Games need to be judged based on when they hit the scene

[Anthony1]

One thing that somewhat disturbs me about people getting indoctrinated into retro gaming for the first time, they go back, and check out all the older games for various systems, and sometimes they can really shortchange a certain game, not really understanding when that game first hit the scenes and what kind of impact it had in it's "OWN TIME". One game that really qualifies in this category is Cybermorph for the Atari Jaguar. Most people who first play Cybermorph now, think it's absolute crap. But what people don't realize, is that Cybermorph hit in December 1993. In December 1993, Cybermorph was incredibly impressive material. Does the game have more pop up than Michael Jackson at Disneyland? Heck yes. But in 1993, the go anywhere flying of Cybermorph was absolutely spectacular. I can tell you that I was one of the lucky few people to get a launch Jaguar in 1993, and considering what I had been playing at the time, Cybermorph was a huge leap forward. Yet, people dog this game left and right with no regard.


Y'all need to pay some respect to the time that a game first hit the scenes. Take a game like Virtua Fighter for the Sega Saturn. Was the game glitchy as hell? Yep, but it was also absolutely astonishing for anybody that played it in May of 1995. Or even better for those that got a chance to play it when it first hit Japan.

In a recent thread, somebody slammed Altered Beast for the Genesis, and the only thing I could imagine is that the person never played Altered Beast during it's first 6 months of availability. When Altered Beast first hit, it was pretty shocking to be able to play a game at home, that was so similar to the arcade. It was like the first ever Megadrive game, and it should be judged for the time that it arrived. Games like this, should be compared to the other games of their era. This is why I think it's so important that people check out old school video game mags like EGM and Game Players and Video Games & Computer Entertainment. When you read some of these old classic mags, you get a much better idea of what games were actually available at that time. So you know what other games were also coming out when Altered Beast for the Genny first hit. Then you can respect that game, for at the time being a huge leap forward.




If you think the game sucks now, that's all fine and dandy, but you should pay some respect to the era that it was actually released in. I can't tell you how it pains me to see people bag on games that were quite remarkable in their original release window, but then later on down the road are regarded as pieces of crap.

[Poofta!]

i completely disagree. from what i see, the entire point of retro gaming, is going back and playing great old games that are still fun to play.

not about playing stuff that seems crap today, but was good at one obscure point in time.

at least thats why i play old games: cause they are fun. Now. some of the games i had as a kid i thought were fun as hell, i wouldnt even bother thinking about them today (and i certainly wont buy/collect them).

[j_factor]

I disagree too, but in a different way. I don't think a game should be judged on what impact it has. A great game can have no impact if it falls into obscurity; likewise, a game can have a sizeable impact if it's not so great, or even downright bad (Toshinden anyone?).

I think "it was good in its own time" is generally just a lazy excuse to defend not-so-great games that were impressive in some way and/or popular. A game can do some impressive new gameplay innovation, have amazing graphics, or whathaveyou, and still not be a good game.

Let's look at one of your examples, Altered Beast. I don't think Altered Beast has "aged badly"; I think it was never a good game. You said, "it was pretty shocking to be able to play a game at home, that was so similar to the arcade." That is true, but, in my opinion, they happened to do it with an arcade game that wasn't a good game to begin with. It's a good conversion of a lame game.

As for Virtua Fighter on Saturn, I think you're just flat-out incorrect on that one. It was not "absolutely astonishing" at all -- it was a bad port. Had it been a perfect conversion like it should have been, it would have been impressive. But it was very weak. The graphics took a serious hit from the arcade, and it had significant glitches. Now, if you had said Virtua Fighter 2 for Saturn, I'd agree wholeheartedly -- that was astonishing.

Now, Cybermorph? Well, I like Cybermorph.

[tholly]

i have to agree with anthony

i hate when people "now" criticize games from "then" just because an NES game may not look like a 360 game and may only use a couple buttons as opposed to a huge amount and may not display in HD....

[Milk]

One should compare games to other games of its era, but one should also call a turd a turd. Graphics can be outdated and beautiful. They can be outdated and ugly. It's unfair to rag on a game for being outdated, period, if it's old.

However, if you're playing a game from 1994 that compares badly with the Atari 2600...that's just shit.

[shoes23]

I have to agree too.

My case comes from RBI Baseball (NES). Back in the day it was incredibly thrilling to half a fully-liscensed baseball game (granted only half the teams were included). The ball mechanics (wild foul balls, sky high pop-outs, and hard hit line drives) were spot on compared to it's real counterpart. I still consider the game to be one of the greatest baseball games I've ever played.

Try playing the game with someone that didn't play it when it first came out and you'll hear, "Why is everyone white?", "They all look fat and pudgey", "They don't move their arms when they throw." The fact is that many of the great features that RBI introduced are now standard in many of todays games, causing a lot of disrespect for a great game.

Far too often games of old are based far too heavily on graphics. My suggestion: use your imagination. When I first played Adventure for the Atari VCS, I wasn't a dot moving around the screen; I was a armor-clad knight traversing through dangerous terrains and castles. Games today are so advanced that they lay every little detail out there for you; there is no more filling in the gaps.


