Is classic gaming better than modern gaming?

[Mr.Platypus]

I tried searching for an existing thread for this but I didn't find one.

I have been asked to submit an article for the school paper, and I am considering putting forth the argument that it is better to play retro games rather than modern ones. I have a few ideas, (e.g. cost, nostalgia, simplicity), but I wanted to ask you guys if you had anything better. Do you agree that going retro is better? Is it just a lie that technology has improved the experience? Or do you disagree with me? I am very interested to hear what others have to say on this, and if I like your answer, I will shamelessly plagiarize it. =]

[tubeway]

First, you must write a paper for your school on this: Is chunky peanut butter better than smooth?

[Kid Ice]

I think the first wave of great arcade games in the late 70s/ early 80s is more compulsively playable than anything since. Are those games better than recent games? Difficult to compare.

I spend most of my time playing "new" games (games that came out within the last 6 months or so). But I always go back to Robotron, Galaga, Centipede, etc. I'm far more likely to play one of those games than, say, Resident Evil, Gunstar Heroes, or Super Mario Brothers.

[joshnickerson]

Or is it better tasting or less filling?

[Mathius]

Basically, I just think that classic pre-PlayStation era games had better gameplay. Current generation games are just so realistic that they lose something in the process, IMO.

[crom]

gonna have to say modern gaming is better for me...

although I got all my fav retro consoles I get more enjoyment from games nowadays...

I think its personal opinion... I also think that ppl over the age of say, 35 are going to perfer their retro gaming... I dont think its because they dont like modern gaming, but when you get to a certain age its harder to enjoy it due to time and responsibilities...

[Ed Oscuro]

Modern gaming is better because there's simply more games available - and I count the classics too.

It's like saying you want to live with JUST the VCS again so you can buy rares (exactly like Biff from BttF 2 would have done, you evil person). Going back to the older games would probably be especially rough on solitary gamers.

[MachineGex]

Because you are a student and not a troll, I will give my own opinion.

I prefer classic
First:
Retro games (like the 2600) seem to shine on 2 player games like Maze Craze, Indy 500, Slot Racers, Surround, etc. They had great gameplay & engaging 2 player games. The graphics were simple so the programmers focused on the gameplay. Gameplay is what makes a game, no flashy graphics to hide poor controls or crappy gameplay.

Second:
Retro games are easy to pick up and play without having to spend the better part of a day figuring out the controls or objectives.

Third: Atari 2600 is still very popular. How many xbox360s will be around 30 years from now? :?

[ncman071]

interesting thread..i'd have to say that i spend a lot of time on modern games, but still absolutely love the classics. i just like tons of others on these boards collect classic games and systems. i have about 25 retro conoles that i still spend time with. there's something about firing up nba jam on the snes or mk2 on snes. i still love to play sonic cd on the sega cd and tons of other classics. The graphics just arent a big deal to me. i prefer fun over graphics and i think that's where classic/retro games shine.

[MissingNo_1231]

I guess it's a matter of opinion. I mean, I love all gaming, from Pong to the PS3. But my favorite systems are the SNES and N64, so I'd say that Classic Gaming is better.

[kupomogli]

Video games back then are better than now, atleast it seems they put much more effort into the games then.

Don't get me wrong. There are games nowdays that games back then don't even compare to but there are alot of good games in past systems. When the PS2 hit, the system didn't have as many good games as the PSX but now that it's at the end of its life, the system has far more games that are good in comparison to the PSX.

There are alot of things the newer systems can do, like racing games are as good as they ever have been, so there's no racer that will be as good as those like Forza, Gran Turismo 5(going off Prologue and the fact that it should be much larger,) Test Drive Unlimited, and for the arcade racer, Burnout. You might bring up when Need for Speed was actually a good series, and while I still do think that, it's obviously it doesn't hold a candle to some newer racing titles.

So it really depends. While alot of older games are much better, there just stuff that can't be done with older technology and it's obvious that a newer game will be better. Unfortunately, even though the newer systems can technically make the better titles, it very rarely happens because it seems developers aren't trying as hard. Developers back then were working aorund the limitations of the system and creating amazing games where as it doesn't seem they are truly pushing anything amazing out these days.

[Mr.Platypus]

Now that I think about it, I should have framed the issue differently. Its true, much of this all comes down to opinion, and in that case, it seems to be an impossible issue to resolve. But I think what we can do is lay out some of the advantages that classic gaming has over modern gaming.
I'm keeping in mind my audience here. They are typically in their early 20s now, and their first experience with games might be the N64/PS1 era. I suspect anything older than that is a mystery to them. Also, [forgive me for making these wild generalities about an entire generation] they seem to me to be... a bit uncritical of the messages that they are receiving from television. Namely that technology and modernity has always improved their life, the obsolete is irrelevant, the newer is better. I honestly think that most of them would laugh at the idea of having fun playing the original SMB, or god forbid, Space Invaders. You must help me convince them.

What are some of the advantages and disadvantages of classic gaming?
What about modern gaming?

[Ed Oscuro]

Video games back then are better than now, atleast it seems they put much more effort into the games then.
Oh, that explains why so many freeware games beat the living poo outta most commercial releases from the NES age. Good thinking.

[Berserker]

The original question is far too broad to be answered in any kind of meaningful way. So are the sum total of all the games made from 1977-2000 better than the sum total of games released in the last few years? Probably. Is the most critically-acclaimed game released in the last few years better than the most critically-panned game released 25 years ago? Probably.

