Why classic gaming?

[Flam]

Why do people choose classic gaming over modern gaming? I wouldn’t consider myself a “gamer”, I play my NES when I have 15-20 min. to kill because it has nostalgic value and is pretty simple to control (ie only has two buttons). However, it seems that if I was more involved in gaming I’d be playing the new systems because the graphics are better and the games seems more complex, plus you can interact with others on a greater level. So why do people prefer older systems over the new? The Atari was my first system and I can’t for the life of me figure out why people find those games fun at all.

[Bojay1997]

Why do people choose classic gaming over modern gaming? I wouldn’t consider myself a “gamer”, I play my NES when I have 15-20 min. to kill because it has nostalgic value and is pretty simple to control (ie only has two buttons). However, it seems that if I was more involved in gaming I’d be playing the new systems because the graphics are better and the games seems more complex, plus you can interact with others on a greater level. So why do people prefer older systems over the new? The Atari was my first system and I can’t for the life of me figure out why people find those games fun at all.
Why do trolls bother to register and post here on such a regular basis?

[Lady Jaye]

For the pre-NES games: it was the simplicity of the games that was attractive. You could play short sessions at a time and be done with it. That simplicity is also what makes flash games so popular.

Classic gameplay remains playable gameplay after all these years. That's why people still play Pac-Man, Galaga, Donkey Kong. And in later years, a game like Zelda and Final Fantasy may seem simple on the surface, but they offer a level of challenge that's quite high (try playing the Zelda games on NES for the first time ever without relying on any walkthrough of any kind, and you'll likely to spend quite a bit of time wandering around).

There are also great recent games, but most of them require a much higher time commitment than older games, which is fine when you're young and have much free time, but much more difficult to manage as you grow older. Of course, it's not impossible to finish those long games too, but it may take weeks, if not months if one leads a busy life.

[peter_gunz]

It's pretty simple for me. I hate the way games control today, I don't like 3-D for the most part although there are exceptions and FPS games IMO suck. I like 2-D fighters and side scrolling, the challenge is greater. If you play games nowadays you'll find that initially beating the game is easy, but now you have to unlock achievements for there to be any replay value. Take away online gaming and the fun factor for most games drops considerably IMO.

Personally, I think gaming has gotten away from the big picture of what a game should be and instead focused on details. The details do improve games, but if a game relies on gimmicks to be popular, what does that say about the quality of the maker?

One example of what I consider to be straight up laziness is EA Sports and the Madden franchise. Ever since they got the exclusive NFL rights, the games have been nothing more than a $59.99 updated roster w/1 or 2 new features/controls. If it weren't for playing online and the various tournaments one could win on top of the exclusivity rights, this franchise would be in the toilet by now. It's only because no one else can make a game w/active NFL teams/rosters on it that people even buy this thing.

I would say even my beloved Street Fighter series fell into this group, even before modern gaming. All they do is update games and for the most part keep the fighting system and mechanics the same. SNK didn't do this, but alas since they are seen as SF clones, it doesn't matter. But take for instance the Samurai Shodown series. That series has evolved BIG time from its original inception. Many think 2 is the best, but I actually like 3 and 4 for the increase in strategy that they bring out. Fatal Fury was another franchise that looks and plays completely different from the original titles because SNK had the balls to experiment and try new things. Even Mortal Kombat (not SNK, but still a fighting title) has tried new things. Some sucked, some were great. But SF for all intents and purposes is still the same damn game it was in 1990 with slightly a little more speed and maybe 1 or 2 new features that they didn't even invent on their own, lol (super combo was an SNK innovation). Granted SF is no longer the horrible Fighting Street, but SF IV is pretty much SF II. Most of the same tricks still work (as evidenced in tournaments where the same guys always win because the same tricks they used 20 years ago work today) and even some of the same storylines are still in the game, lmao.

