Do You Believe That Games Lose Their Appeal Over Time?

[Metropolisforever]

Do you think that classic games like Pac-Man and Space Invaders are still as fun to play now as they were in their day? It seems like, whenever critics review remakes of classic games, they always give the games lower scores than they originally did. Why? Did the games lose their magic? Did they become outdated? In 20 years (assuming we last that long!), will games like BioShock no longer be as fun?

Of course, morons like The Angry Video Game Nerd aren't helping in the least. All they do is turn on an old game, make some dumb crack about the graphics, call the game "a shit-load of fuck", and turn it off.

This is an interesting issue. Do you think that games lose their appeal over time?

[Kid Ice]

I think trolls lose their appeal on day one.

[Metropolisforever]

I think trolls lose their appeal on day one.
Nobody is trolling except you.

[PresidentLeever]

It seems like, whenever critics review remakes of classic games, they always give the games lower scores than they originally did.

Of course, morons like The Angry Video Game Nerd aren't helping in the least. All they do is turn on an old game, make some dumb crack about the graphics, call the game "a shit-load of fuck", and turn it off.

That's because game reviewers tend to judge the classics from a modern point of view, comparing it to games of today. Which is pretty dumb to me, but more helpful for those who haven't played the game/other games from that era.

For me I think it has a lot to do with having been there at the time the game was new. I can't really go back to anything pre-NES, but still find new games to love from the 8-bit generation and onwards.

AVGN usually has good points about the games he plays, you're exagerrating there. But I could do without the image.

[Garry Silljo]

It all depends on the game. I like Pac Man and Donkey Kong more now than I did when I was younger. Not so much true of Space Invaders, though still a solid game. For me I guess I would have to say no, they don't lose their magic. I wouldn't second guess or correct anyone who said they did though. Different strokes.

[Sonicwolf]

Of course, morons like The Angry Video Game Nerd aren't helping in the least. All they do is turn on an old game, make some dumb crack about the graphics, call the game "a shit-load of fuck", and turn it off.

The Angry Video Game nerd is a little bit more in-depth than that. He usually bitches about a game when it really, really deserves it. Have you ever played some of the games he has reviewed? Some are just plainly broken.


3000th Post

[ReaXan]

it really depends

as a kid I looked at the 2600 as garbage compared to my first system the NES, but it actually had some really fun games that I have learned about over the years thanks to Youtube reviewers,etc. Timeless classics that were basic but full of lasting gameplay.

I wish I had known about the Commodore64 circa 1990, never heard of it and no one I knew had it, but it looked like a great first computer for a kid with a ton of games and programs(the creator of Linux got started on it I believe). I say 1990 because I might have been able to get it cheap somewhere.

the only games that lose their appeal on a grand scale I would say are from the PSOne/N64 era, the polygons and early 3D look like crap now and pretty much unplayable except for a few classics. I don't know why that is, but it just is.

Overall some games do, some don't

Mortal Kombat I have noticed is a game that lost its general appeal while Street Fighter is still strong.

[Kid Ice]

what err trapped in space warped by someone?

[Garry Shandling]

Gary Shandling

[JohnnyBlaze]

Mortal Kombat I have noticed is a game that lost its general appeal while Street Fighter is still strong.

That's because Mortal Kombat by today's standards is tame. Oh...look..someone getting their spine ripped out *spins head around* HOLY SHIT! LOOK! Someone stealing cars, fucking whores, and killing cops! AWESOME!

But, no matter what, it is still a classic game. Street Fighter hasn't lost its appeal because it's a button masher, pick up and play, simplistic gameplay. Mortal Kombat has added all this stuff and made it complicated.

But, watch. One day, there will be a game that is worse than GTA...oh wait...there has...MANHUNT and MANHUNT 2(especially if you play the game with the filters removed).

BTW, KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE SPAMMING! I'M FUCKING SERIOUS. YOU'RE NOT FUNNY. YOU'RE JUST ANNOYING!

[Haoie]

Chill out dudes.

Also, thank goodness for nostalgia!!

[123►Genei-Jin]

But, no matter what, it is still a classic game. Street Fighter hasn't lost its appeal because it's a button masher, pick up and play, simplistic gameplay. Mortal Kombat has added all this stuff and made it complicated.

Wow, just wow

[k8track]

Do you think that games lose their appeal over time?
No.


Do you think that classic games like Pac-Man and Space Invaders are still as fun to play now as they were in their day?
Yes.