Ok, so that's meaningless. I notice you've sort of recognized that and asked some more pointed questions that are bit more answerable, so I'll address those.

Some advantages of classic games is that they're typically easy to learn, easy to pickup-and-play, so there's not usually a big time commitment involved unless it's a Role Playing Game. The game software itself doesn't take up as much space as modern games do, so you can fit a lot of them on portable devices if you're into emulation. The other advantage is that unless they're collector's items you can usually pick them up for a fraction of what new games cost.

There are probably plenty of advantages of modern gaming, so I'll leave that for someone else to answer. I will say that we're starting to see interesting things from independent game developers, as opposed to the main industry itself. We're starting to see retro-styled games that obviously spring from some sort of appreciation of the best classic games, but taking those old concepts and building upon them somehow, with some new twist in gameplay, or a hybrid of one or more genres, or other things.

The well of ideas for things you can do in a classic game setting was, I think, left behind mostly untapped by the main industry when it moved on to other more three-dimensional things. So for me anyway it's interesting watching how indie developers take advantage of that, and bring us some completely new two-dimensional things we haven't seen before.

A lot of the most interesting ones are also free, which is nice. So Spelunky is freeware, Cave Story is freeware, N is freeware, and so on. They're starting to find a market to sell these sorts of things in place like Xbox Live Arcade and WiiWare, because the mainstream industry is starting to pick up on the notion that these things aren't completely worthless, which is also nice, because it offers some incentive for more of them to be developed. But many of them can be had for free in some form or another, and legally.

[izarate]

Well, I don't really have a heavy preference towards classic or modern. Any given day I can be playing Missile Command on the 2600, the next day I could be playing SoulCalibur 4 on the PS3 and the day after SimCity on the SNES.

But there is one thing that I've noticed: In the 22 years that I've been buying games I've sold 18 titles from my collection, 1 classic and 17 from the current generation, mostly 360 games. I don't know why, but some current games don't engage me as much as to decide to keep them, and I have a high tolerance for subpar games (I've keep Red Ninja, Oni, Fracture and Futurama ;))

[theChad]

I'm keeping in mind my audience here. They are typically in their early 20s now, and their first experience with games might be the N64/PS1 era. I suspect anything older than that is a mystery to them.

I would rethink this. I'm only 21 and I don't think my experience of having a NES/SNES in the house or my friends having Geneses is unique. Don't get me wrong, I would say that most of my early gaming memories would be on PS1 and N64 but I also certainly remember playing the Activision pack on my Gateway 2000 for hours, so I wasn't totally shielded from "classic" gaming. And again, my overall point is that I don't think I'm unique in this regard speaking for the early-twenties gen.

[erik]

I would have to say that Classic Gaming is better. All of the eras from the NES to the PS2 have produced some unbelievably fun games. Once the 360, PS3 and Wii hit, games just became less engaging to me. I have a HUGE problem paying $60 for a game in 2009, but had no problem doing it in 1993.

Why???

Because games back then were actually fun and had deep gameplay(Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger, etc.) I do enjoy Bioshock and a few other games ending with '4' or 'IV'. But seriously though, how many more FPS's or Import Tuner games do we really need? Why was RE5 so dummied down from the perfection that is RE4?? It is getting a bit ridiculous, but at least it is better than the Atari era before the Great Crash.

[Gameguy]

I would rethink this. I'm only 21 and I don't think my experience of having a NES/SNES in the house or my friends having Geneses is unique. Don't get me wrong, I would say that most of my early gaming memories would be on PS1 and N64 but I also certainly remember playing the Activision pack on my Gateway 2000 for hours, so I wasn't totally shielded from "classic" gaming. And again, my overall point is that I don't think I'm unique in this regard speaking for the early-twenties gen.
I'm also 21 and the first system I played was the Genesis, I remember seeing the Genesis and SNES everywhere I went including always seeing ads on TV for them. The N64 and PS1 didn't come out until several years later, it's not like I just caught the end of the 16-bit era.

[tofu]

Classic > Modern

[TheDomesticInstitution]

This is a pretty hard question to answer objectively. There are a lot of people that like simplicity in games, but there are as many that love complex games. As video games have evolved, different generations of gamers have demanded different experiences out of interactive entertainment.

In short, there is no true objective answer to this question. It should be worded, "What do YOU like better..."

As far as what I like? I like games from all eras gaming. I love realistic wartime shooters and simple games like Galaga. I am often in different moods for different games, and it's a regular thing where I can play Oblivion and Pac-Man in the same day and enjoy both equally.

I'm not a big fan of the earliest black and white games like Pong, but just because thats my opinion doesn't mean that others think that's the best era of gaming.

I personally don't see merit in extraordinarily broad questions like this, but that's just my opinion.

[calthaer]

If this is a paper, then you will need a thesis statement. If your thesis is: "Classic games are better than modern games," then you will need to qualify this by first defining what you mean by "better."

Some books you may want to consider:

-A Theory of Fun for Game Design by Raph Koster
-Got Game: How the Gamer Generation is Reshaping Business Forever by John Beck, Mitchell Wade
-What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy - James Paul Gee
-The Ambiguity of Play by Brian Sutton-Smith
-Everything Bad is Good for You by Steven Berlin Johnson
-Read some of Chris Crawford's stuff; he has a book about game design but a lot of stuff online too, like: http://www.erasmatazz.com/library/JCGD_Volume_6/Dragon_Speech.html

Not saying you should necessarily read the entirety of all of those books, but there may be parts of each that you can glean from and use. Most of those have been mentioned in interviews by people like Will Wright, Warren Spector, and other renowned game designers.