[TurboGenesis]

I play these games because of their focus on score play… these games may be "simple" but the fun is found in playing and improving my score. I always can do better… many games of the pre-crash era are fun quick play games and I can enjoy a session of under an hour and work on my score. Todays games are more concerned with walking around and shooting crap and killing other players. The only stat is how many times you kill another man… this also leads to people playing online and talking mean, degrading garbage to other players and I don't enjoy to be made fun of when I am playing a game trying to enjoy myself and unwind from a long days work…
Sure, there are some modern game play that maintain the classic focus of score play, and I do enjoy to play those titles, but my time these days is spent playing on my Atari 5200, Colecovision, and Vectrex…

[eskobar]

I don't ....


I was fortunate enough to enjoy gaming since the Atari days and I have always gone with the current systems when I have time to play.

No video game era has dissapointed me, classic gaming is good when you didn't have the time to play when the games originally came out .... but modern gaming is better for me, there are many good games and a few brilliant ones too.

[Aussie2B]

A good game is a good game. It doesn't matter if it was released 30 days ago or 30 years ago.

[swlovinist]

Easy one for me. I grew up with the classic systems and have countess positive memories attached to them. You didnt need to wait for loading screen. You didnt need the internet. You didnt need to have to worry about game level addon extras that would cost extra. It was a more simple time to play and enjoy games with friends. In a way I miss the days in which innovative games were not a rare thing.

[7th lutz]

Classic games for me actually has genres that I enjoy playing and I am not a graphics whore either.

shoot'em ups don't show up on modern game consoles a lot like they used to. I grew playing games like Galaga, Demon Attack, Astroblast, River Raid,phoenix, and Xevious as examples of shooters that I grew up with for the Atari 2600 or Atari 7800.

I don't care what generation a good game came from, as long its fun, I play it.

[Flam]

thanks for the responses. it seems like your reasons for playing the classics are the same as mine. I ask because I have not played many new generation games, so I have no basis to support my opinion that classis games are better. I can honestly say that I've never played an X-Box or a PS3, and I've only played my nephews Wii a handful of times. I just remember the excitement when NES was in it's prime and rushing to Toys-R-Us to get new games that would come out.

[kupomogli]

This gen most developers feel the need to pump nothing but graphics into the game and call it a day. Gameplay is usually an afterthought.

Classic doesn't matter to me though as long as the game is good, though.

[portnoyd]

This gen most developers feel the need to pump nothing but graphics into the game and call it a day. Gameplay is usually an afterthought.

Classic doesn't matter to me though as long as the game is good, though.


Why do trolls bother to register and post here on such a regular basis?

Hypocrite trifecta.

[Edmond Dantes]

Because classic gaming is just better. Just like classic cartoons are better, classic comics are better, classic novels are better, classic anime is better, classic Coke is better, and classic sex is better.

It's never too late to go classic!

[chrisballer]

A good game is a good game. It doesn't matter if it was released 30 days ago or 30 years ago.

My thoughts exactly. I find both classic and modern games to be very fun. For me personally, I enjoy games ten times more when playing or competing with others. New games are great to play online with friends and old games are fun to compete for high scores. Also, time and patience is a factor as well. I get bored easy with many newer games, because they are too long to keep me interested.

[Orion Pimpdaddy]

I enjoy classic games because they are different (not better) than what's being offered today.

[jammajup]

I am 90% a retro gamer so i do play the odd modern 1st person shooter (like Crisis at the moment) but really i am not impressed with the variety of games being released.There seem to be even fewer game genres than there was in the 16bit era-okay so technology improvements mean that 1st/3rd person games are now quite incredible and are my favourite but i do not want to play them for ever so i flip-flopped from a 10% retro gamer to a 10% modern gamer in a matter of months and have never looked back.
I have descovered gems on other classic console/computer systems that i had missed and it is going to take me a hell of a long time to exhaust a 30 year back catalogue :)

[Bojay1997]

Hypocrite trifecta.