In a recent thread, somebody slammed Altered Beast for the Genesis

Blasphemy! I remember my mother having to rip me away from the Genesis kiosk in a local department store because I didn't have buy tokens to play an arcade game.

[Emuaust]

Well there is without a doubt arguments for and against this
type of discussion adn I think that, without trying to sound
elitist, people that where not around in x day to play x game
will never know what impact, or how good a game was for its
time and probably, I wont say have there opinions ignored, but
probably be taken with a little less seriousness.

if a 15 year old comes up to me and starts badmouthing the
SMS I just turn around and say how old where you when the
system and games came out. Oh what wa that you where
still yet to be concieved? oh dear me you really shouldnt comment.

What Im saying is dont let it get to you, as only you know what
you like and what you dont and other peeps opinions shouldnt
realy be all that important to you.


oh and for the record I loved Altered Beast in the Day, still
do now, although not as much.

And I hated Cybermorph back in the day and I still do,
although my opinion comes from someone who was there
and saw that it should not bother you the slightest.


IMO LOL

[Matt-El]

Understanding the impact is what Anthony means. What it meant at the time.

Playability and fun should be the core to Retro game playing, yes, but many titles are misunderstood as to WHY they were/are significant.


Coincidentially, since RBI baseball was brought up, I was thinking about the old atari/intellivision baseball ad. Intellivision games brought something to the public that was visually better at the time compared to atari games that were available.

[shoes23]

Coincidentially, since RBI baseball was brought up, I was thinking about the old atari/intellivision baseball ad. Intellivision games brought something to the public that was visually better at the time compared to atari games that were available.

Yeah Home Run on the Atari was pathetic compared to Intellevision Baseball (although IIRC the Intellevision's first version required two players to play, leaving no solo play mode).

[SkiDragon]

Games should be appreciated relevant to the time they came out, but I would only expect people to play the ones that are still fun.

[j_factor]

Well there is without a doubt arguments for and against this
type of discussion and I think that, without trying to sound
elitist, people that where not around in x day to play x game
will never know what impact, or how good a game was for its
time and probably, I wont say have there opinions ignored, but
probably be taken with a little less seriousness.

See, here's the thing with that though. I'm not old enough to have played Robotron 2084 when it came out; I don't know what impact it had, or how good a game it "was for its time" (whatever that means). But you know what? I fucking love Robotron 2084. So... what does that mean, in terms of all this "you had to have been there"-ness?

[j_factor]

Well there is without a doubt arguments for and against this
type of discussion and I think that, without trying to sound
elitist, people that where not around in x day to play x game
will never know what impact, or how good a game was for its
time and probably, I wont say have there opinions ignored, but
probably be taken with a little less seriousness.

See, here's the thing with that though. I'm not old enough to have played Robotron 2084 when it came out; I don't know what impact it had, or how good a game it "was for its time" (whatever that means). But you know what? I fucking love Robotron 2084. So... what does that mean, in terms of all this "you had to have been there"-ness?

[Anthony1]

Yeah Home Run on the Atari was pathetic compared to Intellevision Baseball



Well, Home Run was definitely primitive. No question. But I can say that me and my brother played that damn game for countless hours. The thing about that game, that was so cool, was the pitching. You can make that ball do some wicked things. You can really fake the other person out dramatically, by slowing down the ball, then speeding it up, and breaking it left and right at the last second, etc, etc. You could really make the other play look foolish. And it was so hard to focus on not falling for the crap pitches. And you outfield was just 3 men running around. Pretty funny. But going back to the topic of judging things in the era that they were released, I can tell you that Home Run was pretty significant. At least for me and my brother it was.

[Emuaust]

You see this is not how i meant it to come out,
what im saying man is that if a person was bagging on X
game from X time, I take very little interest in the arguement,
that is not to say that I atomaticly dismiss everything they say.

So you like older games, well thats cool I also like game older
then I am but I whether I like or hate games before my time
Is slightly irrelovent to an arguement due to the fact nostalgia
can play no part to it.

I did say it didnt mean to sound elitist, I just dont care all that
much if you hate a game I love due to my rose colored glass LOL :D 8-) es

[Aussie2B]

I think just about everyone here will agree that older games need to be looked at with perspective, but since your examples appear to all be graphics-based, that can lead to some troubling scenarios.

First, all the great graphics in the world, no matter how revolutionary at the time, amount to anything if the game design itself is poor. While its historically something to take note of, I couldn't care less that Altered Beast was so similar in appearance to its arcade counterpart because I think the game was crap back then just as it is now. Developers should absolutely NOT be praised for trying to pull the wool over gamers' eyes by hiding poor game design with flasy graphics.

Second, while developers sometimes amazed the public by pulling off new things graphically, it didn't really matter if what they were attempting was still out of the bounds of their capabilities or the capabilities of the hardware because then you just end up with a somewhat impressive yet still unsuccessful product of the developer's vision. A case of being overambitious, if you will. Mother 3 syndrome (although that was overambitious in ways beyond just graphics). In these cases, the developers were usually better off using a tried and true method and doing an excellent job of it than trying something new and only doing it half competent because of limitations.