If your point is that games of yore are merely more entertaining than modern games, you may not succeed in proving your point well. Better presentation is generally more entertaining, and today's games do have better presentation than classic games.

If you believe that yesterday's games are "better" because they are more innovative, original, well-balanced, etc., then you are really still saying they are more entertaining in some ways; you should probably have more.

Most good game designers will say that games have a teaching capacity to them, and that the "best" games are ones that do a good job of teaching the player new ways of thinking and / or new skills and knowledge that they can apply elsewhere. It stimulates areas of the mind; we find enjoyment in mastering games because it is making us "better people," or at least more apt to survive in the world we live in. Some might argue that "sandbox" games, where the player is given lots of tools and has to figure out solutions to problems, are some of the best games in this regard, but all games teach some sort of problem-solving skills by giving a set of verbs (jump, shoot, dodge, build, gather, run, etc.) to the player to allow them to explore the manifold ways those verbs can be applied to different situations.

I think this that there is a lot of truth in that idea and that this is one of the major reasons we enjoy playing games in the first place. Classic games, because of their simplicity, put the ludemes in very raw and accessible terms, and therefore were in some ways "purer" teaching tools than many of today's games.

There is a lot of potential for a great paper if you take this route, but you will need to do some research. The books above should be able to point you in the right direction. As a final note: you should of course realize by now that school is a game, and your grades are a score. To get a high score, you must simply determine what set of rules the teacher sets before you and play their game to their satisfaction. Gushing about how games are good for learning has, IMO, a good chance of endearing yourself to an educator and netting you a high score on your paper.

[Pezcore343]

I believe he said he was writing this as an article for the school paper, not for a paper for a course.

[MachineGex]

One major advantage of classic games is you can jump right into a game if you only have 15-20 minutes. I play my retro arcade games all the time when I want a fast game. I love banging out a few games of Mr. DO or DK before bed. Newer games require much more time.

[calthaer]

Good luck then; I don't think you'll convince your fellow students. Might as well try though.

[Haoie]

I figure you'll get a lot of bias here.

[scooterb23]

One thing classic gaming has over modern gaming: when you get into an argument about 2600 vs. Intellivision versions of games... you're usually seeing two people who have at least graduated high school battle. So the flame bait is at least well written.

FLAME ON! :D

Oh ya, Classic gaems pwn j00 n00bz ;)

Seriously though, the further modern gaming seems to be trying to push forward, the more I'm pulling back into my safe retro-filled world. I like my games pick up and play, and cut scene free.

[Enigmus]

I tried searching for an existing thread for this but I didn't find one.

I have been asked to submit an article for the school paper, and I am considering putting forth the argument that it is better to play retro games rather than modern ones. I have a few ideas, (e.g. cost, nostalgia, simplicity), but I wanted to ask you guys if you had anything better. Do you agree that going retro is better? Is it just a lie that technology has improved the experience? Or do you disagree with me? I am very interested to hear what others have to say on this, and if I like your answer, I will shamelessly plagiarize it. =]

When I review classic games, I don't listen to the assholes that proclaim Halo or GTA like it's frickin' god. I reach out to the people with brainpower enought to know what there is to an NES beyond Mario 1 and the controller. I'm smart and I don't listen to them because all they are is morons who copy everything they know off of TV and the internet. Hell, they even copy off T-shirts. So, yes, retro is much smarter, cost-effective and much more fun. Try playing through a game of Mario 3 and then Halo 3 and you tell me, which one is more entertaining, simple, and timeless?

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Halo 3?

[Enigmus]

Halo 3?

Yes, because all of the idiots today hold that as the greatest game of all time, when to me Tetris is more epic than that!
Mario 3 is the correct answer.

[Cobra Commander]

How can you compare games like Mario 3 and Halo 3? It's like comparing apples to stepladders. Anyway....
There are too many great games from both epochs to declare which is better. Video gaming is just a long unbroken chain. Each one leads into the next. The question cannot be answered.

[StakeRaiser]

I will say that if there wasn't some sort of magic to classic gaming, Nintendo wouldn't be making an old school side scrolling Super Mario game for the Wii, and the Super Mario DS wouldn't have sold so many copies

[Sonicwolf]

Do people start the threads to initiate flame wars or to discover the joys of differing opinions?

[mezrabad]

One of my favorite games of all time is Adventure for the Atari 2600. Played it for hours on end back in 1981. The desire to play it again was the most compelling reason to re-purchase an Atari 2600 back in 2001 when I got back into console gaming.

That being said, if it were 1981 and someone handed me an Xbox 360 with Oblivion on it, I think I would've said "screw this little square, I'm playing Oblivion..."

While older games have their thrills, some of the games coming out today are the games we literally dreamt of playing back when we were kids and teens.

While a lot of us might look back on our gaming past with nostalgia and scoff at the modern games, the kids and teens we were back in the early 80's would have traded every cart in their collection, and maybe even all of their Star Wars figures, to own their choice of just one of the modern games we take for granted now.