Oh, I get what you did there, you're saying you're the third part of the trifecta. Very clever. I'm so happy to be on the same site as such a brilliant and witty individual as yourself.

[Kyle15]

A good game is a good game. It doesn't matter if it was released 30 days ago or 30 years ago.

Good lord, this. This, this, this, this.

I'm so sick of the mentality people have over games "aging." It's as if they're obligated to automatically disown games after so many years have passed. I'm into gaming for what it has to offer, past and present. Also, good graphics are good graphics. They can be 2D or 3D and it doesn't really matter.

[369WIERDO369]

Why classic gaming?
Let's face it...Sonic Adventure was alright. Sonic '06 wasn't bad. Sonic Unleashed was playable.
But Sonic is about speed, speed, speed. And no game yet has captured that, IMO, as well as the original 8- and 16-bit games.
Mario, too, in my opinion, has only gotten worse over the years. I mean, '64 and Sunshine were great games, but who can honestly say they're better platformers than the original NES games?
To me, it seems as if with modern games, developers are concerned about making the games LOOK good. But back then, when games weren't gonna look good no matter what, the devs put more focus on making them really fun.
And you can't forget the nostalgia factor. If you were to take a look at my gaming "wish list," you'd find a heckload of games that I played as a child but never got around to owning, or games I owned but got rid of.

But to each his own I suppose

[Flam]

I guess I thought jsut because the games were newer they were more complex.

[kupomogli]

Hypocrite trifecta.

This post about yourself? I don't ever see you do anything but bitch and moan.

[SpaceHarrier]

I return to classic games (classic for me being 8-bit/16-bit) because of nostalgia, simple "pick-up-and-play" gameplay, and fun factor.

I enjoy many modern games too, but they don't have the added advantage of nostalgia yet. Plus I'm a little burnt out after 20+ years of gaming, playing the same few genres over and over.

[peter_gunz]

Why classic gaming?
Let's face it...Sonic Adventure was alright. Sonic '06 wasn't bad. Sonic Unleashed was playable.
But Sonic is about speed, speed, speed. And no game yet has captured that, IMO, as well as the original 8- and 16-bit games.
Mario, too, in my opinion, has only gotten worse over the years. I mean, '64 and Sunshine were great games, but who can honestly say they're better platformers than the original NES games?
To me, it seems as if with modern games, developers are concerned about making the games LOOK good. But back then, when games weren't gonna look good no matter what, the devs put more focus on making them really fun.
And you can't forget the nostalgia factor. If you were to take a look at my gaming "wish list," you'd find a heckload of games that I played as a child but never got around to owning, or games I owned but got rid of.

But to each his own I suppose

I disagree w/the beginning of this post. Sonic 16-bit after the first zone is always less speed oriented. Sonic Adventure IMO was exactly what they had in mind when they originally came up w/the concept. The game pretty much Sonic just running around w/blazing speed. It's not a better game for sure, but it seems to be less obstacle oriented than the 16 bit games.

[Tron 2.0]

A good game is a good game. It doesn't matter if it was released 30 days ago or 30 years ago.
Ditto old or new i'll play it if i think it's good.

[Edmond Dantes]

I disagree w/the beginning of this post. Sonic 16-bit after the first zone is always less speed oriented. Sonic Adventure IMO was exactly what they had in mind when they originally came up w/the concept. The game pretty much Sonic just running around w/blazing speed. It's not a better game for sure, but it seems to be less obstacle oriented than the 16 bit games.

Personally, I thought about it like this:

using Sonic's speed is a reward. Yeah, if you're a first-time player (or just not good at the game) you have to stop all the time and proceed slowly, but once you get good, you can blaze through the game and live up to Sonic's reputation.

Sonic Adventure, in that sense is an example of what's wrong with modern gaming. It trades in this rewarding nature and just let's you run, replacing the feeling of accomplishment with sheer spectacle.

though, it wouldn't be so bad if the game weren't tedious, badly-designed, irritating as heck, full of illogical decisions (you can't just jump down to the next platform or you'll die WTF), so buggy that you sometimes simply fall through the floor for no reason, and on top of that you're forced to play as characters besides Sonic just to unlock the last level. I'm sorry but honestly Adventure was when I stopped liking Sonic.

