Do Older Games Suck?

[musical]

On planetgamecube's forum I'm having a mini-debate about old vs. new. Obviously I disagree, but I'm not sure how to respond:

I think most "classics" are inherently flawed. Most old games are outdated by now and have been replaced by much superior games by now, their only drawback being lack of nostalgic feelings. Of course an old gamer with nostalgia blinding him won't acknowledge when someone who didn't play the game at a young enough age to create nostalgia tells him his favourite classics suck. Would you rather play Space Invaders or Ikaruga? Metroid or Super Metroid (or Zero Mission, if that makes you happier)?

To me Zelda : Ocarina of Time feels like an MMORPG, something you slug through because you have a feeling you have to do it, but there's just no fun on the way. Your enemy isn't Ganondorf, but frustration, boredom, the camera and the controls. Windwaker just plain PLAYS better than OOT. If it's shorter,so be it, at least it's short and fun as opposed to long and no fun.

How would you respond?

[musical]

My opinion: Strongly disagree. That's because I ignore the graphics. They don't matter. What matters is "Is it fun to play?" I still enjoy Mario 64 because it's a damn fun game! Ditto Super Metroid and Banjo-Kazooie and, yes, even Space Invaders or Pac-Man (I'm a high-score junkie... constantly challenging myself to get higher numbers & improve my skill). The graphics on these games are primitive, but these are ALL fun games.

More fun than say, Mary-Kate & Ashley Visit the Mall. Or the Matrix Sucked.

And no, I don't think Ocarina of Time is a "chore" to complete. Especially the new version released as a Cube bonus disc. It's a masterpiece. Story = 10. Puzzles = 10. Music = 10+ (I still listen to the soundtrack). Characters = 10. Yeah the pixelated textures are primitive, but after an hour of immersion with this masterpiece, it no longer matters.

Ditto with Mario 64, Super Metroid, Space Invaders, Pac-Man. The games are so perfect, so masterful, that they draw you into their worlds despite their age. You still see the pixels, but you cease to care. You're having too much fun!


HIS REPLY:

I think the awesome games of today are superior to the classics of yesteryear. Not every game has been replaced by a better one, but some have been. IMO Super Metroid and Metroid: Zero Mission are both vastly superior to the original Metroid, making it even more aggravating to die because of some flaw in the game. Things like being vulnerable when exiting a room or respawning ith 30 health (why??? To make sure you spend enough time killing random enemies to get some health together and add to your timer, MMO style?).

OOT had flaws like the delayed lock on (I f#ing hate that, I get hurt way too much because of this) or unskippable dialogue (I hate this one, too, but not because it's frustrating, just annoying and in way too many games), which were rectified in Wind Waker. While playing OOT I often wished I had this or that feature of WW at my disposal.

p.S.: Super Mario World was also MUCH better than SMB 3 due to better level design.

[maxlords]

Ocarina is too new to be a "classic". :P

I say no. I dislike most newer game more than the older ones.

[Nez]

I'm more 50/50 myself. Love older games love newer games. But I don't really like the current generation.

[EnemyZero]

Yeah, I'll take older games over anything they can dish out nowadays.

[Nuadha]

Personally, I have bought all of the 3-D Zeldas and not one of them have lived up to the fun of the original. The 3-D Zeldas are often frustrating as you often are left with no clue how to proceed unless you notice the small switch hidden on a ledge above you or some other annoying reason to make you buy a strategy guide. Also, as in many 3D games, you get hit from behind.

Meanwhile, the 2D Zeldas are a joy to play, with their perfect mix of action and puzzles.

My arguments for classic games have been:

New games are much too easy. Old games required a lot of practice to perfect the skills, but these days game manufacturers try to make the games accessible to everyone by making them so easy that anyone can make it through.....although....

Too many new games make objectives to vague so that you need a strategy guide to play them. In classic games, you knew your objective whether it was to get to the end of the level alive or gobble all the the dots, the goal was always in site. Too many games these days require players to check strategy guides and similiar sources as they run into the hidden switch thing that was so common in the recent Zelda games.

2-D games are less of a headache. Whether new or old 2D, the advantage of 2D is that everything you need to see will be on the screen. In 3-D games you have to move the camera up, down and around to look for things and can have enemies hit you when they were in locations you could not see. A few newer games have gotten better about this and 3-D games like Maximo are just starting to recapture some of the magic of classic 2D gaming, but they still have a ways to go until the camera controls are intuitive enough to make games as fun.

Now, I play new games as much as I play classic games, but the one game for my PS2 that I enjoy the most, even more that Grand Theft Auto:VC, has been Activision Anthology. There is a magic to simplicity that some people will never get, but classic gamers like ourselves understand.

[hades]

I was born in 1980 and enjoy playing games that came out before I could even hold a controller in my hands.I don't know where that guy decided there is a "superior" game to classics.