[obesolete]

yes.




oh wait, you want more?
I'm not really into games that are all eye-candy.
I remember final fantasy being really special because you had to use your imagination.
final fantasy now, I don't even know what number they're up to. I lost all interest after 6... well part way through 7 then I got bored.

[chilimac]

The classics are better because they provide the player a greater sense of accomplishment upon completion or obtaining a high score, since they demand more from the player, mentally and physically. Timing, reflexes, memory, pattern recognition, inductive reasoning, patience and perseverance... like a martial art, they require great discipline to master, but once mastered they give the player a much deeper sense of satisfaction than games of today.

Today's games are more like movies, they're designed so as not to challenge or give great sense of accomplishment, but rather to kill the player's free time by having them do mundane tasks, such as 'go here, blow up this building, kill 5 men with a water cannon, chop down 3 trees and return to base before the time runs out'. No level design to speak of, just a landscape to traverse, with a few obstacles here and there to slow your progress, such as a collapsed bridge which will cause you to have to spend time searching for another way to cross a river. Just a whole lot a walking and looking, and not much else. Yeah, they may look really nice, but they better, because in many cases, they are more fun to watch than to play. And of course today's games lack replay value. Since their about looking at scenery and repetitive tasks and are story driven, once you've seen the story and the scenery, there's not much reason to go back. Best just to move on to the next game with a new story and new scenery to admire.

Needless to say, this new style of game gets old real quick, and at this point, I keep asking myself, "why do I continue to play?". And the only answer I come up with is "because I don't know what else to do with myself". But I tell you what, when I do figure out what to do with myself, I'm dumping gaming like an ugly girlfriend. Gaming isn't for gamers anymore. It's for everyone else.

[The 1 2 P]

If you mean classics as in pre-Nes era, than no. If you mean classics as in the Nes era and beyond, then.....um, maybe. I loved/love gaming on my Nes, Genesis, PS1 and all the systems between those years. But I also really love gaming on my Xbox, PS2 and 360. I actually think theres a place for both classic and modern gaming. As far as naming one better than the other, theres way to many variables there. I loved the longevity of classic games but I love the online multiplayer and downloadable content of modern games. So to me neither is better than the other. They both have their pros and cons.

[VG_Maniac]

I definitely prefer classic gaming. I like the more simple games that you can just pick up and play, and not have to go through hours of cutscenes, dialog, tutorials, etc. I also feel that the gameplay of older games was better overall. Graphics are usually the thing that modern games focus on the most, while gameplay comes second.

[Atarileaf]

Threads like this one and the one about which era of gaming was the best really need the author of each post to post their age. I think its very easy to see that if someone says the current generation is the best or N64/PS1 era is the best, etc, then they grew up with that system and clearly has a nostalgic factor that drives their choice.

As for me, I'm an old fart of 39 who grew up with Atari. I played Adventure, Outlaw, Berzerk, Chopper Command, etc on end with my friends and cousins and those memories drive me to collect for that system primarily today. Same with the NES when it came along, lots of great memories of playing contra and blades of steel with friends for hours on end. I have NO fond memories of any system beyond 1989 when I had my first TG-16 so for me, hands down, classic gaming is where its at.

There is nothing on current gen consoles that impresses me nor can I see future consoles changing my mind unless they fundamentally change the kind of games they make. Unless you love FPS's, RPG's, or the yearly sports games updates, there's not much left for you. Wii comes the closest to me in terms of games that interest me but even then its Wii sports and not much else. PS2's only title of interest to me would be Little Big Planet. It looks like a fun throwback to older platformers with some great customization features. Perhaps some of the racing games too. 360 holds no interest to me at all, especially with the well documented hardware problems.

Nope, classic gaming is where its at. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to play Bubble Bobble.

[knicksfan89]

I would say the past is the best period I mean I still play my genesis every single day

[AB Positive]

I hope we all realize, myself included, that one day, we'll be those slightly odd grandmothers and grandfathers, shaking our canes from our rocking chairs yelling "I remember when games were on cartridges! Or disks that took 2 minutes to load, and we loved it!"

I can't wait for that day :D

[The 1 2 P]

Threads like this one and the one about which era of gaming was the best really need the author of each post to post their age.

Why should their age matter? In classic discussion we have dozens(in not hundreds) of threads just like this(best/favorite/worse/etc) and I can't see where age matters to the relevance of the actual thread.

[Atarileaf]

Why should their age matter? In classic discussion we have dozens(in not hundreds) of threads just like this(best/favorite/worse/etc) and I can't see where age matters to the relevance of the actual thread.

I believe I posted EXACTLY why I think their age matters:


ATARILEAF SAID: Threads like this one and the one about which era of gaming was the best really need the author of each post to post their age. I think its very easy to see that if someone says the current generation is the best or N64/PS1 era is the best, etc, then they grew up with that system and clearly has a nostalgic factor that drives their choice.

Someone who's 10 thinks the Wii is the best console ever made
A 25 year old might think the Genesis or SNES is the best
A 30 year old loves the NES the most.
A 40 year old (like me) thinks Atari is King (ahem, it IS) ;)

However you occasionally get someone who's 15 years old that LOVES Atari and older consoles beyond his years. You may get someone who's my age who hates the old consoles and only plays whats new.

So for me the answer is obvious: its interesting to see the reason why someone chooses a certain console or certain era for their gaming preference and the answer most of the time is because of the age they were when their favorite console was released. Usually, not always, the first one they were introduced to.