[imsilly]

A good game will always be a good game.

You can be seduced by the vulgarities of modern graphics and general depth, but the reality is that can't make up for poor game-play, story or a lack of originality.

Case in point being that out of all the Zelda games released both The Legend of Zelda and The Legend of Zelda: a Link to the Past are by far the best of the Franchise. More modern games tend to rely on game-play aspects that border on pure novelty value like kinetic controls, 3-D visuals or Cinematics. Older games concentrate on the core aspects of gaming that separate them from other forms of entertainment like films or books. The latest Zelda games on the DS are dull with lots of pointless travel and boring linear questing, but bearable and the ones on the Wii/Gamecube are just OMFG!

The reality is that sometimes having almost limitless technical capabilities impairs the creators of games ability to concentrate on getting the fundamentals right. How many times have you played a modern game which looked stunning, but as soon as a character spoke you began to face-palm at the banality and general awfulness of the dialogue? Maybe you get into a game only to start wondering, "Why am I helping this douche-bag character by playing them?" Worst of all you sit there performing some monotonous random task rendered into perfect life-like graphics until you realize the pay off is just more crappy game-play.

[RPG_Fanatic]

Games in the 8-16 bit (hell even some 32-bit) are just more fun than the games of today.

[alec006]

Simple, they're better because back then they focused on the gameplay, the story, the overall replay value of that game, where even if you beat it many times you still want to pick it up and play it again and again as you grow older.

It doesn't matter that it doesn't have all those polygons flying at you at once, if I wanted a life like game, I would get off my ass and recreate it outside.

Another point is multiplayer, where your friends would actually have to come over to your house or you to their house to play together on the same TV. I remember hours and hours playing games like Goldeneye, Mario Party, Pokemon etc with people that I knew in person and could enjoy my childhood with.

Games now days don't have those factors, they're simply what they're called games, where's classic games are adventure, fantasy and whatever you make them out to be using your imagination.

[peter_gunz]

Personally, I thought about it like this:

using Sonic's speed is a reward. Yeah, if you're a first-time player (or just not good at the game) you have to stop all the time and proceed slowly, but once you get good, you can blaze through the game and live up to Sonic's reputation.

Sonic Adventure, in that sense is an example of what's wrong with modern gaming. It trades in this rewarding nature and just let's you run, replacing the feeling of accomplishment with sheer spectacle.

though, it wouldn't be so bad if the game weren't tedious, badly-designed, irritating as heck, full of illogical decisions (you can't just jump down to the next platform or you'll die WTF), so buggy that you sometimes simply fall through the floor for no reason, and on top of that you're forced to play as characters besides Sonic just to unlock the last level. I'm sorry but honestly Adventure was when I stopped liking Sonic.

I just don't see how anyone can go fast in the Labyrinth or Marble Zones w/out losing lots of lives. Sonic 2 and especially 3 stopped focusing on speed IMO. I'm the kind of person that has to collect every ring/item and I don't see this being possible while doing a speed run. Although, I will admit that it should be possible to do a speed run if a person ignores most of the items. In Sonic 2 and 3 once I get Super Sonic, I'd say it definitely becomes all about speed pure and simple.

For me Sonic Adventure was more of a demo than an actual game. It said, "LOOK, this is what DREAMCAST can do!" and IMO did it very well. I have a softspot for the Dreamcast, so maybe I'm biased towards it and just about every game on it. I'd probably defend any game on the Neo Geo the same way. Yes, even Art of Fighting 3, which seems to be hated by all, but the most hardcore SNK fan, lol.

[peter_gunz]

A good game will always be a good game.

You can be seduced by the vulgarities of modern graphics and general depth, but the reality is that can't make up for poor game-play, story or a lack of originality.

