Topic: Do Older Games Suck?

[kennyb27]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smashman
This whole topic was sparked by the ignorant, moronic KDR_11k's posts. He, evidently, has no taste in classic video games, and sasses them, shamelessly. He feels old games are inferior, just by age? He hates OoT? I believe him to be on some mind-altering drug.

Nice job attacking him, instead of his posts.

[Smashman]

Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodeler
In another thread, KDR_11k posted:

Quote
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  Most old games are outdated by now and have been replaced by much superior games by now, their only drawback being lack of nostalgic feelings.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)?

Lemme break it down one at a time. He says he thinks most classics are flawed... How? Old games... outdated? I think not. They still have that same classic gameplay. This post is completely off-the-mark. Nostalgia blinding? The old games are considered masterpieces because that is exactly what they are... masterpieces... no nostalgia involved. You, sir, have no right to sass off like that, and you need to grasp true quality games, no matter if they made now or a thousand years ago. PS... I'm sure anyone who has actually played OoT knows it is one of the best games of all-time. It DID NOT feel like a chore. Let me tell you, the Triforce shard collecting in tWW was the biggest chore in ANY of the Zelda games. NOTHING in OoT felt like a chore. The main quest was the greatest experience in any video game, of all-time, IMO. WW's was good as well, but it felt very empty and had flaws. You also said you don't like because of the camera and controls... What's next? Saying you don't like LTTP because you can't figure out how to choose an item?!?!? Please... OoT's controls were natural to get used to.

There, I flamed his posts, instead of him. I'm sorry, KDR_11k, but please stop playing video games and come back when you can learn to appreciate the classics.

[Syl]

Quote
A game that was good, will always be good. Whether or not a game improves on it does not make the older game suck, the newer game as just progressed. You have to play a game in the context of it's time, just like when you read a book. A book may be dated, but that does not mean it sucks. The language may have been changed to suit the tastes of the newest generation, but a good book is a good book. A video game is the same way. If it was good, it will always be good.

I disagree with that, my view of "fun" or "good" should not require me to dumb down my expectations.   Some games stand the test of time, others do not.  Same with books, same with movies, same with everything.  

This is why i dislike link to the past, it does not compare to any zelda game released afterward, I know those games couldn't have been without it leading the way, but it feels old and boring in comparison to the Gameboy zelda titles,  I enjoyed the oracle series, I loved links awakening, I loved OOT and espicially majoras mask.. But i did not like link to the past, because it just felt old and used.

Super Metroid, however, is the opposite, It stood the test of time well, even though it is inferior to the latest games in certain ways.  (Clumsier controls, no gripping on ledges, worse graphics, boss fights (compared to fusion) though it definately trumps then in gameplay, atmosphere and music.   Super Metroid is still #3 on my favorite games of all time, right behind another SNES classic: Yoshi's Island (which is just so fun!) and my favorite game of all time, Metroid Prime.

I watch a decent amount of movies, and i'm currently taking a Movie History class, We started with chaplin stuff... Which i found somewhat boring and uninspired, then we worked on that StoneFace guy and a movie involving a train, which i'm finding to be incredibly enjoyable despite the fact that its silent, was created in the 1920s, and the quality is horrible.   Some other "classic" movies are appalling to me, and so are quite a few of recent movies, despite the source material or technology.

I also read a rather large amount of books (mainly science fiction/fantasy), yet my favorite books happened to have been written back in the 1950's, and they easily compare to the stuff written recently.  Frank Herbert, Isaac Asimov, Douglas Adams, they are my 3 favorite authors at this point, despite how "old" the literature is.  I have yet to read a single book predating 1900's that i really enjoyed, "classics" such as Tom Huck and Great Expectations were just horribly written and not good books in my mind.  Even the newer books i've read, terry jones, Timothy Zahn, J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, Michael Chrichton.  While all great authors, still don't compare to my favorite books.  

I personally dislike a very large majority of NES games, the technology at the time was just too primitive for me.  I could care less for the graphics, but they are generally FILLED with collision detection errors and many other issues (such as balance).   The only thing stopping me from beating Legend of Zelda isn't the game, its the problems with it.  That, and i know that it just wouldn't compare the sequels, which were made to improve upon it.  
Tetris, with its simplicity, has never gotten old to me, because the technology at the time did everything it needed to do, and trying to complicate the game has made it worse.   This is another game that has stood the test of time, along with stuff like Mario Bros and some other old titles, they stood the test of time because i can still enjoy them without having to expect a less enjoyable game than current ones.  