If their reason isn't the obvious one, related to the age they were when said console was released, then it becomes more interesting to hear WHY they chose another console.

Hopefully I've explained myself better this way.

[Kid Fenris]

If nostalgia is the only reason you play certain games, it's a sign that you need to move on.

[Atarileaf]

Nostalgia is only part of it. These older games are still extremely fun and playable today. I don't think there's much point in collecting and not playing.

[Nature Boy]

I have been asked to submit an article for the school paper, and I am considering putting forth the argument that it is better to play retro games rather than modern ones.

I think it's 'better' to put your money towards whichever style of gaming that you prefer as an individual, and that there isn't a 'correct' choice.

You can be a modern gamer and not have to fork out a lot of money if you're prudent. You can also be a classic gamer and continually get new games if you support the homebrew community.

I think arguing that one is truly right is, in other words, totally wrong.

[Chemdawg]

For me it really depends on my mood. lol, most often though when I'm stoned I end up on my more classic systems like snes/sega gen/ or nes

[Enigmus]

However you occasionally get someone who's 15 years old that LOVES Atari and older consoles beyond his years.

I think I just found my category. But with all things before PS2 (Excluding Nintendo. They somehow keep the charm through the decades.)

[YoshiM]

Like others have stated, which is "better" is up to the individual. In a technical sense the "retro" style of play and concept has never really went away. It just shifted to different platforms (handhelds, online web games on PC) before it was brought back to the current consoles (Wii, PSN and XBLA).

Comparing the two are seriously apples and oranges. Many of the games of old were a lot less complex in the control department but were tough-as-nails to get through or achieve a high score. No real "narrative" or story unless it's in the instruction manual or whatever little blurb is written on an arcade cab's display glass to help spur the imagination. Many of the popular modern games can best be described as "narrative experiences". They typically aren't overly tough but can carve out 8 to 30 hours of your gaming time in order to beat it or at least complete the main storyline. Rather than score, the payback is being a part of the story and anyone that's enjoyed games like BioShock can tell you that the twist was well worth the time invested to get there.

So is either better? Sorry, don't have an answer. For me I like them all, though typically i have tendency to partake of the modern more often than the retro.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I hope we all realize, myself included, that one day, we'll be those slightly odd grandmothers and grandfathers, shaking our canes from our rocking chairs yelling "I remember when games were on cartridges! Or disks that took 2 minutes to load, and we loved it!"

I can't wait for that day :D

For sure, that'll be a trip and a half. LOL

I'm in the middle on this one. Sure, I prefer the classics, but that preference came from familiarity and time investment. Conversely, I really enjoy when a new game does the old stuff with a twist and a facelift. Or even when it's a completely new concept, but has that classic vibe (Art Style Nintendo DSi releases immediately come to mind, and the Bit Trip stuff on Wii).

The paradox I experience with the new stuff is; The more gaming reaches for realism (physics, ect.) and/or photo real visuals it's likened to a trip through the uncanny valley. There is something... repulsive about it that's just out of reach of your defining. It's like a tour of a wax museum conducted by a zombie playing the vocal part of the tour (which is read really badly with an obviously fake accent) through a speaker on it's back.

[Pezcore343]

I never realized there were so many people here who were biased against modern gaming. I mean, I suppose this was posted in the classic gaming section, so I don't know what I expected, but aren't we all gamers? While there are plenty of games today that are complete crap, there were plenty from every era that sucked royal ballsack™. Likewise, there are plenty of games made recently that are legitimately fun and interesting. While newer games may not always be innovative, that's not really as important as most people today make it seem. Hell, if you look at any other genre, innovation really just means redoing what someone else has done only better. Imagine if after Jules Verne and H.G. Wells, no one ever wrote another science fiction novel. Share the love guys, you can enjoy both classic and modern games and be a much happier person for it.

[Baloo]

I prefer the classic stuff simply because I have a lot more fun playing them, but I play a good amount of modern stuff as well. I wouldn't say I'm biased against modern games, I just like classic ones a lot more in terms of overall fun.

[Joe West]

sure classic gaming is better then modern,,,,,, you dont have too have 4 years of college too figure out the controls

[Kid Fenris]

Nostalgia is only part of it. These older games are still extremely fun and playable today.

The problem is that your tastes will ossify unless you seek out games beyond the ones you played when you were younger. Look at your favorite TurboGrafx-16 titles video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsZBtWqtpE), which fails to mention any of the later games that improved on your favorites. Have you never tried Bonk's Revenge, Devil's Crush, or other Compile shooters?

[kedawa]

Considering the fact that 'classic' gaming encompasses a much larger span of time and creative output than modern gaming does, I think it's a pretty unfair comparison.

[Mr.Platypus]

I have been feeling a little bit of regret since starting this thread, because I detect I may have generated a bit of hostility between people. It wasn't my intention to start a flame war, I honestly wanted to hear what others had to say. Also, I am sorry that my original question was so subjective and impressionistic. I did try to fix it, several comments later.

In any case, I am fascinated by two comments in particular. the first one



Chemdawg
For me it really depends on my mood. lol, most often though when I'm stoned I end up on my more classic systems like snes/sega gen/ or nes


I am very interested in this response. Why would you enjoy classic gaming more than modern gaming when you are stoned?