Every single post of his consists entirely of "Gary Shandling" or "Garrry" [sic]. He has not made a single legitimate post. He's been here since March 2007. Who the fuck is this? Is this some kind of in-joke I'm not aware of? :?
Gary Shandling.

[Sniderman]

Another repeat repost from Videogame Critic Forum (http://dmrozek.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=3564374).

[Baloo]

That's because Mortal Kombat by today's standards is tame. Oh...look..someone getting their spine ripped out *spins head around* HOLY SHIT! LOOK! Someone stealing cars, fucking whores, and killing cops! AWESOME!

But, no matter what, it is still a classic game. Street Fighter hasn't lost its appeal because it's a button masher, pick up and play, simplistic gameplay. Mortal Kombat has added all this stuff and made it complicated.

Seriously, are you out of your mind? It's the other way around.

[Robocop2]

A good game is a good game regardless of its age, just as a bad game is bad in other words, a good, well designed game will likely always be fondly remembered and still be fun 20 years from now. The same can't be said for gimmicky games a la the FMV games on the Sega CD, 3DO etc. While innovative and dare I say "cool" at the time, they have aged terribly, same goes for some of the more mundane 3D games from the PS1/Saturn/N64 era. I think the future will reflect badly on a good portion of the Wii's catalog for this very reason too many minigame collections and not enough substance.

You can't really judge older games by todays standards and vice versa. To do so is to compare apples to oranges as the capabilities of systems is so wildly different not to mention hardware limitations.

[Chemdawg]

classics are still great, but they are seen differently after playing modern day systems. you just can't not look at them differently almost. but i like that sometimes, sometimes i like the simplicity of old games.

[BydoEmpire]

For me, the pre-crash games hold up as well as they ever did - I played 5200 Pac Man just yesterday, and the Konami Arcade Classics cart is almost permanently in my DSi. The NES-era and beyond has lost a lot of its glitter to me, however. I simply have no desire to play platformers or RPGs over and over, particularly frustratingly difficult ones. They're fine games, but not particularly replayable. I already beat Super Mario Bros many times, I don't want to do it again; but I can still play Mario Brothers or Donkey Kong and try to better my score - that's the whole point of those games.

Game design changed from the focus being on a replayable game to being an experience. The addition and refinement of save points, non-linear gameplay, more balanced difficulty levels, better graphics/sound, multiplayer, etc has made modern games in those genres more a better experience in many ways. There have also been lots of modern platformers and RPGs over the last 20 years, whereas there weren't really tons of pre-crash-style arcade games (XBLA notwithstanding).

[garagesaleking!!]

For me personally its hard to game even with the new generation of consoles. I cant afford to buy every new game when it comes out, but a lot of the fun for me in gaming is owning the latest games. I feel like since i have just started playing games like kane and lynch and strangehold and kameo, that im behind and there just seems to be less enjoyment and fun in the games.

[Sonicwolf]

Classic games rarely loose the appeal that they had when they were new. People who care about just graphics would definately disagree with me though.

[ReaXan]

BTW, KNOCK IT OFF WITH THE SPAMMING! I'M FUCKING SERIOUS. YOU'RE NOT FUNNY. YOU'RE JUST ANNOYING!

what am I spamming, I dont get it?

[Metropolisforever]

what am I spamming, I dont get it?
I think he was talking about Gary Shandling.

[JohnnyBlaze]

I think he was talking about Gary Shandling.

Yes I was. About the Mortal Kombat thing, I don't find it shocking anymore. It was shocking when it came out but now, it's just another fighter. Street Fighter on the other hand is always good because people can get into it easier. What I meant by button masher is that even me who cannot understand combos to save my life, can mash buttons and come up with combo moves. Mortal Kombat, I cannot. Plus, you'll never see Street Fighter move into 3D backgrounds and have weapons which are so hard to use, and have interchangeable styles.

Street Fighter has always been one thing and one thing only: two fighters beating the shit out of each other with awesome moves!

[The 1 2 P]

Some games do. I can't go back to anything I played on the Atari 2600 or 7800. Thats like mortal torture to me. But Nes games I can still play and enjoy. Well, most of them. The first Super Mario Brothers game is no longer fun to me, just repetitive. Since someone else mentioned Mortal Kombat, I can still play the first game but it isn't nearly as cool as it was back in the day.

[Ed Oscuro]

I think that some topics lose their appeal over time.