[Smashman]

Syl- I can understand you very well. I can understand how come may dislike LTTP, but it doesn't mean it is any less great as a whole. I just wish it was like OoT (having three c-button for item uses). However, just because something is dated, does not mean it still does not possess the same classic gameplay.

I think GCN is the greatest system of all-time, right alongside SNES

[SgtShiversBen]

I agree with Syl in many aspects.  Except about the movie genre.  I think they're are great ways to make a movie.  I see the Passion of the Christ going down in history because it is an ambitious movie.  Sure it's violent and everything, but it's something that people have been wanting done.  Movies, in order to be great and stand the test of time, should not be dated.  They should make you wonder when it was.  Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of these.  It is great because they are the ones who made the cheesy horror genre that didn't use special effects of historical accuracy to convey the story.  Another one is the authors.  One of the greatest authors I think has got to be Bret Easton Ellis.  His way that he describes people emotions and actions is just unprecedented.  The way he also made you seem you were inside the person's head in American Psycho.  He would have to be up there, even better so that books that predate the 1600s (like Galileo's findings or Brache).  Games that are "Classics" don't feel that great because of the fact that they don't play that well.  They have horrible ways of playing and just aren't that great.  It's me I know, but that's what I like and that's my opinion.  

[RCmodeler]

You don't like Charlie Chaplin?  Hmmm.  Well I don't like his shorts, but his movies like Gold Rush are hilarious.  The first time I saw Gold Rush, I fell off my chair from laughing so hard.

I can understand how someone might not like Zelda 1.  It is kinda slow-paced.  That was okay for the "silent era" of the 80s with virtually no dialogue and no story, just pure game, but we've come to expect more.  We want game to play, but also a story to motivate us to push forward.  But Mario 1/2/3?  How can you not like that?  It has the same running & jumping & bash the boss goodness as Mario 64 or Sunshine.   Ditto Super Metroid... it has all the same stuff (explore, collect, solve) as Prime has.  Just presented in third-person.



And how can you say Wind Waker plays great, but Ocarina does not???  The controls are virtually identical.  The goal is the same (solve puzzles in dungeons).  The only real difference is (a) difficulty and (b) story, and Ocarina is better in both aspects.  So the only conceivable reason I can think for saying Ocarina sucks, is just because it's low-resolution.  Which in my opinion is a very lame way to judge the game.  Ignore the graphics, and focus on the game,and you'll find Ocarina is virtually the same as Wind Waker.  



BTW, my favorite F inal Fantasy?  No, not the one that is borderline soft porn (FF10-2...although it was fun to play).  It's the "primitive and sucky" FF6-Japan/FF3-U.S.  Best battles.  Best characters.  Best story (and no it's not a happy ending...the world gets trashed).  Unfortunately many of you will never experience this great game, just because you refuse to look beyond the shallow surface of pixelated graphics to find the treasure hiding within.



 

[CHEN]

Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodeler
BTW, my favorite F inal Fantasy?  No, not the one that is borderline soft porn (FF10-2...although it was fun to play).  It's the "primitive and sucky" FF6-Japan/FF3-U.S.  Best battles.  Best characters.  Best story (and no it's not a happy ending...the world gets trashed).  Unfortunately many of you will never experience this great game, just because you refuse to look beyond the shallow surface of pixelated graphics to find the treasure hiding within.

This man speaks the truth. Well, except for that 'holier than thou' last line. This won't end well...

[RCmodeler]

Sorry.  I get frustrated easily.  Replace "many of you will never experience this great game, just because you refuse to look beyond the shallow surface of pixelated graphics to find the treasure hiding within.
"
with

"KDR_11k will never experience......"

[Syl]

Quote
Originally posted by: RCmodeler
You don't like Charlie Chaplin?  Hmmm.  Well I don't like his shorts, but his movies like Gold Rush are hilarious.  The first time I saw Gold Rush, I fell off my chair from laughing so hard.

To be honest, i only have seen his shorts.

Quote
I can understand how someone might not like Zelda 1.  It is kinda slow-paced.  That was okay for the "silent era" of the 80s with virtually no dialogue and no story, just pure game, but we've come to expect more.  We want game to play, but also a story to motivate us to push forward.  But Mario 1/2/3?  How can you not like that?  It has the same running & jumping & bash the boss goodness as Mario 64 or Sunshine.   Ditto Super Metroid... it has all the same stuff (explore, collect, solve) as Prime has.  Just presented in third-person.

I also specifically stated that the original mario titles DID stand the test of time, along with tetris.  I love the games.