The other comment that interested me:




Icarus Moonsight
The paradox I experience with the new stuff is; The more gaming reaches for realism (physics, ect.) and/or photo real visuals it's likened to a trip through the uncanny valley. There is something... repulsive about it that's just out of reach of your defining. It's like a tour of a wax museum conducted by a zombie playing the vocal part of the tour (which is read really badly with an obviously fake accent) through a speaker on it's back.



I must admit, I do not understand the wax museum and zombie reference, but I think I completely agree with the sentiment. I think I had a very similar idea in mind when I first thought of the article. I was thinking about something Aristotle said in a book about Poetics (i.e. ancient plays). He said that the best kind of stories are about universals, rather than particulars. For example, that little square in 'Adventure' (2600) was a representation of a hero. Not any particular hero, but the abstract idea of a hero. It could be male/female young/old it could be anyone or anything. And that made it just a little bit epic, I think. In modern games you play a particular hero. You give it a name, and with each added level of realism, it becomes a particular, rather than a universal. Does that make any sense? Is that kinda what you were getting at?

Another thing I wanted to ask:
Do you think that old music is as respected as old games? Do you think it ought to be?

[Atarileaf]

The problem is that your tastes will ossify unless you seek out games beyond the ones you played when you were younger. Look at your favorite TurboGrafx-16 titles video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbsZBtWqtpE), which fails to mention any of the later games that improved on your favorites. Have you never tried Bonk's Revenge, Devil's Crush, or other Compile shooters?

Of course I've tried them, but like most things in life, the originals, the ones that you first played are the ones that stay with you. That video is simply my 5 favorite games for the TG-16, not the only ones that I like.

[chilimac]

Pot increases cholinergic activity in the brain and reduces oxygenated blood flow to the brain. This sedates as well and creates a feeling of euphoria in the user, basically having an antidepressant effect. Any activity that the user partakes in during drug usage will be more enjoyable to them. Also with the reduced oxygen to the brain comes reduced brain function. In this condition the drug user may find 3D games to be too complex or too demanding.

So... simple-mindedness + excessive happiness = simple games.

[Atarileaf]

I have been feeling a little bit of regret since starting this thread, because I detect I may have generated a bit of hostility between people. It wasn't my intention to start a flame war, I honestly wanted to hear what others had to say. Also, I am sorry that my original question was so subjective and impressionistic. I did try to fix it, several comments later.

In any case, I am fascinated by two comments in particular. the first one



I am very interested in this response. Why would you enjoy classic gaming more than modern gaming when you are stoned?

The other comment that interested me:




I must admit, I do not understand the wax museum and zombie reference, but I think I completely agree with the sentiment. I think I had a very similar idea in mind when I first thought of the article. I was thinking about something Aristotle said in a book about Poetics (i.e. ancient plays). He said that the best kind of stories are about universals, rather than particulars. For example, that little square in 'Adventure' (2600) was a representation of a hero. Not any particular hero, but the abstract idea of a hero. It could be male/female young/old it could be anyone or anything. And that made it just a little bit epic, I think. In modern games you play a particular hero. You give it a name, and with each added level of realism, it becomes a particular, rather than a universal. Does that make any sense? Is that kinda what you were getting at?

Another thing I wanted to ask:
Do you think that old music is as respected as old games? Do you think it ought to be?

Well said, it makes perfect sense.

[NES_Rules]

I really hate making the distinction between "classic" and "modern". To me, they're just video games. Sure some are more simplistic and more about the immediate satisfaction, while others are complicated and may take weeks to get anywhere, but they all have the same purpose - to entertain.

Neither age group is "better" IMO, they both serve the purpose of entertaining me, they just do it in slightly different ways.

The only time I make a distinction on my games based on age is for which TV I play them on. The older ones I play on a CRT and the newer ones I play on a LCD.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

Without having to read the rest of the thread, what was the verdict? I need to know, so I can stop playing the appropriate games. I don't need to be wasting any more time, if I have this valuable information at my disposal.

[Kid Fenris]

Of course I've tried them, but like most things in life, the originals, the ones that you first played are the ones that stay with you.

And that's why nostalgia is the opiate of classic gaming. You must overcome it unless you're comfortable with burning out on the hobby when you reach adulthood.


Pot increases cholinergic activity in the brain and reduces oxygenated blood flow to the brain. This sedates as well and creates a feeling of euphoria in the user, basically having an antidepressant effect. Any activity that the user partakes in during drug usage will be more enjoyable to them. Also with the reduced oxygen to the brain comes reduced brain function. In this condition the drug user may find 3D games to be too complex or too demanding.

So... simple-mindedness + excessive happiness = simple games.

See also: Anthony1's post history.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Is that kinda what you were getting at?

I'd say that it's very well related and accurate. The Zombie guided tour of the Wax Museum thing was driving the uncanny valley bit home with a specific description. Figured it would also save a looking up for anyone unfamiliar with the term as a bonus.

It takes a special game to take that repulsion and tension of a facsimile reality and utilize and play off it just right to make a game that is better off for it. That knowledge/talent certainly isn't common, at least by my reckoning. Most of this is all value judgments and experience preference, but I'm sure every one here has played a game that targeted realism, hit the mark yet felt flat or weird because something was very off putting. And there you have it. :)

EDIT: Found this webcomic...
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/cutting_edge.png
That would be me without DP or the internet. LOL

[mr obscure]

classic/retro gaming is better.
Why? look at modern disney games and disney games for nes .
Case closed.