I mean, seriously, enjoy the game, or don't!

(And yes, I feel that many games lose their appeal after just one play.)

[j_factor]

Yes and no.

A good analogy would be with film. A lot of people like classic films. But how many people enjoy silent films? Other than one or two standouts (Metropolis comes to mind), they just can't hold anyone's interest anymore. Film was a new medium at the time, and the earliest films stood on the novelty of film itself. It took time for movies to develop into something really good. So while Dr. Strangelove is still a great movie 40 years later, I bet movies from the late 20s no longer seemed interesting in Dr. Strangelove's time (nevermind today).

The same kind of goes for games. I can't imagine anyone really wanting to play Ultima I nowadays. But when Ultima VII becomes as old as Ultima I is now, it won't be in the same position; it'll still be a great game.

[Baloo]

Yes I was. About the Mortal Kombat thing, I don't find it shocking anymore. It was shocking when it came out but now, it's just another fighter. Street Fighter on the other hand is always good because people can get into it easier. What I meant by button masher is that even me who cannot understand combos to save my life, can mash buttons and come up with combo moves. Mortal Kombat, I cannot. Plus, you'll never see Street Fighter move into 3D backgrounds and have weapons which are so hard to use, and have interchangeable styles.

Street Fighter has always been one thing and one thing only: two fighters beating the shit out of each other with awesome moves!

That's because Mortal Kombat has no combos. It's simply punch, kick, uppercut, and a special move or two in-between. There wasn't a combo system implemented until Mortal Kombat 3.

Street Fighter you really can't button-mash on, that game is all specials more or less.

[jdc]

While it isn't really very old by comparison, the original Gran Turismo can still hook me in....regardless of how super-real Prologue or Forza 2 are. I blame it on the immersion factor of a well-crafted game. Regardless of the 32-bit Playstation's limitations, I'm there in the moment, ripping my pixelated white Oreca Viper around a pixelated track and that's all I'm focused on.....no differently than the same Viper on the same track in the current-gen edition of the game. It brings me the same rush.

[WhatsMyUsername]

Classic and good games, stay classic and good games. Average games loose a bit of their appeal as the technology becomes outdated. Bad games go from bad to worse.


Also, I don't find the AVGN to be biased about graphics at all, from what I remember when he insults graphics it's only comparing to other games on that console as in what the graphics could be but weren't or if they have a bad choice for their palates.

[JohnnyBlaze]

That's because Mortal Kombat has no combos. It's simply punch, kick, uppercut, and a special move or two in-between. There wasn't a combo system implemented until Mortal Kombat 3.

Street Fighter you really can't button-mash on, that game is all specials more or less.

I started on MK3, so that's probably why I have that mind set. For Street Fighter, the console versions usually simplify the controls, so if you press one of the shoulder buttons, it's the equivalent of a High and Low Punch together. I'm used to the console versions and not the arcade(even though I do have MAME, I really don't play those that much).

Which leads me to another game that hasn't lost it's appeal: WWF Wrestlefest. Nearly 20 years later and people are STILL asking for the game to be released to the home consoles. There are petitions online for the game to be on Xbox Live(I've even signed a few).

Very easy to play and master....until you get to the Legion of Doom and then you can kiss your credits goodbye. The best part is when your arcade was one of the ones with a 4 player cabinet(most of the ones I've seen were only 2) and you can get 4 people together to play Royal Rumble mode. *sniff* awesomeness!

[sidnotcrazy]

The Angry Video Game nerd is a little bit more in-depth than that. He usually bitches about a game when it really, really deserves it. Have you ever played some of the games he has reviewed? Some are just plainly broken.


I know its off topic, but I don't feel like his "complaints" are really that good. He is entertaing, and I will give him that.

Just like what people have said before, its all what you enjoy. Some N64 games I cannot play, but I can easily fire up my Atari 2600 and have a blast playing Up and Down.

[Sonicwolf]

I know its off topic, but I don't feel like his "complaints" are really that good. He is entertaing, and I will give him that.

Lucky for you he has been moving towards more concise reviews instead of just vulgarity-ridden ranting.

[Richter Belmount]

But, no matter what, it is still a classic game. Street Fighter hasn't lost its appeal because it's a button masher, pick up and play, simplistic gameplay. Mortal Kombat has added all this stuff and made it complicated.