Third, some retrogamers like to use age as an excuse. Like: "It looks pretty crappy now, but back then it was amazing." First of all, a game with true artistry will NEVER look crappy, but beyond that, you can't make such statements without having a really good perspective on other games of the era because sometimes those graphics looked crappy even back then or artistically failed in some way. This is an argument I've often gotten into with Final Fantasy VII fans. They're convinced that the game was absolutely amazing back then, but I believe that, even for its era, it still failed visually in some areas in comparison to its contemporaries. The squat 3D models with toothpicks for arms were just ill conceived, in my opinion. They were artistically ugly, and I would've found some nice sprites far more appealing.

[smork]

Games should be appreciated relevant to the time they came out, but I would only expect people to play the ones that are still fun.

Hear hear!

I have total appreciation for old gaming goodness as I grew up with a VCS (gotten maybe in 1979?). However, I don't really play it anymore with the exception of a few games as, honestly, most have aged really badly. But for those who didn't grow up in the era it's really difficult to see how awesome it was to be able to play games at home -- as much as some of them weren't very good compared to their arcade counterparts -- when before then Pong was all that was really available to most people.

You just can't say that the VCS or INTV or Colecovision were shit without having been playing them during their natural lifespans. It's easy to bash a PSX or Jag game with no or low textures, jaggy graphics, and an ancient look now without understanding how cool it was to play something in 3D in the first place. (Although FMV was always shitty, don't let anyone tell you otherwise, kids!)

[Cryomancer]

My real problem with this idea is that gaming mags always OVER-rate games upon launch. Or just plain-out hype them. Games that are trash even in their own time are called awesome. That's not so cool.

[Steven]

When I rate games I personally do it looking at the game from its time frame, and how it held up to the competition at around the same time.

I see too many people who rate games based upon today. That's their choice but IMHO not the best way to go about it.

[50TBRD]

I like Infogamer for the fact that they rate the game by todays standards as well as telling you what they rated it back in the day.

i think that a truely great game will stand-up to the test of time when the gamer is a true retro-gamer. I still like Uniracer for SNES because its quick and fun. Mortal Kombat for SNES seem waaaay too slow now but was awesome back in the day. BUT Ultimate MK3 makes up for it. Much quicker, tons of charaters, and an insane amount of hinden features. And I haven't found a game on Vectrex that I didn't like.

I agree with the fact that impact has no basis on enjoyability. Impact is more of a fact and therefore not relavant to someones opinion of the game. If someone thinks that Altered Beast is crappy, so what you and I like it.

I do think that there are games that stunk back then and still stink now. I never saw what people saw in Ecco.

[CosmicMonkey]

Yeah, when it comes to reviewing old games, I think it's important to see both views. It's important to rate the game as it stood on the day it was released, and also as the game stands today.

If the game can still stand by itself and get a good review now, then it's obviously a good game that's stood the test of time.

[zerohero]

I agree,

Its not fair to judge say MGS1 for the PSX graphic wise by todays standards. The technology then is completly different than it was now.

Yes some games stand the test of time, but others where marvels durring their time , and that should be taken into acount always.

[Push Upstairs]

The only problem i really can see with this discussion is that it seems to favor graphics over gameplay.

Games can be fun and look like shit just like games can look great and play like shit.

When looking at games the first thing should be "is it fun? Is it still fun today?"

"Altered Beast" is a game that i own (two copies) and i find the gameplay to be very basic. I understand that the graphics were good for thier day...but the game just doesn't have any long term replayability.

[50TBRD]

Graphics versus gameplay is something that a friend and I go round and round about. I play a lot of old school games for the gameplay. He can't play them because of the graphics no matter what the game play is like. Its something that new gamers a lot of times can't get. But then again, they don't have to. They weren't around when they came out and weren't in awe of these games when they were released and that awe doesn't drive the continued love for those games. I am referring in this case to games that have good game play and do stand the test of time.

[klausien]

What is all comes down to is what kind of gamer you are. If you are a historian of any kind, be it someone who focuses on graphics (like Anthony1) or are interested in the evolution of a particular genre, etc., you are more prone to be a bit more objective about a dated gaming experience. Ouside of being a collector, this is why one would gather all of the different versions of SFII or KOF and give them a runthrough.

On the other hand, if you lack the perspective of someone who was "there" or compare retro titles too heavily with current games, it is easier to be overly critical. Altered Beast, as outlined above, is probably the best example of this. The fact that a two player simultaneous port of an arcade game was that close to the source material was a huge step at the time. Think about the NES TMNT 2:The Arcade Game. It was, and still is, quite fun, but it is a pale shade of the original.

