rick's best friends. Captain Renault? Generic comic relief guy. Also the graphics sucked. Black and white? Puh-lease. :P

Pong vs Persona 5 anyone?

Pong is overrated in the sense that it wasn't very original, but was mostly based on Magnavox Odyssey Tennis. However, that game was too primitive to be any good, so Pong gave it the arcade tech and gameplay polish it needed to be a hit.

Pong is also overrated in another sense, in that many today assume that it brought video games into the mainstream. It was actually quite niche back in the early '70s. It wasn't until Space Invaders came along in the late '70s that video games became mainstream.

@ronvalencia said:

@appariti0n said:

Just played it yesterday. The graphics are ass, and the gameplay is clunky and slow.

Don't see why this game gets such praise tbh. I found Wii Tennis to be much more robust.

Take off your rose colored glasses people!

I KNEW it! definitive proof you're a robot! Your EEG proves it!

In a sea of dumbass threads this one is the dumbassiest one.

Well with that it's really a matter of criteria.

I find this is an issue that pops up in many SW topics regarding older games as well as these lists like IGN's recent one. No focus on a specific criteria, just a grab bag of what's most important when reflecting on these games.

Some people think it should be a matter of lasting influence. Some believe it's a matter of how groundbreaking a game was. Some people will hinge it all on cultural impact. For some, it's just a matter of how good the game actually is.

And that's where that IGN list (as well as so many other top X game lists) goes wrong. The criteria is all over the place.

Personally I'd rather just judge a game on its own merits, regardless of how old it is. I think it's absolutely fair to judge older games in the same way we'd judge modern ones, because really, there's nothing unfair about it. Things like graphics and sound can age, sure, but the gameplay itself does not.

There are plenty of ancient ass games that are still absolutely excellent today. Not just a "product of their time", meant to be taken with a mountain of context.

I don't think it's fair to give Donkey Kong Country the same props that I'd give Megaman X or Yoshis Island just because Donkey Kong Country was a beloved smash hit in its heyday. DKC was huge right, but still outclassed by its contemporaries. I'm not a fan of bolstering a games quality with the "you had to be there!" way of thinking.

Anyways, not saying you're wrong here. Just saying that we're coming from different places regarding criteria.

And you better come up with a better argument than arguing a 2 dimensional character, who is meant to be 2 dimensional and has no real meaningful agency in the story doesn't develop, and "hur durr this character is generic" without explaining how, why, especially given their role in the story, is gonna show case of lack of any real thought put into your critique. Any idiot can call a character generic or say another one isn't developed, it's more so how they fit into the overall story.

Between the cinematography of that film, to Humphry Bogart's acting, to how they make that cafe feel lived in and feel like it has more stories even after the flick ends (which is why a lot of the techniques used in that film have often been cited as inspirations for other works), and morally it gets the story across and its message with a clear, clean script that to this day is timeless. All the characters are properly differentiated, their beliefs are different, not everyone is just witty for the sake of it (which is an issue with say, the script for the TV show The Newsroom, the characters are all overly snappy, and often feel like a revolving door for Sorkin to preach). Oh and black n white is hardly an issue. So nah, Casablanca is still mother fucking excellent to this day, and a shit load better than any video game story. Precious ass Naughty Dog, basically aped it when they were making Jak 2.

Fantastic, and I didn't argue otherwise. But it's the same recognizing the value of the initial stretch of television n film, pioneers, maybe, but not actually all that good. Pong worked as a novelty for its era, before games were able to do more complex things.

Pong is a horrible example/analogy for someone coming to FF6 and saying "yo, this game isn't that good". Pong had an actual novelty, FF6 isn't just going to skate by on "well for its time". Because for its time it came out in an era that had Mega Man, Mario, Castlevania, Ultima, Wizardry, etc. It's achievements and its place in history aren't the same.

And more to it, in a discussion of timeless classics, those exist, and just because something was a pioneer doesn't necessarily mean it'll fit that billing. You can be an important game and not be great, hell you can be terrible (Kill.Switch).

@appariti0n said:

@ConanTheStoner: Right, perhaps there needs to be a better defined criterion for success in these cases.

Anyhow, you're not wrong either, I just think it's hypocritical to discount the nostalgia factor of a game crying "rose colored glasses!" Yet it's totally cool to judge the same game by today's standards. Standards which in many cases are now standard, thanks in no small part to the groundbreaking games that came before it.

@jg4xchamp: I've never actually seen Casablanca. I literally googled "Casablanca is overrated" and picked two items from the first argument that came up to prove a point. Any idiot can claim "overrated!" and then give sound bites like "it's clunky", "the main character wasn't well developed", "the villain was cliche". Nevermind the fact it was still miles better than anything else available for the same system, or the competitor's system at the time.

Maybe I'll have to watch it, seeing how impassioned your response was though.

Anyhow, off to the garage!

Outstanding thread.

I can't speak to FF6 n 7, as I haven't touched those games in a long ass time, but as someone who thinks on balance: video game stories are fucking terrible, I wouldn't be surprised if FF6 was in fact, pretty lousy in terms of its characters and story. That stuff doesn't really age, maybe certain themes don't quite resonate with a certain era (our generation for instance, probably would need to have the idea of a cold war era nuke scare explained to them), but things like character development, good script writing, pacing, and well constructed structure are timeless.

Things like "Hollywood was still pretty fucking racist back then" isn't a "well it's an issue now", is a laod of wank, it was an issue then too, that era was just ignorant of the fact that they were kind of scummy. So any problematic aspects of a story, were technically always there, it just had the benefit of ignorance.

That said, what I can talk about the game, people aren't exactly wrong for pointing out its shallow. It goes back to Conan's thing of criteria, if you judge games on story (fucking ewww) and on that criteria you fancy FF6 over the likes of Mario World, hey more power to you. Now if you judge em on gameplay, and said gameplay is nothing more than a simple turn based battle system, that's very light on tactics, because the simplest brand of buff/debuff, with all out attacking, and one healer can get you through most battles, without any real skillful play on the player's part, I'd say that's a pretty valid knock.

Especially because there were already strategy games on the market (the fallacy you are presenting is that any gamer has to settle to just judge by the bar of the snes games of that era, Genesis n PC had some dope stuff too), tactics games on the market, srpgs were technically already a thing, and what have you.

I wouldn't knock the game, I like me some Chrono Trigger. But were you to question its place, as one of the best "RPGs" ever, and it's because you think the game lacks depth and more importantly actual fucking "role playing", then yeah, you would be well within reasonable criticism to knock it for those things. Because that thread you picked on, didn't pick on that game for petty things like technical shit, it was core stuff it had no excuse not to do better. Albeit, he never actually detailed any reason why it had any of those issues.

Damn this place truly has gone downhill. even more than it already had :-/

Wait to you see it running on Bore Poo in 4K 60fps.

Well, checkerboard 4K I guess but still. lol :P

Finally. Its about time someone had the courage to knock pong down a peg....

No.