LEAVE JOHNNY BLAZE ALONE! Your obviously all jealous of how much of a genius he is. Johnny Blaze is the smartest man on the message boards period.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Not sure if that was supposed to be sarcastic, but if it isn't, thanks for the compliment.

[ReaXan]

I like this topic alot and I find it relevant, so bump :)

[sheath]

One of the things that I still have to remind myself of is how important marketing and "buzz" is to most people. I can look at a shelf of games I've never played before and I think about what kinds of games they are and whether or not that kind of game will interest me. Most people, especially consumers, will look at the same shelf for that game somebody told them sometime was "effing great!"

I can look at games on my shelf and just decide if I want to play one of them again. How popular or unpopular the game was rarely comes to mind in this process. I don't think that well made games lose their appeal over time at all. Mediocre licensed games, sequels, and games with glaring flaws that were easy to overlook at the time definitely lose their appeal though.

Very rarely, when a game has been syndicated into umpteen spin off games I will go back and not enjoy the original because it lacks legitimately necessary gameplay improvements and feels too limited. More often than that the original reminds me of why the series was once great though.

[dgdgagdae]

I wonder if Earthbound has lost any of its appeal over the years?

[Icarus Moonsight]

Maybe some defining will clear some air here, if I may...

Classic - games of times past that have maintained their appeal
Old Flavor- games of times past that have not maintained their appeal
Old Turd - something intended to be a game from times past that never had appeal

New Classic - recent games that have potential to maintain their appeal and become "Classic", time will tell
New Flavor - recent games that have appeal, but likely that it won't hold over time
New Turd - recently unleashed variant of "Old Turd"

[thegamezmaster]

That's because game reviewers tend to judge the classics from a modern point of view, comparing it to games of today. Which is pretty dumb to me, but more helpful for those who haven't played the game/other games from that era.

For me I think it has a lot to do with having been there at the time the game was new. I can't really go back to anything pre-NES, but still find new games to love from the 8-bit generation and onwards.

AVGN usually has good points about the games he plays, you're exagerrating there. But I could do without the image.

I agree with being there when it was new. IMHO if it wowed me then, I still love it today. Plus I think things run in cycles. Sometimes I'm not in the mood but somewhere down the road, if I really like a game, sometime later I'll get the itch to play it again. Just my 2 cents.

[BydoEmpire]

In general, yes because it's going to become too familiar, or lose the wow factor as someone already mentioned. There are lots of games out there that were fun when they came out, but once you've seen it and done it, there's not a lot of incentive to go back. Or the mechanics might be too trying for your patience years later. Or there wasn't a good balance of challenge and reward, which makes it pointless to keep playing. There are tons of reasons games (or movies or books or any entertainment media, really) can lose their appeal over time.

However, I do find a lot of old games as much or more fun now than back in the day. In fact, I almost never play modern games anymore. 8- and 16-bit stuff is just more fun for me for a variety of reasons, but that's a separate thread. True classics like Pac Man and Asteroids have definitely held up, which is why they're... well... classics.

[The 1 2 P]

Yes, especially if it doesn't have online multiplayer.

[j_factor]

Yes, especially if it has online multiplayer.

Fixed.

[The 1 2 P]

Fixed.

Yeah because Call of Duty games would sell so much more if they didn't include online multiplayer or co-op multiplyer:bullshit:

[kupomogli]

Yeah because Call of Duty games would sell so much more if they didn't include online multiplayer or co-op multiplyer:bullshit:

No. j_factor was correct. The topic is is about video games losing their appeal over time. What happens in 20 years when these games are no longer playable on XBOX Live or PSN? You can't play with 16 people over at your home, the most you'll have is four people for the 360 or six people for the PS3. So they'll eventually lose their appeal. The PC version will still be playable with player ran servers.

[The 1 2 P]

No. j_factor was correct. The topic is is about video games losing their appeal over time. What happens in 20 years when these games are no longer playable on XBOX Live or PSN? You can't play with 16 people over at your home, the most you'll have is four people for the 360 or six people for the PS3. So they'll eventually lose their appeal. The PC version will still be playable with player ran servers.

Haven't you ever heard of lan parties? Anyway, I'm referring to games of the last and current gen in this internet multiplayer age. Old school games can lose their appeal much faster without any reply value such as online multiplayer(even though they never had it in the first place).

