x3 for Goldeneye. Absolutely astounding game in it's prime, but playing it now is an exercise in getting your dreams broken. The graphics are horrid, the control just isn't what you remember and the ai ... oh god the ai is just something else. Recently there was an IGN special on their favorite goldeneye memories and one was seeing how many times you could shoot a soldier in the helmet before he realized you were there.
There are a ton of N64 and PlayStation games I can think of that have not aged gracefully, due to the low polygon counts and blurry textures they had to use. Oh, and fog. They look awful now.
On the opposite side, many sprite based games still look great today because of the detail in them. Look at FFVI or Symphony of the Night for good examples of why they still look and play great.
Aside from that. Hack&Lube Your comment really is quite wrong from my standpoint. Games *can* age badly. There are some classics that stand the test of time. But in the end most games are eclipsed by newer games and the older games are just that. Old and outdated.
I don't judge any games aside from the context of their original qualities and technology. You cannot put a 240 pixel resolution game on an HD monitor and claim it hasn't aged well. The same goes for the Starcraft argument put forth above. Sure it sucks that the resolution of old 2D games like SC and Baldur's Gate is so low (there are mods that fix this though if you are so inclined) but maybe you just need to be playing in the context of 1998 when they looked great on a 17" CRT monitor. You need to play old games on the proper hardware or have decent emulation that simulates that hardware. You also can't judge games compared to modern day iterations of the same themes. You can't play Techmo Bowl and claim that it sucks compared to Madden 11 because they are completely different things even though they are both football games. It makes no sense to me.
I'm in the middle of playing Zelda II, Link's Adventure for the very first time and yeah it's very primitive and there are tons of things I don't like about it - but those are things I would have not liked about it just as much in 1988 as I do now. Just pretend you are in the 80s and everything is good.
I cannot think of a single example of a game that was "great" but now sucks because it's old. There is absolutely no such thing in my mind and I'd like to hear why you guys think that might be. You simply are not playing a game in the proper context of mind or with the proper hardware/emulation setup.
I've got one of the most powerful single-GPU videocards right now and I can run all of the best games on my PC at many times greater graphics levels than PS3/Xbox but I still will boot up MAME and play 1981's Gorf and enjoy that much more than Crap of Duty or Metal of Yawner.
I cannot imagine playing a game out of context of their times and being disappointed because it somehow doesn't compare well to a modern game because it's apples and oranges.
I don't judge any games aside from the context of their original qualities and technology. You cannot put a 240 pixel resolution game on an HD monitor and claim it hasn't aged well. You need to play old games on the proper hardware or have decent emulation that simulates that hardware. You also can't judge games compared to modern day iterations of the same themes. You can't play Techmo Bowl and claim that it sucks compared to Madden 11 because they are completely different things.
Precisely.
Railroad Tycoon (the original) is a perfect example. The routing, signalling, and economy model are arguably superior, despite rocking MCGA graphics that look awful compared to any of its successors (all of which got progressively worse at actually modelling a railroad - imagine no longer having to consider tunnels! or signals!)
Railroad Tycoon (the original) is a perfect example. The routing, signalling, and economy model are arguably superior, despite rocking MCGA graphics that look awful compared to any of its successors (all of which got progressively worse at actually modelling a railroad - imagine no longer having to consider tunnels! or signals!)
Absolutely. Games need to be judged on gameplay and how much fun it is FOR YOU. Not on how technology has changed for the better or for worse because it is irrelevant to if the games were or are still fun to you. A lot of the older games had to put much more work into their programming, gameplay, text, and all the other little details because of graphical limitations. Boot up an old text adventure and see what it's like to actually use your reading skills and your imagination when playing a game again instead of just frothing at the mouth at the latest 3D zombie shooter, going brain-dead watching Metal Gear cutscenes, or repeatedly doing quick-time events.
Plus there is so much joy to be had in MCGA graphics and Adlib sound (or Roland MT-32 if you have the proper hardware or have the original ROM files for some of the emulation projects out there).