Quote
BTW, my favorite F inal Fantasy?  No, not the one that is borderline soft porn (FF10-2...although it was fun to play).  It's the "primitive and sucky" FF6-Japan/FF3-U.S.  Best battles.  Best characters.  Best story (and no it's not a happy ending...the world gets trashed).  Unfortunately many of you will never experience this great game, just because you refuse to look beyond the shallow surface of pixelated graphics to find the treasure hiding within.

Though this wasn't directed at me, I'm just not a big fan of the FF games, only ones i own are the SNES titles (2 and 3 AKA 4j and 6j)  and though i've played FF 4-10, not a single one is anywhere near the top of my fave RPG list.

of course, my top 3 RPG's happen to be Skies of Arcadia, Chrono Trigger, and the recently added Tales of Symphonia.
 

[GoldShadow1]

I think some old games look, feel and play better than some modern games.  Yes, I said *look*.  For example, play Yoshi's Island, and then play Animal Crossing.  The difference is that Yoshi's Island is the pinnacle of 2D graphics, whereas Animal Crossing is primitive 3D.  (don't get me wrong, I love Animal Crossing - but not for its graphics)

[KDR_11k]

For the record, I didn't say anything against either Super Metroid or Mario 64, I used SM as an example of a game superceeding another game (Metroid) and I only played M64 for maybe 5 minutes on a kiosk and have zero oppinion on it.

Without Space Invaders there would be no Ikaruga (which, BTW, I don't hold as a top shmup, but used as an example because people were familiar with it), yes, without monochrome TV there would be no HDTV. I don't think I need to explain that comparison any further.

The point I was trying to make back then was that classic games often aren't as good as we remember them. We remember them in a different context (e.g. first videogame ever seen). If we were to see them for the first time nowadays (with better graphics, if you need that to accept the comparison), with most games, even the "great" ones, we'd say they are bad since we are used to better things nowadays. 3D games didn't necessarily get easier, you got better at playing them. Try returning to some of your ancient classics and see how difficult they seem next to a "hardcore" game (you know, the ones that aren't meant to be played by first timers) these days. Some games hold up nowadays (e.g. Tetris, which was "perfect" from the get-go), some don't (e.g. Metroid, play Metroid and Super Metroid and compare).

[Smashman]

Super Mario 64 and OOT are both, without a doubt, superior to both SMS and WW. Both SMS and WW were both great games, but both felt rushed and short. Super Mario 64 and OOT were both great classics, and both are among the greatest games of all-time. SMS and WW were both missing something. They were missing the essence that made SM64 and OOT the undeniable classics that they are. SMS had no variety in level design, 7 worlds as opposed to SM64's 15. It was a great, fun game, but not quite a classic as I thought it was below Nintendo's standards. WW was rushed, as it had too few dungeons, the whole world felt bland, and sailing just got tedious. OoT had many, many places, from castles, to mountains, to lakes, to forests, to deserts, to villages, to rivers. It had 9 superb dungeons. WW had... two somewhat interesting towns (Outset and Windfall), and occasional chunks of land in an overall empty sea. Five barely-decent dungeons, and two joke dungeons (Ganon's Tower and Forsaken Fortress).

You see, it doesn't matter when a game in a series comes out, it doesn't determine the quality. OoT > WW and SM64 > SMS are examples. I still feel WW to be the WORST game in the Zelda series, and OoT the best, followed closely by LTTP. LoZ and AoL are STILL classics in my mind, as is the original Metroid, Mario Bros. Mario Bros. 3. Super Mario Bros. 3 is still the greatest Mario game of all-time. It had so much variety in the items, suits, etc. You -CANNOT- compare Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario 64, or even Super Mario World to it. Super Mario World was MUCH shorter than SMB3, and was MUCH easier. In fact, SMB3 was near-impossible in some parts.

My 2 cents.

KDR- The 3D transition of Zelda killed the difficulty. Everyone agrees on that. OoT, MM, and tWW are not really all that difficult, but OoT and MM are still classics, IMHO. LoZ and AoL are STILL difficult, even today. Don't say that just because we get better at video games that that kills the difficulty. That isn't the case. All 3D games, of just about every franchise, just aren't as difficult as the 2D games, regardless of gaming experience.

First, Bill (Aurion) was my nemesis, and now I KDR_11k. Man, I bet everyone will hate me by next year. lol.  