There is a general lack of respect for classic forms of gameplay out there in both the mainstream gaming press and gaming public at large. (Rant) Take the review of Street Fighter Alpha Anthology in the current Game Informer for instance. It is just a paragraph in a sidebar (which is acceptable as it is a comp) and even admits to being the cliche "fans of the series will like this" review. Rather than talk about things potential buyers would be interested in, such as how the ports turned out, we are fed a line of BS that says nothing about how good or bad the game is. Frustrating. I'm not expecting a 4-page spread on a fast becoming ancient series, but give me some substance and a reason for that 7.5. What do a bunch of knucleheads from Minnesota know about good video games anyway? Go waste your time on the new Madden and tell me how it is so innovative and incredible as it retreads the same ground of American Football for the umpteenth time. Talk about dated gameplay... (Rant over)

Simplistic control methods, like those in 2D beat 'em ups and shmups garner the criticism "lack of innovation" and "repetitive", as well as the old "too short", which really strikes a nerve with me. None of these things make a game bad. Poor design and bad controls are real problems, not length and simplicity. This a dead horse though, so I will cut myself off here.

I agree with Anthony1. Games need to be viewed within their era much like movies. Think about it this way. Father's Day weekend is James Bond marathon time. Almost everyone feels that Connery is the best Bond. All of the classic Bond movies have grossly outdated special effects and concepts for computers. Does it make them worse today than they were in the 60's because they seem just that much more implausible? Yes, a bad movie is a bad movie, just like a bad game is a bad game, but an outdated game or movie is not necessarily a bad one. Some age better than others, but they don't get worse unless they were and always have been overrated.

[7th lutz]

From a graphics stand point some the graphicial masterpieces were not respected back then even. I didn't see anyone praising the game Rise of the Robots for having great graphics when it did. I didn't play that stinker, but game magazines hyped Rise of the Robots because of its great graphics and some game magazines gave it the worst game of the year award.

When I play a game from a historic stand point comparing it to other games in the era is correct. I am one of the people who has an easy to play games from an older era with me getting my start with playing 2600 and 7800 games, when it wasn't the "in" thing to do.

As far as giving respect to older games, the game player has to look at gameplay first, graphics 2nd.

Part of the problem right now is looking at games at what they were at the time now for the first time is gameplayers starting out today don't have a clue how respected games were and don't have a clue how gaming was.

Gamefaqs is a perfect example of this. I remembered a act like 1985 thread for games there and they didn't have a clue. People won't acting like a fanboy about the intellivsion or the 2600 that year as posters claimed. They want to know when if videogames were dying in the console market, or people were into computers for most of the year untill the nes came. Gamefaqs has the right age bracket for a good amount of gamers that are looking at graphics only and or don't get their fact correct.

[Sweater Fish Deluxe]

Oh no, this argument is flawed form the beginning because the example given is Cybermorph. That not only is today--but was in 1993 a plain horrible game. Well, maybe I can't speak for 1993 since I only got my Jaguar in 1994, but I know that I was immensely disappointed with that game. I was so ashamed of Cybermorph that when I showed of my fancy 64-it Jaguar to friends I hid that pile of feces under my bed. It was so bad that, by comparison, Club Drive and Trevor McFur seemed great, which I can only assume was Atari's plan in making it the pack-in.

Anyway, as others have said, this argument is also flawed because the only reason a game would have seemed better in its own day than it does today is if the person rating it focusing on the looks rather than the gameplay. A well made game will always be fun no matter the era and no matter what other games you compare it to. A game that relies on graphics, flash or or some other weak gimmic might seem great for a while, but time exposes it for what it is (which isn't always a bad game, many a-time a flashy game has turned out to be truly fun even after the shine wears off).

As for appreciating a game relative to the time it came it, I can't appreciate a game that's not fun, no matter when it came out.


...word is bondage...

[Anthony1]

Oh no, this argument is flawed form the beginning because the example given is Cybermorph. That not only is today--but was in 1993 a plain horrible game. Well, maybe I can't speak for 1993 since I only got my Jaguar in 1994, but I know that I was immensely disappointed with that game. I was so ashamed of Cybermorph that when I showed of my fancy 64-it Jaguar to friends I hid that pile of feces under my bed. It was so bad that, by comparison, Club Drive and Trevor McFur seemed great, which I can only assume was Atari's plan in making it the pack-in.


Obviously, everybody has their own opinion on things. You feel that Cybermorph not only sucks now, but even sucked back then. I personally disagree in a major way. I think Cybermorph is pimp right now, and I think it was sweet as hell back then. The problem with Cybermorph, is that it wasn't exactly the game that people thought it was. People thought it was going to be some kind of space shooter action game, and it really wasn't that. People thought that the worlds would be super detailed, but they were incredibly plain and sparse.