Hell, I'll take PC speaker music over some of the crap that they peddle in modern games.
Meh. WCII was the best of the bunch you posted about for pure LAN play goodness, in my opinion.
Did you ever play the Dune RTS? That’s one that I think comes across as awesome at the time, but significantly suffers when you go back and look at the actual gameplay, which certainly was not as polished or as well done as any of the Warcraft series.
Dune 2 is still fun to me though despite the primitive 2D overhead perspective. It's basically not even isometric like you would expect in a modern RTS. The difference is like Sim City vs Sim City 2000. Hell, I played Dune 2 just 3 days ago to be honest.
The music, the cutscenes, the primitive digitized voices, and the basic gameplay are still fun. If you get hung up on the graphics, then go play your PS3 because you don't "get it" or never played it in the first place back in the day. That I understand, as nostalgia plays a big part in appreciating old games.
Yes, obviously it's not Starcraft II!
Last edited by Hack&Lube; 10-16-2010 at 05:09 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Hack&Lube For This Useful Post:
The music was pretty good, but have a look at the graphics.
Oldschool graphics are the major draw of old games. Sure the graphics are primitive but the gameplay is still fun. I don't get why it has "aged" badly. This is awesome.
Oldschool graphics are the major draw of old games. Sure the graphics are primitive but the gameplay is still fun. I don't get why it has "aged" badly. This is awesome.
One of the greatest games ever made for the C64, too bad it took 25 minutes to load off of the tape.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Goldeneye. Awesome game at the time, does NOT hold up well.
Could not disagree more, I don't have to words to describe how much I disagree.
Last winter a group of us got together with a buddy who still had his old n64, we hooked it uo to a 42 in plasma and boy... what a riot it still was. It was amazing how much fun it still was, still easily one of the best FPS (atlaest for multiplayer) I have ever played.
Nothing beats proxy mines, in the facility, you only live once rules. And NO ODD JOB!
The Following User Says Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
I don't judge any games aside from the context of their original qualities and technology. You cannot put a 240 pixel resolution game on an HD monitor and claim it hasn't aged well. The same goes for the Starcraft argument put forth above. Sure it sucks that the resolution of old 2D games like SC and Baldur's Gate is so low (there are mods that fix this though if you are so inclined) but maybe you just need to be playing in the context of 1998 when they looked great on a 17" CRT monitor.
I'm still not buying this, and I'll give you another example. 3D... assuming it gets bigger, games that are stereoscopically correct will age better than those that aren't.
Could not disagree more, I don't have to words to describe how much I disagree.
Last winter a group of us got together with a buddy who still had his old n64, we hooked it uo to a 42 in plasma and boy... what a riot it still was. It was amazing how much fun it still was, still easily one of the best FPS (atlaest for multiplayer) I have ever played.
Nothing beats proxy mines, in the facility, you only live once rules. And NO ODD JOB!
Nostalgia aside, I feel you would have had more fun playing a newer game. Of course, the majority of us have tons of memories playing goldeneye, and will always think it's the best. It's similar to how a lot of UO players think that's the best thing ever, then the people that played EQ first think it's the best MMO ever, and finally, the masses of people that started in WoW think it's the greatest thing ever.
Objectively though, Goldeneye is just an aged game. Poor FPS and controls. Gameplay is still there, but the exact same type of gameplay is mirrored in many of the newer FPS'es out there, but done much better.
I feel for a game to "age well", it must be the best of its time, and not have anything later on that competes with it. For example, NHL 94 was really the last game where they stuck with the 2D formula, but the 2D was so perfect for that game, that it really doesn't ever age. Thus, it is impossible to compare NHL94 to NHL11. You can appreciate the 2D for what it is, and the gameplay is so extremely smooth that it is still amazing. Goldeneye, the second you load it up, you see the flaws, and know that many games have done it better since GE revolutionized the genre. Classic? Yes. But it has not aged well at all.