For me personally I am much more likely to keep playing games with some sort of multiplayer component over and over again. But if you are talking strictly old school pre-online multiplayer games then my philosophy is alittle different. I can still play those games but they lose their appeal much faster because once you complete them theres not much left to do unless they happen to have a few easter eggs. And the ones that did have multiplayer(like Contra) can still be quite fun to play.

[Baloo]

Haven't you ever heard of lan parties? Anyway, I'm referring to games of the last and current gen in this internet multiplayer age. Old school games can lose their appeal much faster without any reply value such as online multiplayer(even though they never had it in the first place).

For me personally I am much more likely to keep playing games with some sort of multiplayer component over and over again. But if you are talking strictly old school pre-online multiplayer games then my philosophy is alittle different. I can still play those games but they lose their appeal much faster because once you complete them theres not much left to do unless they happen to have a few easter eggs. And the ones that did have multiplayer(like Contra) can still be quite fun to play.

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with J_Factor here. It seems that games designed specifically for multiplayer gameplay, whether it be on PC or console, simply lose their appeal over time. If they didn't, the fanbase wouldn't die out over time and people wouldn't stop playing them, and sequels wouldn't have to be made.

The problem is that regardless of how many mods people make for the games, or how many fan improvements there are, it all boils down to how long it takes to be playing the same gametypes before the game gets boring. I used to be a big fan of Star Wars Jedi Knight III: Jedi Academy, used to stay up on school nights from 12 to about 2-3 AM playing, and whatever I would play in the daytime. Then one day I just stopped playing it and just didn't go back, the game just lost it's appeal. A new coat of paint is needed every so often so they don't get stale. The problem is, they make each game so similar to the last one in series like this BECAUSE of the online multiplayer to keep the fanbase, that they become stale even if sequels are made. Just look at Call of Duty. That series hasn't been good since the first one came out IMO. There's nothing particularly unique about any of the sequels, nor is there anything particularly fun.

Online multiplayer does nothing for games except give a different kind of social experience with video games. Sure it's nice to be able to play games with your friends without leaving the house, but it only serves to make video games uncreative, boring, and bland. A new sequel simply becomes a means to get the consumer for another $50 for minimal changes. There's no creativity anymore, no reason to make a sequel to a video game that goes in a different direction.

Online multiplayer in video games has and will continue to age horribly. And it still doesn't have shit on the experience of a few friends together in a house playing multiple games. More social, more fun, more exciting. I'll play Blades of Steel 2-player any day over most of the nonsense on XBL or PSN.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Online play is so New Flavor.

Some Online New Flavor trend breakers (held appeal):
Diablo 1/2
Starcraft/BW
PSO

Any others?

[Collector_Gaming]

I don't know

i had a 20 y/o chick with me at Fun Spot this past weekend

I watched her play MK1 and played Mk2 against her.. and then watched her play Pacman.
she looked like she was having a blast to me

So i say they have their appeal.

A game is gonna be fun regardless. If its a year old or 30 years old its gonna remain fun. Its not like dynamics of it have changed ever

The kids that don't get it these days are the ones who IMHO are not true gamers.. All they care about graphics and online play and not the actual fun aspect of a game.

It could be a garbage game but as long as its got good graphics and i can kill my best friend in a online match. then its gonna be amazing.

basically putting it Facebook in FPS format. You can chat with your friends while killing them..
One of the reasons why some people like WOW so much

[QuickSciFi]

I could get into some online PSO gameplay had I the means.

http://www.sega-16.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=2903&d=1304520907

[Edmond Dantes]

I don't think they do on an objective basis.

But I do find my standards change.

As a kid, I really loved Battletoads. Nowadays though, I can't get past how absolutely B.S. that game is at points and just can't play it anymore. On the other hand, six years ago I would not have even touched Metal Gear Solid because I thought stealth games were "stupid," but now MGS is practically the only game I play.

It's all personal, when you get down to it.

[retroguy]

It depends on the game. I'm writing a book about retrogaming and I've been reviewing a bunch of old games that I never played before because my experience back in the day was pretty limited (living in the middle of nowhere + not getting many games growing up = tons of stuff missed). Sonic Spinball is a ton of fun if you enjoy pinball games (I do), but I hated Mega Man 1 because even with infinite lives and infinite health, the game is so hard it's unplayable. No joke, I tried for a solid hour to get past the first part of level 2 and couldn't do it. Mega Man 2's difficulty is a bit more forgiving and I enjoyed it a lot more.