Cybermorph is basically kinda a puzzle game. You have to find the pods, and retrieve them all, before your ship is blown away. It's not really a action blasting game. So for some it was incredibly slow and deliberate, and they just couldn't get into the whole collecting the pods thing. And the other part of it was that they were dissapointed with the worlds in which they were exploring. They expected more detailed worlds, and not these sparse worlds in pastel colors and such. But the thing is, to be able to have the free roaming world that Cybermorph was, the go anywhere gameplay, they had to sacrifice detail in the game world. They also had to suffer extreme pop up. I'm talking pop up like you've never seen. One way to alleviate some of the ridiculous pop up, is by flying your ship closer to the surface. The pop up isn't quite as bad when you ship is as close to the surface as possible. But regarding the pop up, who fucking cares? This is December 1993 people. I mean, when did Starfox come out? Was Starfox a complete free roaming go anywhere game? Hell no. So show some damn respect when Attention To Detail crafts a masterpiece. It's a masterpiece, in it's simplicity. Sure, it wasn't the end all be all game that people were hoping it would be, it's more of a simple puzzle game. Nothing more, nothing less. But the go anywhere, free roaming flying was pretty damn pimp in December of 1993. And if anybody feels it's crap, it's just because their tastes aren't as good as mine LOL

[kainemaxwell]

I think just about everyone here will agree that older games need to be looked at with perspective, but since your examples appear to all be graphics-based, that can lead to some troubling scenarios.

First, all the great graphics in the world, no matter how revolutionary at the time, amount to anything if the game design itself is poor. While its historically something to take note of, I couldn't care less that Altered Beast was so similar in appearance to its arcade counterpart because I think the game was crap back then just as it is now. Developers should absolutely NOT be praised for trying to pull the wool over gamers' eyes by hiding poor game design with flasy graphics.

Second, while developers sometimes amazed the public by pulling off new things graphically, it didn't really matter if what they were attempting was still out of the bounds of their capabilities or the capabilities of the hardware because then you just end up with a somewhat impressive yet still unsuccessful product of the developer's vision. A case of being overambitious, if you will. Mother 3 syndrome (although that was overambitious in ways beyond just graphics). In these cases, the developers were usually better off using a tried and true method and doing an excellent job of it than trying something new and only doing it half competent because of limitations.

Third, some retrogamers like to use age as an excuse. Like: "It looks pretty crappy now, but back then it was amazing." First of all, a game with true artistry will NEVER look crappy, but beyond that, you can't make such statements without having a really good perspective on other games of the era because sometimes those graphics looked crappy even back then or artistically failed in some way. This is an argument I've often gotten into with Final Fantasy VII fans. They're convinced that the game was absolutely amazing back then, but I believe that, even for its era, it still failed visually in some areas in comparison to its contemporaries. The squat 3D models with toothpicks for arms were just ill conceived, in my opinion. They were artistically ugly, and I would've found some nice sprites far more appealing.
As I was typing my reply I saw yours. You pretty much stated what I was gonna say. Good call.

[j_factor]

a game with true artistry will NEVER look crappy

Quoted for truth. Although I suppose really really old games like the original Odyssey are exempted from this. But my point being, many old games still look good today. Even after having seen the most advanced FMVs of new games, I still like the look of Out of this World's primitive cutscenes. I still think the original Panzer Dragoon is damn pretty.


This is an argument I've often gotten into with Final Fantasy VII fans. They're convinced that the game was absolutely amazing back then, but I believe that, even for its era, it still failed visually in some areas in comparison to its contemporaries. The squat 3D models with toothpicks for arms were just ill conceived, in my opinion. They were artistically ugly, and I would've found some nice sprites far more appealing.

I agree, FF7 sucked in terms of character graphics. When you get to the last part of the game, the models improve drastically. While I guess the intent was to "wow" the player even further, I felt cheated even more, knowing they were capable of decent models all along.

I've gotten into the same argument myself with FF7 fans. I no longer bother with the argument, but I actually did convince a couple people that they were wrong, simply by showing a comparison of Cloud's model with a bunch of games from the previous year -- even Fade to Black's main character model was better.

[sabre2922]

WOW

for the second time I actually agree with Anthony 1...for the most part ;)

As an OLD OLDSCHOOL gamer I have to admit that it is sometimes difficult to seperate what once WAS a great game to WHAT STILL IS A GREAT VIDEO GAME.

I go back a loooong way as far as being a video game geek, but not as far back as a select few revered members here (hey thats why I love this forum so much ;) ).

I started out in the old atari2600 days and remember mostly the glory days of the NES and the dark dingy arcades of the 80s and 90s.

That being stated, I find that many of the most basic and still playable/enjoyable classic video games that stand up even to todays scrutiny have ONE thing in common and that is GAMEPLAY.

The many classic games that are still as great to play today as they were all those many years ago have that one thing in common GREAT GAMEPLAY and overall FUN and ACCESIBILTY to anyone that cares to put more than a few minutes of thier life into said game.

Hell yes Robotron,SuperMario Bros,Tetris,Tempest,Pacman and Galaga still play great today and even make many of the next-gen graphic powerhouses look like (and more importantly) FEEL like a waste of processing power!

Why? its all in the gameplay baby and
GREAT GAMEPLAY IS TIMELESS

[BydoEmpire]

There's also a big difference between the ART and the GRAPHICS. 8-bit graphics may not hold up, but good art is good art regardless how its implemented. I replayed the original Phantasy Star on the GBA a few years ago and the art really held up well. I've been playing a ton of Demon Attack lately, too, and the art in that game is realy cool, as simple as its implementation happens to be. The movement of the Demons, the distinction between the lasers and the clusters of bombs, the variety and design of the demons. I can understand how a teenager today wouldn't be "impressed" with it. But I think they should *appreciate* what it was when it was released. And if the gameplay is good, I think any game would be kindly judged twenty+ years after its release.