Case in point being that out of all the Zelda games released both The Legend of Zelda and The Legend of Zelda: a Link to the Past are by far the best of the Franchise. More modern games tend to rely on game-play aspects that border on pure novelty value like kinetic controls, 3-D visuals or Cinematics. Older games concentrate on the core aspects of gaming that separate them from other forms of entertainment like films or books. The latest Zelda games on the DS are dull with lots of pointless travel and boring linear questing, but bearable and the ones on the Wii/Gamecube are just OMFG!

The reality is that sometimes having almost limitless technical capabilities impairs the creators of games ability to concentrate on getting the fundamentals right. How many times have you played a modern game which looked stunning, but as soon as a character spoke you began to face-palm at the banality and general awfulness of the dialogue? Maybe you get into a game only to start wondering, "Why am I helping this douche-bag character by playing them?" Worst of all you sit there performing some monotonous random task rendered into perfect life-like graphics until you realize the pay off is just more crappy game-play.

Personally, I thought Zelda 2 was up there w/the ones you mentioned, although I know it is generally seen as the black sheep of the franchise.

[Baloo]

Personally I like classic gaming for the same reason I like classic movies and music from the 80s. I enjoy the genres better. Arcade games, platformers, racing games 2D Fighters, shmups, those kind of games I enjoy in the vein they were made back in the 80s and 90s. These genres today just aren't up to par with what they used to be. Developers and companies aren't the same, markets drop and rise for specific kinds of games, and things overall change. That's not to say I hate games of today as I own a few modern system, I just don't enjoy them as much as the games from back in the day.

And I don't agree with the notion that games are always good or bad 30 days or 30 years later. There are definitely games I enjoyed years ago that I wouldn't think of touching today, like Mario Kart 64, because of how dated the game has become technology wise. 3D Graphics seem to age much worse than 2D graphics, but there are games I wouldn't touch after modern sequels and counterparts have been released that are simply much more fun. But that's just my opinion.

There's no definitive of which is better, classic or modern, it's simply a matter of preference of what games you like, as both are vastly different in how they play. Between length, complexity, genre, etc.

[kafa111]

I think it depends on what you grew up with. I suppose people who didnt play many video games as a child would play modern games rather then classic ones. If you grew up with a nintendo, that is probably why you would say you like nintendo games the best, because you are use to them.
But that's just my opinion

[Zing]

This question is easily answered by simply playing some games from both eras. The design and gameplay is immensely different between the two. Games these days have little challenge, are overproduced, and have far too many non-interactive scenes.

I enjoy games that are games, not movies.

[Mr Smith]

I'm also of the opinion that modern gaming is crap compared to retro gaming. Maybe it's because I'm not as interested as I used to be, but modern games seem to be either Goldeneye or GTA clones or the Sims.

[Eternal Champion]

Sonic Adventure, in that sense is an example of what's wrong with modern gaming. It trades in this rewarding nature and just let's you run, replacing the feeling of accomplishment with sheer spectacle.
You've just described all of modern pop culture: no substance, no subtlety, no creativity, no wit, no restraint, just bludgeon the consumer with spectacle.

[Steven]

Many reasons.

-Nostalgia
-Simplicity (for the most part hit start and play)
-Games didn't necessarily require you to spend 15-20 hours on them. Remember when games had 9 levels and that was that?
-Still holds up well, I'm still able to have fun with it today
-Grew up on SNES, favorite system ever then, favorite now. For life
-You simply stick to what makes you happy and works for you. This is what works for me

[123►Genei-Jin]

Why do people choose classic gaming over modern gaming? I wouldn’t consider myself a “gamer”, I play my NES when I have 15-20 min. to kill because it has nostalgic value and is pretty simple to control (ie only has two buttons).

Because we're humans and are all different?
I grew up playing arcade style games, so that's what I like in games.
I occasionally play a western RPG like DAO or TES, but I don't really like spending hours upon hours reading text, leveling up and collecting items and such.
I'm also really put off by anything attempting to be realistic.