[The 1 2 P]

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with J_Factor here. It seems that games designed specifically for multiplayer gameplay, whether it be on PC or console, simply lose their appeal over time. If they didn't, the fanbase wouldn't die out over time and people wouldn't stop playing them, and sequels wouldn't have to be made.

The problem is that regardless of how many mods people make for the games, or how many fan improvements there are, it all boils down to how long it takes to be playing the same gametypes before the game gets boring. I used to be a big fan of Star Wars Jedi Knight III: Jedi Academy, used to stay up on school nights from 12 to about 2-3 AM playing, and whatever I would play in the daytime. Then one day I just stopped playing it and just didn't go back, the game just lost it's appeal. A new coat of paint is needed every so often so they don't get stale. The problem is, they make each game so similar to the last one in series like this BECAUSE of the online multiplayer to keep the fanbase, that they become stale even if sequels are made. Just look at Call of Duty. That series hasn't been good since the first one came out IMO. There's nothing particularly unique about any of the sequels, nor is there anything particularly fun.

Online multiplayer does nothing for games except give a different kind of social experience with video games. Sure it's nice to be able to play games with your friends without leaving the house, but it only serves to make video games uncreative, boring, and bland. A new sequel simply becomes a means to get the consumer for another $50 for minimal changes. There's no creativity anymore, no reason to make a sequel to a video game that goes in a different direction.

Online multiplayer in video games has and will continue to age horribly. And it still doesn't have shit on the experience of a few friends together in a house playing multiple games. More social, more fun, more exciting. I'll play Blades of Steel 2-player any day over most of the nonsense on XBL or PSN.

Theres nothing wrong with you agreeing with J_Factor but for me multiplayer games get played much more then single player games. Star Wars: Knights of The Old Republic was an amazing game that I enjoyed all 42 hours that it took me to play thru it. But once I was finished, despite my fond memories of it I never picked it up again. On the flip side, I bought Halo 2 at the midnight launch back in 2004. And I played it up until the day they ended the original Xbox's online servers last year in 2010. Thats 6 straight years of playing the same game due to online multiplayer. Had it only been single player I probably wouldn't have played it since 2005.

Of course different games are made with different experiences in mind. And while I was specifically talking about online multiplayer from this and last gen, theres still some old school games I can pick up and go back to(like Nes Tetris). But today, because I have over 600 games I'm much more likely to play something with online multiplayer(where human players behave differently then simple AI ones) over an extended period of time then I am to play a single player game after I initially beat it. It doesn't mean I'll never go back to any single player games but they lose their appeal to me not very long after I beat them.

[j_factor]

Theres nothing wrong with you agreeing with J_Factor

Why thank you!


but for me multiplayer games get played much more then single player games. Star Wars: Knights of The Old Republic was an amazing game that I enjoyed all 42 hours that it took me to play thru it. But once I was finished, despite my fond memories of it I never picked it up again. On the flip side, I bought Halo 2 at the midnight launch back in 2004. And I played it up until the day they ended the original Xbox's online servers last year in 2010. Thats 6 straight years of playing the same game due to online multiplayer. Had it only been single player I probably wouldn't have played it since 2005.

But it's still lost its appeal now, hasn't it? In any case, most games with online multiplayer aren't Halo. Almost every other original Xbox game with online multiplayer was a wasteland online long before they pulled the servers. I bet you didn't try to play Whacked! in 2007.


Of course different games are made with different experiences in mind. And while I was specifically talking about online multiplayer from this and last gen, theres still some old school games I can pick up and go back to(like Nes Tetris). But today, because I have over 600 games I'm much more likely to play something with online multiplayer(where human players behave differently then simple AI ones) over an extended period of time then I am to play a single player game after I initially beat it. It doesn't mean I'll never go back to any single player games but they lose their appeal to me not very long after I beat them.

But you don't go back to old school games with online multiplayer. You'll play NES Tetris, but you won't play The Next Tetris: Online Edition (or you will, but not for the online part). You may play games with online multiplayer more nowadays, but the topic isn't about whether games lose their appeal over time played, it's whether games lose their appeal over the years. And online multiplayer tends to disappear with time, either by servers going offline, or a simple lack of players.