I've thought about this a lot for music as well. For example, I'm not a huge Clapton fan. But I can appreciate what he did WHEN he did it. There are lots of other blues/rock guitarists I like a whole lot better, but I can appreciate the fact that Cream was pretty revolutionary for its time.

[Nature Boy]

I can't tell you how it pains me to see people bag on games that were quite remarkable in their original release window, but then later on down the road are regarded as pieces of crap.

I couldn't disagree with this more. I think it's ridiculous to attempt to *force* someone to have the 'right' opinion on something.

There *is* no right opinion, and the only ones who think such a think exists are snobs. I like what I like, you like what you like, and the world continues to spin.

[kirin jensen]

Well.


I think there's place for appreciating a game for its time, and then there's blind love so often demonstrated by that strange zombie cadre that love any game they played 'back in the day'.

The Video Game Critic (as an example) trashes O2 Football, but gives Atari's football a pass because he played lots 'back in the day'. Now I'm sorry, O2 football is no great shakes; but there's no getting around Atari's football being an utter piece of shit - then and now.

I've seen people say "2600 Pac-man's pretty good - I played it lots 'back in the day'". No joke. There's a poll at Atari Age for the top 100 2600 games and more than one person put Pac-man on their top 10 list. It's enough make your brain melt. Strangely, many of these folks never miss an opportunity to dis the O2 - which had a damn good Pac-man clone.

So, put it this way: There are games that are revolutionary that deserve some respect for when they came out, But some are just pieces of shit, then and now.

[7th lutz]

Well.


I think there's place for appreciating a game for its time, and then there's blind love so often demonstrated by that strange zombie cadre that love any game they played 'back in the day'.

The Video Game Critic (as an example) trashes O2 Football, but gives Atari's football a pass because he played lots 'back in the day'. Now I'm sorry, O2 football is no great shakes; but there's no getting around Atari's football being an utter piece of shit - then and now.

I've seen people say "2600 Pac-man's pretty good - I played it lots 'back in the day'". No joke. There's a poll at Atari Age for the top 100 2600 games and more than one person put Pac-man on their top 10 list. It's enough make your brain melt. Strangely, many of these folks never miss an opportunity to dis the O2 - which had a damn good Pac-man clone.

So, put it this way: There are games that are revolutionary that deserve some respect for when they came out, But some are just pieces of shit, then and now.

Pac-man is not really a bad game if it wasn't an attempt on a arcade port and wasn't called pac-man. That game as an arcade port can be compared to defender. Booth were bad. As far pac-man being on atariage's atari 2600 games all time list, it is possible since there people like e.t also. There some games that I felt were worse that pac-man and one of them was e.t. On my worst 25 games alltime that that sent I emailed for the worst 100 games, I put Pac-man 15th. You are right about games being crap then and now.

[Anthony1]

[quote] I like what I like, you like what you like, and the world continues to spin.



word skip.



I agree with this.

[idrougge]

Most people who first play Cybermorph now, think it's absolute crap. But what people don't realize, is that Cybermorph hit in December 1993. In December 1993, Cybermorph was incredibly impressive material.

No, it wasn't. I admit that I didn't play Cybermorph until last year, but I did play games in December 1993. Cybermorph is underwhelming.
Why? It's not for the gourad-shaded landscapes, which look all right for December 1993. It's for the haphazard game design and the abysmal production values. The still graphics are symptomatic for Atari, who never seemed concerned with spit and polish when it came to graphics or sound. The sound is similarly kitschy.
Yes, Cybermorph has decent 3D graphics, but they're trapped inside an environment designed as an afterthought. It's like playing a tech-demo; somewhat impressive for technological provess but ultimately thrown together as a foretaste of something much better. It displays potential, but that is wasted potential.

The best-selling game of December 1993 was Frontier: Elite II. It had been five years in development, and many players were probably underwhelmed by its drab still graphics and spartan sound. But it was saved by virtue of the central game concept. The game concept of Elite is timeless and unique, whereas the concept of Cybermorph (even the name is kitsch!) was not even one percent of Elite, and seemed like an afterthought just like the rest of the game.

What will we have next? Someone claiming that Oscar for the CD32 was a great pack-in title "for its time"?

[NeoZeedeater]

I played Cybermorph when it came out and it was never a good game. ;)

I agree with Anthony1 about games being judged at how good they were at the time though. It bugs me when someone plays an amazing game twenty years late and they say it sucks. I'm not saying they have to like it but at they should at least learn to appreciate it within the context of when it came out.

[anagrama]

Can't we at least agree that Altered Beast was always crap?

[Steven]

2 examples, please comment with your thoughts

---

Example 1

I reviewed SF II on the SNES recently. At its time (summer of 1992) there's no doubt in my mind I'd rate it 10/10.

However, during this review I felt like NOT giving it a perfect score. Instead I rated it 9.5/10 and I even stated in my review "I can't quite give this game a 10, if there is one SF game on SNES deserving of a 10 that would be the almighty SF II Turbo."