However, it seems that if I was more involved in gaming I’d be playing the new systems because the graphics are better

Beauty is on the eye of the beholder, isn't it? I find far more graphically appealing a game like KOFXIII than SSFIVAE.
Better technology doesn't always mean better graphics, style is just as important as raw power.


and the games seems more complex

Not really, I find most recent games on the easy side. Most of them [adventure and RPGs] are full of pointers and helpers and stuff like that guiding you trough the game.
Back in the day you had 3 options:
1 - solve stuff yourself.
2 - wait for a magazine to publish a guide.
3 - ask your friends and hope they played the game and remember correctly what to do.


, plus you can interact with others on a greater level.

I rather interact with others in real life, be it at an arcade or just using a multi-tap or something like that.
I also hate internet lag with a passion.


So why do people prefer older systems over the new?

I don't really have a preference, as long as I'm having fun, I don't care about the platform nor generation/technology.


The Atari was my first system and I can’t for the life of me figure out why people find those games fun at all.

Again, it's all personal preference, some people like golf, others like soccer, others like bowling, others like racing cars, and so on.

[kedawa]

Modern games in general have too much fluff and filler. I like to actually play games, not just watch them.
So, I tend to only play new games if they're arcade style or concentrate on online multiplayer.

[substantial_snake]

I don't chose one over the other, I love both. :p

My personal definition of Classic and Modern gaming is:

Classic Gamming = Pre-32 bit
Modern Gaming = Post-32 bit
32 bit = Majority Modern, Occasionally Classic


I enjoy the general challenge and feeling of accomplishment you get from a good classic game. That and the games were usually more colorful and in some ways more interesting to look at then modern games. I also like the simplicity in classic games, where in most cases you don't need 20 minutes (at least) of tutorial to explain the mechanics/buttons of the game. There is always the nostalgia factor of enjoying something that you enjoyed as a kid.

I'm most modern games (good FPSs in particular) I really enjoy the feeling of being immersed in whatever situation the game has put me into and good sound design and proper speakers goes a long ways towards that. I enjoy the rise of competitive online multiplayer and a convenient way to play with friends across the world. I also really enjoy the focus on story in a lot of modern games, making games compelling also makes them fun IMO.

Its a short list that is definitely not complete but I enjoy both styles.

[WelcomeToTheNextLevel]

Classic games offer a broader line of fun than modern games only. One who plays modern games only may have 30 games that they love. If they expand their horizons to include classic games, they have 60 games they love.

Also, there are genres that simply no longer exist. The Street Fighter style fighting games are fun, but are few and far between on modern systems. Platformers such as the 8 and 16 bit Mario and Sonic style games are only now making a comeback, and can't hold a candle to the originals. Simple games like Pac Man and Breakout seem to have all but disappeared by the early 2000s. And finally, it's quite fun to collect classic games.

[T2KFreeker]

Hell, question I have is; Why Not Classic Gaming?

The retro gaming circle is a fun one. I've had a blast showing people stuff they hadn't seen before even though the system might be very old. The look of bewilderment on people's faces when they see the sheer amount of games released for the C64 or the Amiga still cracks me up. People look at my Dreamcast collection and had no idea that many games had released for it and I don't even have half the library! Tracking the stuff down and enjoying the games for what they are is half the fun. It's just cool stuff to have around and generally much better than the constant regurgitation's we seem to be stuck with the last few years. The games were just built better back then.

[genesisguy]

I don't understand the idea of modern games being more complex and needing more time to play? I guess load times and cut scenes take more time. But I can sit down with any GTA game and essentially figure it out on my own. Zelda 2 on the NES I still have trouble with to this day.

[Edmond Dantes]

Yeah that's always confused me too. Modern games are, if anything, simpler--or when they're not, they're usually more "cluttered" than complicated.