Modern games is all about graphics,gameplay sucks ass and its way to complicated.

exsample: my dad can play on the nes.Anything better then that snes/genesis becomes trouble too many buttons.
Look at the wii,simple games rule.
retro or modern is not the key,keeping things simple is.

[kedawa]

The thing that makes many modern games unbearable for me is the amount of non-interactive filler that the player is forced to put up with.
Loading times have regressed back to 1980's home computer levels, and cutscenes and such are just out of control.
The way things are going, in a decade gaming will consist of watching a movie that requires you to shake the remote every now and then in order for it to continue playing.

[chilimac]

The thing that makes many modern games unbearable for me is the amount of non-interactive filler that the player is forced to put up with.
Loading times have regressed back to 1980's home computer levels, and cutscenes and such are just out of control.
The way things are going, in a decade gaming will consist of watching a movie that requires you to shake the remote every now and then in order for it to continue playing.

"Filler". That's exactly what it's about these days. Sadly, it's not only the non-interactive parts that are filler, but also the interactive. Think about games like God of War and Devil may Cry. First you have to watch the story segments, then the tutorials, then the load screens, then more story, and then you get to play. But what do we find ourselves mostly doing when we finally do get to play? Walking from point A to point B. You're just pushing up on the stick to move forward and saying to yourself, "nice graphics". And then out of nowhere a few bad guys magically appear for you to wallop on to give you the illusion that you're playing a game and not just taking a tour through the latest graphics engine.

There are very few obstacles. One time you may have to flip a few switches in a specific order to open a door. Next time you move some stone blocks around to solve some simplistic puzzle that was put in just to pad the play time. Combat is repetitive. No real skill is needed, you just dial a combo over and over. There might be some platforming segments, but they're not challenging in any way. And when it's all over... No reward. No satisfaction. Just a sense of relief from your misery. You think to yourself, "think god that's over with. Now I can move on to something that might actually provide some entertainment".

And all of this can be had for the low, low price of $60. What a F-ing joke!

[chilimac]

http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2009/06/when-did-video-games-become-so-boring.html#links

"If there is a single change that we can point to, it is that video games used to be tests of skill, and so were challenging (and frustrating), whereas now they are tests of having free time, and so hold the player's hand through the game (and are boring). Today's video game is more like a movie -- as long as you turn the crank on the side of the projector, eventually you'll experience the entire thing. That is the opposite of playing a game, since you are never guaranteed to win a game."

[Atarileaf]

And that's why nostalgia is the opiate of classic gaming. You must overcome it unless you're comfortable with burning out on the hobby when you reach adulthood.



See also: Anthony1's post history.

Reach adulthood? Did you think I was 16? I'm pushing 40 and don't feel burned out playing my classic collection. If anything I'm enjoying it more as time goes on.

Classic or modern, remember that we're just talking about games. Its a hobby, nothing more. So yes, I'm quite comfortable and I'm not burning out. Lose the psycho-babble like I'm depriving myself of some grandious entertainment. We're talking about video games here.

[Atarileaf]

The thing that makes many modern games unbearable for me is the amount of non-interactive filler that the player is forced to put up with.
Loading times have regressed back to 1980's home computer levels, and cutscenes and such are just out of control.
The way things are going, in a decade gaming will consist of watching a movie that requires you to shake the remote every now and then in order for it to continue playing.

Thats why I miss the old PC adventure games that Lucasarts were so famous for. Games like that have disappeared and were far more entertaining then the mindless gory shooters that seem to be the rage with teen males.

[Kid Fenris]

"Filler". That's exactly what it's about these days. Sadly, it's not only the non-interactive parts that are filler, but also the interactive. Think about games like God of War and Devil may Cry.

The joke here is that Devil May Cry, the original at least, is harder and has more elaborate gameplay than most of the simplistic "classic" games people in this thread so misguidedly prize. Putting cinematic scenes in a game doesn't make it a movie any more than the opening text crawl of Blade Runner makes it a book.


Reach adulthood? Did you think I was 16? I'm pushing 40 and don't feel burned out playing my classic collection. If anything I'm enjoying it more as time goes on.

Classic or modern, remember that we're just talking about games. Its a hobby, nothing more. So yes, I'm quite comfortable and I'm not burning out.

I'd say you burned out a long time ago. You apparently play little beyond your old favorites. You're dedicated to the older games you remember fondly. You have no real interest in modern games. What's that if not burning out on the game industry?

There's no shame in it. As you say, it's just a hobby.

[WhatsMyUsername]

To be honest I used to play all over, depending on my mood. I'd play games on my super Nintendo and then switch to Gamecube after an hour. However now with xbox's new party system (letting up to 8 people get in a group and chat) I find myself spending most of my time with my 360. It's really because of the ability to talk and joke around with a big group of friends now. Offline I doubt I would touch my 360 but the party system has changed things, at least for me.

[chilimac]

The joke here is that Devil May Cry, the original at least, is harder and has more elaborate gameplay than most of the simplistic "classic" games people in this thread so misguidedly prize. Putting cinematic scenes in a game doesn't make it a movie any more than the opening text crawl of Blade Runner makes it a book.