Other games that I feel aged well is Super Mario Bros 3 (which New Super Mario kind of makes obselete...but they made the gameplay easier and a lot different than the old versions), N64 Smash Bros (which plays just as well as the GC and Wii versions), Street Fighter, and other things similar. RPG's also have a pretty easy time of aging well because a lot of their merit was in their story and execution of said plot, which doesn't change over time.
I'm still not buying this, and I'll give you another example. 3D... assuming it gets bigger, games that are stereoscopically correct will age better than those that aren't.
What's your favorite game to play in stereoscopic 3D today? In a few years, will that game have aged badly or play badly just because newer games come out that are more advanced technologically? Does that make it not a good game anylonger?
If you can't enjoy a game in the context of when it was made, then I suppose you will never understand my perspective.
I'm not going to buy a 1953 Corvette and go: "oh hey this sucks and hasn't aged well because it has no airbags". I'll think that it was an awesome car in it's time, unique from what is out there now, and that's what makes it a classic. If I look at a Ford Edsel, I would say: "well this car sucked when it was made, and it still sucks now".
There's no such thing as a game or any consumer product or film or art that ages badly. It's all in your head and how you look at it. I like old stuff and stuff that has aged precisely because it's different from what there is now. Like fine wine, for me, old things get better with time. The benefit of living in the future is that you have more of the past to consume. I'll gladly play Commodore 64, Amiga, Colecovision, Oddysey 2 (Oddysey 1 sucks!), NES, SMS, Genesis, vintage Arcade Games, etc. all day versus most of the new crap that comes out.
I'm not saying that Test Drive 1 is a better driving experience than Gran Turismo 5 will be. I'm just saying it's a different experience altogether that plays as well as it did when it first came out which is good or bad depending on the player.
Could not disagree more, I don't have to words to describe how much I disagree.
Last winter a group of us got together with a buddy who still had his old n64, we hooked it uo to a 42 in plasma and boy... what a riot it still was. It was amazing how much fun it still was, still easily one of the best FPS (atlaest for multiplayer) I have ever played.
Nothing beats proxy mines, in the facility, you only live once rules. And NO ODD JOB!
For comparison sake, an FPS from the same era that holds up tremendously is the original Half Life. Incredible leap forward in story telling and design in that genre that still plays well and doesn't make your eyes bleed. Solid AI as well.
I wouldn't argue that Goldeneye is still fun when you're sitting around drinking with a bunch of buddies and get bored and want a blast from the past. But compared to the top games from that era it has not held up at all from any standpoint, aside from the "Hell yeah let's play Goldeneye for old times sake!" point.
Another that holds up terribly is Super Smash Bros. on the N64, and I'm one of that game's biggest fans. It's been so far eclipsed by it's sequels that it's almost absurd to play the original when you have the option of a newer release.
I think what we have to keep in mind when we play some of the classic games is how much fun it was back then versus now. For example, Goldeneye was great the first time through, and I still love playing it now. Super Metroid was amazing when it came out, and is still great today. When my son is old enough, those are games he will play. There is no way he is going straight to the 360 or whatever the latest system is.
Other games that are still fun are the original golf on NES and the old sport games like Double Dribble, Sega Hockey (assorted years), Zelda etc. The games that last the test of time simply 'work' and have some unquantifiable balance that makes them enjoyable. The formula a game like Metroid uses will always be popular and modern games duplicate the same experience with modern graphics. The thought that a game must be viewed in the context of the era is reasonable, but if the game does not have that balance that stimulates the brain, then it fails.
The games that don't seem to still be fun are those where the technological limitations of the time prevented them from doing something that has now become standard. Every Atari game I load up is so slow, it is not enjoyable no matter what. The last time my Atari was hooked up I nearly threw it out, the games were brutally bad. But at the time it was fun, since we did not know better, and our standards have gone up so much. For sure, the graphics can be overlooked, but the game must be enjoyable.
Some of the old arcade games suffer the same fate, people do not want to have a marathon session of a handful of screens anymore since they now prefer unique levels, leveling up characters, story lines and an assortment of standards that are now the norm.