I mean, is Prince of Persia: Sands of Time really any more complicated than the original Prince of Persia? Essentially its similar gameplay, just more acrobatics and you can rewind time if you mess up.

People of course assume new=different, but a banana is still a banana.

[Emperor Megas]

I don't understand the idea of modern games being more complex and needing more time to play? I guess load times and cut scenes take more time. But I can sit down with any GTA game and essentially figure it out on my own. Zelda 2 on the NES I still have trouble with to this day.Zelda (1 or 2) isn't really a good example of what the majority of games were like BITD though. Even still it's simpler and less time consuming than it's modern counterpart, IMO. Most video games were linear and you could play through them in an hour or less. The average game now-a-days takes double digit hours to complete. Compare Super Mario Bros. to Mario Galaxy. Metal Gear to Metal Gear Solid 4, etc..

[Aussie2B]

Just because you COULD play through those games in an hour or less doesn't mean you would. In fact, I'd say that's one of the highlights of classic games. Once you mastered them, they became very replayable without a huge commitment. But good luck beating Super Mario Bros. on your first attempt. Most classic games took a lot of practice, so they offered both longevity for the initial completion and quick playthroughs later on.

[T2KFreeker]

One of my all time favorite shooters is easily R-Type. Is it a memory game? Sure. Still, it laid down the groundwork for most that followed and is still hard as nails today. Being a huge shooter fan, I usually enjoy the 8 through 32 bit eras the most because the best games, with a few rare occasions, released then. Gradius, Raiden, Salamander, The Star Soldier Series, Thunder Force, the list goes on and on. The platformers were better too for the most part. Great example is Megaman 9 and 10. Capcom went back to the old 8 Bit style because they knew it would work. It did too. The 2D Castlevania games have been notorious for being superior to the 3D games. It is what it is. Turrican, Bonk, Zool, all of this stuff was awesome and still is. If you can play through the Shadow of the Beast games and not be impressed with what they were doing back then, then something is wrong with you. Flashback, amazing title! Speaking of Psygnosis, want to see something amazing, check out Agony on the Amiga. One of the lesser known side scrolling shooters that more people should indulge themselves in. Amazing game for it's time and still awesome now. See, and I didn't even need to bring up Zelda, Mario, or Sonic.

[Doonzmore]

The same reason why people still read Hamlet and To Kill A Mockingbird and watch Citizen Kane in film class. A good game is a good game, as previously stated.


Just because you COULD play through those games in an hour or less doesn't mean you would. In fact, I'd say that's one of the highlights of classic games. Once you mastered them, they became very replayable without a huge commitment. But good luck beating Super Mario Bros. on your first attempt. Most classic games took a lot of practice, so they offered both longevity for the initial completion and quick playthroughs later on.

I pretty much feel the same way. I would much rather play Aladdin on the Genesis than say, Resident Evil 4 (which is one of the few games I played for more than 5 hours at a time, loving every minute of it) just because I know I can sit back and enjoy it in its entirety within 2 hours.

[genesisguy]

Zelda (1 or 2) isn't really a good example of what the majority of games were like BITD though. Even still it's simpler and less time consuming than it's modern counterpart, IMO. Most video games were linear and you could play through them in an hour or less. The average game now-a-days takes double digit hours to complete. Compare Super Mario Bros. to Mario Galaxy. Metal Gear to Metal Gear Solid 4, etc..

Yeah maybe now I can play through Mario 1,2, and three in an hour. Same with Zelda. But that's years after playing and mastering those games. Game guides were much harder to get BITD before the internet. You actually had to sit down and figure out what you were doing. Ever draw your own map to the original Metriod and because you wanted to or thought it was fun, but because Google was not there?

I still stand by original point. I hadn't played any video games from 2000-2008 and when I got a PS2 in 2009 I found there to be a certain level of "hand holding" in games like GTA. I could even level my player up with as many weopons as possible before starting the first mission. All I got in Zelda was a wooden sword... and dang gummit we liked it!!