Basically, I reviewed SF II based also with the "today" factor to a certain degree.

Looking back, I would change my score to 10/10 and not let the release of SF II Turbo affect my score of SF II.

----

Example 2

I was reading EGM the other day. They gave Super SF II on SNES an 8, 7, 7 and 6. They all complained about being tired of Capcom's act, that the "average gamer" already has SF II and SF II Turbo, and can only buy 3, 4 games a year. Super SF II is not advanced enough to warrant buying and plopping 75 bucks on.

This review pissed me off back in 1994, and 12 years later it still pisses me off.

I think it's unfair to rate a game based on how many prequels came out on the same system. Rate the damn game based on its own merits. But I understand different people take different factors in account when rating a game. At least these four EGM reviewers acknowledge the reasons behind the low scores.

Me personally -- I think SSF II is a brilliant conversion. It's an awesome 2D fighter -- I wouldn't hesitate to give it a 9-9.5/10. IMO who cares about what was in the past, and the "average gamer" (though I understand EGM's responsibility at the time to their readers) but a 6?!? That's a cry of injustice IMO. They even slammed GameFan for giving the game mid to high 90 scores. I slide with GameFan here -- SNES SSFII deserved those high scores it is an AMAZING port and 2D fighter, in general!


Any thoughts on either of these 2 examples given? I'm interested in hearing from others on these examples here.

[jajaja]

I agree, but it doesnt bother me that much. If people say "damn that NES game got bad gfx" just because its old i usualy ask "compared to what?". If you experienced the games when they were new you will have a diffrent opinion than people who first try the game 20 years later.

When i tried Mega Man Legends for PSX again not long ago i was suprised how bad it actually looked hehe. I did play it when it was new, then it was fairly good.

[smokehouse]

I tend to use a dual rating system. One rating or how the title played/looked and the significance at release and the other for how well it has held up over the ages.

Some games are still amazing to play today:
Super Mario series (1,2,3,World)
Sonic titles (1,2)
Castlevania titles (1, Simon’s Quest, III, IV, Bloodlines, RoB, SotN)
Contra titles (Contra, Super C, Contra III, Hard Corps)

Some aren’t
NES Final Fantasy I (good game in 1990, to old to play the original in 2006)
Some N64 titles (Some look SO bad now that they are hard to play)
Some PS1 titles (again, some look SO bad that they are hard to play)


For it’s time Final fantasy was a HUGE title. Today it’s starting to show its age. For me to sit down and play it today, I remember what it was but realize how old/outdated it is today. For some 16 year old to sit down and play it is a completely different thing. To him/her it would just look like some lame old RPG. Thus the two rating system I would rate the original Final Fantasy as such:

Final Fantasy (NES)
9.5/10 (at launch)
5.5/10 (currently)

The funny thing is that there are new gems around now, a new system of rating. How have they held up over the years? Like I stated above Super Mario World is just as much fun in 2006 as it was in 1991. For a game that’s pretty amazing in my book. When it was re-released for the GBA a few years back it sold well again proving that it still fun to play. To me this is another level of achievement that is completely different from what impact the game had at launch.

[Nature Boy]

It bugs me when someone plays an amazing game twenty years late and they say it sucks.

Just like it probably bugs you now when you play a new, amazing game and someone else says it sucks?

Getting upset over how someone else thinks of a game is kinda silly, isn't it? Everybody's perception is different, and whose to say it wouldn't have been different 20 years ago too?

Opinions differ. I think Katamari Damacy is an overrated pile of excrement (and yes, I've played it). Many people on this here site would *violently* disagree. So, 20 years from now, are opinions going to change? Absolutely. Some that hate it might appreciate it more, some who love it might finally see it as garbage, but in the end the opinions will still differ.

[Zigfried]

One big problem with saying "only compare games to when they were released" is that no one has the experience to properly do so.

[j_factor]

NES Final Fantasy I (good game in 1990, to old to play the original in 2006)
...
For it’s time Final fantasy was a HUGE title. Today it’s starting to show its age. For me to sit down and play it today, I remember what it was but realize how old/outdated it is today.

I disagree. I think Final Fantasy (1) sucked to begin with, and was already outdated when it came out in 1990. Compared to Phantasy Star II, which came out a year earlier, Final Fantasy is extremely passé. Even comparing it strictly to other 8-bit RPGs, Final Fantasy is rather weak compared to Crystalis, Phantasy Star, Miracle Warriors, Pool of Radiance, Ultima IV, Pirates!, etc. etc.

[smokehouse]

NES Final Fantasy I (good game in 1990, to old to play the original in 2006)
...
For it’s time Final fantasy was a HUGE title. Today it’s starting to show its age. For me to sit down and play it today, I remember what it was but realize how old/outdated it is today.

I disagree. I think Final Fantasy (1) sucked to begin with, and was already outdated when it came out in 1990. Compared to Phantasy Star II, which came out a year earlier, Final Fantasy is extremely passé. Even comparing it strictly to other 8-bit RPGs, Final Fantasy is rather weak compared to Crystalis, Phantasy Star, Miracle Warriors, Pool of Radiance, Ultima IV, Pirates!, etc. etc.