[Baloo]

Theres nothing wrong with you agreeing with J_Factor but for me multiplayer games get played much more then single player games. Star Wars: Knights of The Old Republic was an amazing game that I enjoyed all 42 hours that it took me to play thru it. But once I was finished, despite my fond memories of it I never picked it up again. On the flip side, I bought Halo 2 at the midnight launch back in 2004. And I played it up until the day they ended the original Xbox's online servers last year in 2010. Thats 6 straight years of playing the same game due to online multiplayer. Had it only been single player I probably wouldn't have played it since 2005.

Of course different games are made with different experiences in mind. And while I was specifically talking about online multiplayer from this and last gen, theres still some old school games I can pick up and go back to(like Nes Tetris). But today, because I have over 600 games I'm much more likely to play something with online multiplayer(where human players behave differently then simple AI ones) over an extended period of time then I am to play a single player game after I initially beat it. It doesn't mean I'll never go back to any single player games but they lose their appeal to me not very long after I beat them.

OK, I see what you're saying, getting more value for your buck. But let's be honest here, which game did you really enjoy more? I'd rather play a game once that I enjoyed every second of, than an online game that I played for months or years and not getting that same sense of satisfaction, only playing because SOMETIMES it was fun or some modes were fun or my friends were playing it too. For me multiplayer is definitely not making or breaking the game as to how good it is. There has NEVER been a game that I've played online that I've always had fun playing while playing it. There's always fucked up teams, a screwed up connection, a boring gametype, glitches, something to screw up that session or match of the game. There always is. It's not consistent. And once the servers are gone for these games, half of them you literally CANT go back to. The single player is so barebones that it's not worth playing, and the online aspect is gone.


Why thank you!



But it's still lost its appeal now, hasn't it? In any case, most games with online multiplayer aren't Halo. Almost every other original Xbox game with online multiplayer was a wasteland online long before they pulled the servers. I bet you didn't try to play Whacked! in 2007.



But you don't go back to old school games with online multiplayer. You'll play NES Tetris, but you won't play The Next Tetris: Online Edition (or you will, but not for the online part). You may play games with online multiplayer more nowadays, but the topic isn't about whether games lose their appeal over time played, it's whether games lose their appeal over the years. And online multiplayer tends to disappear with time, either by servers going offline, or a simple lack of players.

Exactly. I'm going to still find myself coming back to the games I enjoyed immensely and played through once or twice in the past but after I get burned out on the multiplayer or the servers go down, or even most of the fanbase moves onto something else, the game has lost all its appeal. Do you find yourself using your Saturn Netlink, or X-Band these days?

Multiplayer for me definitely doesn't make a game better or worse, just simply gives you more things to do with it. The actual gameplay itself is what really matters, and that's what games are lacking today. Call of Duty, Halo, Gears of War, these games may be fun now, but in all honesty. Are you really going to go back and play the Single player modes of these games? Is this something you'll look at 20 years from now and recommend to all of your friends to go buy if they have this system, will they become instant classics?

No.

[The 1 2 P]

But it's still lost its appeal now, hasn't it?

Yeah.....six years later. I can't complain about getting 6 years worth of solid gameplay from an online capable game that had a very strong active community for four straight years and continued to keep a dedicated community of online gamers for it's last two years.



You may play games with online multiplayer more nowadays, but the topic isn't about whether games lose their appeal over time played, it's whether games lose their appeal over the years.

I just reread the first post. If we're talking about strictly old school pre-online multiplayer games then my answer is still the same. I have a long list of games I loved to play back in the day and may pick up once every few years but in general I don't feel as compelled to go back and replay 8 bit or 16 bit era(for example) games as I was back then. So yes they have lost some of their appeal to me.


But let's be honest here, which game did you really enjoy more?

They were two different experiences that I enjoyed for different reasons. But like I already said, I'm much more likely to go back to an online multiplayer game than a purely single player one.



I'd rather play a game once that I enjoyed every second of, than an online game that I played for months or years and not getting that same sense of satisfaction, only playing because SOMETIMES it was fun or some modes were fun or my friends were playing it too.

And thats your perogative but I'm on the other side of the spectrum. Don't get me wrong, I still love my single player games like Alan Wake and Batman: Arkham Asylum. And luckily the advent of achievements have given me even more reasons to go back to them. But once I have beaten the game and found all of the achievements I pretty much move on to the next game.


For me multiplayer is definitely not making or breaking the game as to how good it is.

If you are talking about that in relation to the single player portion of multiplayer games then I agree. I view them seperate but I also look at them as two halves to a whole. So I may love the single player in a game like F.E.A.R.(which I did) but find that the multiplayer portion was lackluster. I'll still tell people I thought it was a good game but lacked compelling multiplayer. Or it could be the reverse.