Wrong! Super Mario Bros is a more complex and challenging game than DMC. I'll tell you why. In SMB every second or two the player is forced to make a decision that could cost him a life, you're constantly having to make adjustments in momentum and jump height. Screw up, and at any moment you could be starting all over. There is a great deal of timing, reflexes and concentration involved. And there's no down time to think about other things. You take your mind off of the task at hand and it's over. The only reason you might think it to be easy is because Nintendo has provided you with so many extra lives.

But in DMC taking time to enjoy the view is part of the gameplay. I'd go so far to say that it is the primary activity the player will engage in and that it was designed to be an atmospheric experience, like a movie. You're supposed to feel it rather than just play through, and the hack n slash gameplay is there to give the player the illusion of gameplay. It's a distraction. Most regular enemies are simple to kill and do not pose a serious threat. And yes, later on they do become more challenging, but only because you haven't yet figured out the trick to killing them, and the same goes for bosses. But once you know the tricks, it becomes a cakewalk. Not so for SMB. With SMB, the player is being challenged every second... there are so many more opportunities to screw up. But with DMC, the challenge comes only when facing new enemies and bosses.

And I guess you might say that DMC's combo system is more complex than Mario's jump and shoot fireballs, but keep in mind that you don't need to use those combos to complete the game. They're mostly there for show, and to speed through the monotony. You see? Capcom is rewarding you when you kill faster, because they realize that the real punishment is the gameplay itself, and the only reward the game can offer is that of relief of having to play it.

[Kid Fenris]

Wrong! Super Mario Bros is a more complex and challenging game than DMC. I'll tell you why. In SMB every second or two the player is forced to make a decision that could cost him a life, you're constantly having to make adjustments in momentum and jump height.

Super Mario Bros. doesn't offer constant challenges. It's easy to learn to evade the enemies, and it's just their placement that presents difficulty. The game cuts the player plenty of breaks, since Mario can absorb one hit as long as he's eaten a mushroom; only the pits present instant death. In fact, I think that's why Super Mario Bros. has aged relatively well. It doesn't hit the player with as many sudden bullshit problems.

Lots of older games favor the sort of challenge you're talking about, the kind that stems from one-hit kills and the constant threat of game-overs. But that's mostly a cheap way to extend a short game or get more money in an arcade machine. It's enforced by basic repetition and pattern memorization, which are far less satisfying methods of challenging the player than reflex-driven complexity and strategy. It's telling that the old Mario-style action games that hold up the best are often the ones that don't immediately kill the player at the touch of an enemy.


And I guess you might say that DMC's combo system is more complex than Mario's jump and shoot fireballs, but keep in mind that you don't need to use those combos to complete the game.

You've never played Devil May Cry, have you? The fight with the fireball-spewing scorpion alone is more demanding of concentration and reflexes than anything the 8-bit age ever threw at a player.


Capcom is rewarding you when you kill faster, because they realize that the real punishment is the gameplay itself, and the only reward the game can offer is that of relief of having to play it.

OK, now I'm wondering if you're just a put-on.

[TheDomesticInstitution]

You've never played Devil May Cry, have you?

Or how about the ass-whoopin' on a disc known as Ninja Gaiden (XBOX)?

[T2KFreeker]

Coming up with the distinction as to what is classic gaming is a hard thing as many people believe that the 128 bit generation now is classic. So, tyring to decide if I like Classic gaming more than the modern stuff is also hard. I can say that I enjoy the 16-bit and 32-bit generations the most the systems that released between the Turbo Grafx 16 and the Playstation/Saturn era are some of my favorites. It just seems to me that there was so much more creativity going on there from everyone. Granted, everything wasn't a hit, but I also find some true gems in there that would never fly well today due to the obsession of today's gamers on graphics standards. Tempest 2000 comes to mind. The game is awesome and on a system that didn't do too well, but all in the same, I love that game. 3DO had some amazing games as well like GEX or even the Shockwave series. Sega Genesis had Sonic and the Shining Force games. Turbo Grafx had the Bonk games and the Crush games. These are the games I like the most, well not these particular titles only, but the games from this era. Some of the most creative stuff ever.

[chilimac]

Or how about the ass-whoopin' on a disc known as Ninja Gaiden (XBOX)?

Yes, I've beaten NG, so I know very well the challenge it can provide. But I have to say that it's not of the good kind of challenge, and it's not something I ever want to play through again. Mostly because the challenge comes from not being able to see your opponents attacks coming due to poor camera angles. You just hold down the block button while dodging left and right while waiting for an opportunity to strike. It's very repetitive and annoying. Still not much skill involved, it's just knowing when to strike and when to block or dodge, that comes with experience. Usually you will attack when the camera settles down and the enemies are in front of you. Of course the bosses do demand more skill as far as timing and reflexes and such, but as far as the normal gameplay is concerned... it's really all just a test of patience. You want to attack now to kill the enemies faster so that you can move on to something more interesting, but if you don't wait for the opening, you'll be staring at a load screen. The bosses really are the only thing interesting about the game. Like most of today's games, the levels are full of filler and time-killing busy work in between boss battles.

What ever happened to actual level design? Remember Mega Man? In those games the entire levels were huge death traps. Every inch of the game was challenging, not just the boss battles. Now take a look at the ZX games on the DS. That's right, there's no level design at all, just a bunch of roaming around mostly empty rooms trying to figure out how to get to the next boss fight. It's the 3D game design philosophy brought over to 2D, and guess what? Without those fancy modern 3D graphics as a distraction, people see those games for what they are: Shit.