I was an NES player, not a Master System player or a Genesis player. My friends were NES players and Final Fantasy was the first real NES RPG we had ever played. I had played other RPG's on other systems but to me and most of my friends. FF 1 blew the RPG would open for us. Again, personal experience.

Although the games you mentioned are decent RPG’s (I’m not much of a Phantasy Star fan though), you can’t deny the fact that FF 1 was the start of something huge in the gaming world.

[j_factor]

NES Final Fantasy I (good game in 1990, to old to play the original in 2006)
...
For it’s time Final fantasy was a HUGE title. Today it’s starting to show its age. For me to sit down and play it today, I remember what it was but realize how old/outdated it is today.

I disagree. I think Final Fantasy (1) sucked to begin with, and was already outdated when it came out in 1990. Compared to Phantasy Star II, which came out a year earlier, Final Fantasy is extremely passé. Even comparing it strictly to other 8-bit RPGs, Final Fantasy is rather weak compared to Crystalis, Phantasy Star, Miracle Warriors, Pool of Radiance, Ultima IV, Pirates!, etc. etc.

I was an NES player, not a Master System player or a Genesis player. My friends were NES players and Final Fantasy was the first real NES RPG we had ever played. I had played other RPG's on other systems but to me and most of my friends. FF 1 blew the RPG would open for us. Again, personal experience.

Well then I would say that you only had such high regard of Final Fantasy at the time because you had your own little window of gaming. If your first RPG had instead been Dragon Warrior or The Bard's Tale or something, your opinion of that game would be what your opinion of Final Fantasy is.

I conclude that Final Fantasy wasn't great in its time; rather, it was great for you at that point in your life.

[CosmicMonkey]

It's like comparing King of Fighters '94 to KoF2003.

Yes, the graphics on 2003 are much better than '94, but also the gameplay has also evolved considerably. This doesn't in any way make '94 a crap game. KoF '94 is still an absolutely cracking game, and 2003 is a cracking game too, and the final evolution of the series on Neo hardware.

I used to hate it too when games mags would do say, a Super SF2 review or Mortal Kombat 3 review and mark it down due to the fact it's an 'upgrade'. Same with KoF, Samurai Shodown, Real Bout etc... Yeah they were (highly expensive on AES) yearly updates, but that shouldn't alter the fact of how good the game is and its review score.

A game should be given a fair review, and that means reviewing the gameplay/graphics aside from everything else. Price should never be taken into comparison, nor should the fact that it's the 7th KoF, 12th Street Fighter variation or even the 5th Zelda!

Same with games that don't exactly push the host hardware. ChuChu Rocket isn't exactly taxing on the DC's processor, but does that make the game shit? No.

[Nature Boy]

but that shouldn't alter the fact of how good the game is and its review score.

I disagree and here's why: the 'score' is a reflection of the reviewers opinion, and the reviewer doesn't appreciate games that are too similar to their predecessors. That's exactly what I want out of a score.

Reading game reviews *requires* you to think about how your opinions differ from that of the reviewer, and to adjust your ideas about a given game accordingly. It just doesn't work any other way. I mean, if they had rules about how to score a game, why would we need their input at all? Once I know the rules I could apply 'em myself.

[smokehouse]

NES Final Fantasy I (good game in 1990, to old to play the original in 2006)
...
For it’s time Final fantasy was a HUGE title. Today it’s starting to show its age. For me to sit down and play it today, I remember what it was but realize how old/outdated it is today.

I disagree. I think Final Fantasy (1) sucked to begin with, and was already outdated when it came out in 1990. Compared to Phantasy Star II, which came out a year earlier, Final Fantasy is extremely passé. Even comparing it strictly to other 8-bit RPGs, Final Fantasy is rather weak compared to Crystalis, Phantasy Star, Miracle Warriors, Pool of Radiance, Ultima IV, Pirates!, etc. etc.

I was an NES player, not a Master System player or a Genesis player. My friends were NES players and Final Fantasy was the first real NES RPG we had ever played. I had played other RPG's on other systems but to me and most of my friends. FF 1 blew the RPG would open for us. Again, personal experience.

Well then I would say that you only had such high regard of Final Fantasy at the time because you had your own little window of gaming. If your first RPG had instead been Dragon Warrior or The Bard's Tale or something, your opinion of that game would be what your opinion of Final Fantasy is.

I conclude that Final Fantasy wasn't great in its time; rather, it was great for you at that point in your life.

I had played Dragon Warrior and Zelda long before FF 1 came out. I just don't consider either to be as deep as FF ever was. I've always considered DW 1 to be a "RPG lite". Compared to the length and depth of FF, the original DW is a bit flat.

Like it or not, FF is liked by more people than you think. I'm not going to go into some fanboy shit but the fact that it still sells and has seen 2 other successful releases (on the PS1 and the GBA) makes me think that not everyone thinks it's shitty.

Like I said, this is personal opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Take it for what its worth.