But to conclude this, I do feel that old school games can lose their appeal over time. This doesn't mean that I now think they are all bad(I still like sporatically going back to Nes games among others). However, games from systems before the Nes have virtually no appeal to me. My first two consoles were the Atari 2600 and 7800 and today I can't play anything on those systems without great distain. They have lost any kind of appeal they once held over me as a child.

[Zing]

Yeah.....six years later. I can't complain about getting 6 years worth of solid gameplay from an online capable game that had a very strong active community for four straight years and continued to keep a dedicated community of online gamers for it's last two years.

I think the point here is that you are discussing what is probably the most popular game on the Xbox, maybe even more popular than any single game on the Xbox 360. Of course there were plenty of players. Of course you got a lot of value for your money. Online games need a critical mass of players to stay active, otherwise they fade away.

I played EverQuest for four years and it was well worth the money and time, but there were dozens of other MMORPGs that fizzled after a few months. Dark Age of Camelot was fun at first, but three months later it was left behind for the next new game.

I think the current multiplayer games have such a short life due to so many sequels and so much competition. I can't help but picture that image showing "the state of the video game industry" where it shows three almost identical screenshots from three different developers of three different games. Are people still going back to play Call of Duty Modern Warfare 1? Hell, are they still playing Modern Warfare 2?

[j_factor]

Yeah.....six years later.

This is the Classic Games board.


Here's the place to go to talk about all things "classic". Today, classic means "before PlayStation 2"

Six years isn't even classic yet.


I can't complain about getting 6 years worth of solid gameplay from an online capable game that had a very strong active community for four straight years and continued to keep a dedicated community of online gamers for it's last two years.

That's kind of beside the point. My point is, a large part of that game's appeal was the online multiplayer, and that is now gone. Other games from that time that didn't rely on online multiplayer still have the same appeal that they did back then (for the most part). Therefore, online multiplayer is detrimental to a game retaining its appeal.


They were two different experiences that I enjoyed for different reasons. But like I already said, I'm much more likely to go back to an online multiplayer game than a purely single player one.

You're only playing relatively new games, then. These are games that will lose their appeal over time. They're just not that old yet.

[YoshiM]

Of course games can lose their appeal, either on a personal level (as some have mentioned-the whole single player/online multiplayer debate, not being able to play anything older than say NES, etc.) or on a broader scale (the whole "music" game genre like Guitar Hero and such, SCHMUPs seemingly becoming so niche, platformers are few and far between, etc.). There will always be some titles or concepts that resonate with gamers young and old and will always be the quintessential "classic" like a Pac-Man, Super Mario Bros, Tetris, etc.

[The 1 2 P]

This is the Classic Games board.Six years isn't even classic yet.

That doesn't really matter, it was relevant to the point I was making about the game I was discussing before we decided to talk strictly old school gaming.


My point is, a large part of that game's appeal was the online multiplayer, and that is now gone.

Yes it's gone but I've also played thru the single player campaign multiple times so it's not like the game is unplayable without the online play in the way that certain versions of Phantasy Star Online are.


Other games from that time that didn't rely on online multiplayer still have the same appeal that they did back then (for the most part). Therefore, online multiplayer is detrimental to a game retaining its appeal.

There you go trying to assume your opinion is fact. Thats simply not the case in an opinionated thread(where the OP is asking each respondant their opinion) like this. Now that Halo 2's multiplayer is no longer live I compare it's single player campaign to that of the single player games back then that had no online component. And from there it's decided rather they have lost their appeal based on rather I still play them or not, not based on if they lost a portion of their gameplay.


You're only playing relatively new games, then. These are games that will lose their appeal over time. They're just not that old yet.

Unless you can forsee the future(and you can't) you have no idea what games will lose their appeal to me. I do play a majority of games from this gen but ever since we decided to narrow this discussion down to old school games(pre 6th generation I guess) I've already stated my opinion on how many of those games have already lost their appeal to me to the point where I'd rather play something more current.

I'm really not sure why you are still going on about this. You aren't going to get a "you're right" because you aren't right in relation to how I feel about games that lose their appeal, rather thats games from the last six years or the last 25 years.

[Icarus Moonsight]

He didn't just solicit for opinion (belief with or without backing). The OP left it open to rational discussion as well. OP is also banned... Hope they don't mind.