Space Invaders to Ikaruga? I love both games, but they're too different. A good video game is a game you have fun playing. If he doesn't enjoy Zelda: OOT, good for him. It's a good game in my eyes.

New or old, a good game IS a good game.

[Flack]

I like how Super Mario 64 was on the "old game" list.

[Sniderman]

Yeah, here's a list of "old games" that I think suck:

Baseball - invented in the late 1800s.
Basketball - invented in 1891
Football (American) - invented in mid 19th-century
Soccer - organized games played as early as 1890
Golf - invented mid-15th century
Chess - played as early as the 6th century (500 a.d.)

So tell Mister "New is Better" to blow it out of his ass. If a game has staying power, it'll survive forever.

[musical]

From the perspective of the "other guy" anything pre-Cube is old. Which is techically true... Mario 64 = 9 years old is like 100 in videogame years. And he's bashing Ocarina which is a *masterpeice*, but he thinks it's "old".

[captain nintendo]

From the perspective of the "other guy" anything pre-Cube is old. Which is techically true... Mario 64 = 9 years old is like 100 in videogame years. And he's bashing Ocarina which is a *masterpeice*, but he thinks it's "old".

Is the other guy some kid who has a short attention span ?
To say that older games suck is pretty ignorant.

[anagrama]

I like how Super Mario 64 was on the "old game" list.

Yet Super Metroid was used as an example of a newer game

[PentiumMMX]

Zelda 64 pwned!

BTW, Mega Man Legends, Paper Mario, Super Mario 64, and even Duck Hunt still rock!

Edit: Oops! (Fixes the "...Are Still Rock" line)

[tholly]

I'm more 50/50 myself. Love older games love newer games. But I don't really like the current generation.

i guess i would fall into your category on this one...i do love the old stuff, but i do love the new stuff....like anything old or new, there are some real crappers and then there are some gems.....you cant base a whole "era" on everything....there is good and bad in everything

[YoshiM]

Zelda: OoT is considered "old"? Sheesh.

I think gamers who post stuff like what musical had quoted don't seem to know that there's more to it than just the "old" game itself, it's the history behind it. They don't give these oldies credit just because "they are outdated" but never put their brain to work to figure out that without these titles their modern games may not exist. Without Space Invaders raking in the bucks years back, Ikaruga probably wouldn't exist.

From the looks of it the real "beef" this person has is that classic games just don't look as good as today's games. The mention of the Metroid/Zero Mission kinda gives that away. The Wind Waker/OoT comparison made me chuckle as both games are pretty much the same gameplay wise. Other than that there really isn't much of an arguement to back up the claim that "old games suck".

[kainemaxwell]

No way! The technology to make them may be outdated, but as long as you can still enjoy them as much as you did back then, why say they suck?

[brandver3]

This is strickngly similar to a conversation I had a few months ago.

I went into an game store and asked the clerk about how often some of the older games get traded in. His response went something like "not often, which is fine by me. I can't wait to get rid of all the old gabage. People who buy games made before the Playstation are either to poor or to stupid to buy a real video game."

I about smacked him since he called me poor and stupid.

[NYLatenite]

I certainly love both - and in any generation you're going to have games that are amazing and games that suck. Certainly some games can't hold up to the test of time - especially those that are based on something else that couldn't properly be presented due to limitations at the time of it's release.

What makes a game survive for so long that people still play it years later? Gameplay. A classic will always be a classic - A game doesn't need to be the best looking - it needs to be fun, and the classics of old (You know the games and I'm sure everyone here has their favorites) were designed with just that in mind.

Two things I often find lacking in many of todays games are;

1.) The "Pick up and play factor" - Sometimes you don't want to spend a few hours just learning the ins and outs of a game.

2.) High Scores and scores in general - There's just something added to a game when you can play it over and over again just to try and beat your score or someone elses.

[Azazel]

I personally can't stand Ikuraga. I'd take Space Invader and 99% of all shooters over it. If he compared it to something like Battle Garegga it would be completely different story. Although I'm sure from his point of view Battle Garegga is a old game.

I don't know if I would prefer the orignial Metroid but I found it much more enjoyable than either Super Metroid or Zero Mission. I blew through the later 2 games in about a day or 2 where as the original took me many months to complete it for the first time.

[slip81]

I'd say it all depends on the game, and I can see where this guy may be coming from. Most classic games are twitchers, or run n' gun platformers and not much else, where the majority of the games now tend to be more about story and characters over mindlessly blasting through a level destroying everything in sight. Although you have games like FF6 that blow (IMO) every next gen FF out of the water in every way, and yeah all the 2D Castlevania's are way better than the 3D ones. But I can't really say which era I like more, I suppose I have a nostalgic connection to the classics, but I will enjoy even the newest PS2 blockbuster if it's a genuinally good game, though I tend to have more fun with my NES over PS2 mainly cause the games are just pick up and play fun. If I want a quest I'll reach for my next gen controllers, if I want good old fashined fun I'm heading for the oldies.