[Bill Aurion]

"OoT, MM, and tWW are not really all that difficult, but OoT and MM are still classics"

NO, NO, NO!  Majora's Mask is NOT a classic! >=(

[CHEN]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
The point I was trying to make back then was that classic games often aren't as good as we remember them. We remember them in a different context (e.g. first videogame ever seen). If we were to see them for the first time nowadays (with better graphics, if you need that to accept the comparison), with most games, even the "great" ones, we'd say they are bad since we are used to better things nowadays. 3D games didn't necessarily get easier, you got better at playing them. Try returning to some of your ancient classics and see how difficult they seem next to a "hardcore" game (you know, the ones that aren't meant to be played by first timers) these days. Some games hold up nowadays (e.g. Tetris, which was "perfect" from the get-go), some don't (e.g. Metroid, play Metroid and Super Metroid and compare).

That's not entirely true. There were the days when I tried to beat Metroid, Legend of Zelda, Adventure of Link, Mega Man 2. It wasn't easy, but I tried anyway and eventually succeeded. When I play them now, I'd just get too frustrated by it and stop playing. The games didn't get more difficult, it's that I've become too spoiled by those '3D' games. And I think it holds up to many people. Of course the difficulty of these games seem 'forced' by the limited hardware (you couldn't shoot diagonal in Metroid), but that's what makes them classics. Super Metroid is better than its predecessor in every possible way and became one of the best games in history, but you shouldn't really compare the two of them.

[ib2kool4u912]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smashman
KDR- The 3D transition of Zelda killed the difficulty. Everyone agrees on that. OoT, MM, and tWW are not really all that difficult, but OoT and MM are still classics, IMHO. LoZ and AoL are STILL difficult, even today. Don't say that just because we get better at video games that that kills the difficulty. That isn't the case. All 3D games, of just about every franchise, just aren't as difficult as the 2D games, regardless of gaming experience.

I don't know about anyone else but to me it felt like ALTTP was easier than Ocarina, or at the most the were around the same in difficulty. It seems to me that 3D didnt kill the difficulty, they just made the series easier after AOL.

[Syl]

Quote
You -CANNOT- compare Super Mario Sunshine, Super Mario 64, or even Super Mario World to it.

Of course i can't compare super mario 64 or SMS to the 2 dimensional mario games, the gameplay is far too different.  Just like  would never compare Yoshi's Island with any other "mario" title, despite how its personally my favorite.

Quote
super Mario World was MUCH shorter than SMB3, and was MUCH easier. In fact, SMB3 was near-impossible in some parts.

Really? thats odd.  I figured Super Mario Worlds at least equal amount of levels, along with *MUCH* longer levels (A level in super mario world is at least 3 or 4x as long as one in SMB3 on average.)  I also found SMW to be far more difficult than anything in SMB3, espicially the Bonus levels (DAMN YOU TUBULAR!) and some of the later levels in bowsers cave.

Quote
The 3D transition of Zelda killed the difficulty. Everyone agrees on that. OoT, MM, and tWW are not really all that difficult, but OoT and MM are still classics, IMHO. LoZ and AoL are STILL difficult, even today. Don't say that just because we get better at video games that that kills the difficulty. That isn't the case. All 3D games, of just about every franchise, just aren't as difficult as the 2D games, regardless of gaming experience.

Go great overgeneralizations! I also disagree with the "all 3d games are easy" , but its not worth the time explaining why.
AOL and LOZ are more difficult to me simply because of hardware limitations the NES had.  (I explained this earlier in this thread).  I also find LTTP to be easiest, and that is quite a bit of the cause of my boredom of the title.  Majoras Mask also has some difficulty to it, another one of the many reasons i hold it above the other zelda games.  (The Oracle zelda game also have some major difficulty to them, mainly on the puzzle solving side)

Quote
First, Bill (Aurion) was my nemesis, and now I KDR_11k. Man, I bet everyone will hate me by next year. lol.

Why you regard this with humor is beyond me.

Quote
NO, NO, NO! Majora's Mask is NOT a classic! >=(

While you may say this, it doesn't make it any less true.   Give the game a chance man, your reason for disliking doesn't mean everyone else will. (OH NO IT HAS A TIME LIMIT IT MUST BE EVIL!)

[evil intentions]

Quote
While you may say this, it doesn't make it any less true. Give the game a chance man, your reason for disliking doesn't mean everyone else will. (OH NO IT HAS A TIME LIMIT IT MUST BE EVIL!)

The time limit is the reason why I dislike the game as much as I do.  I got up to the 4th boss mask and got sick of the game.  I did not like MM as much as the others.

[KDR_11k]

CHEN: Why not? Why shouldn't we compare Metroid and Super Metroid? They're both games and they both take time to play. Yes, Metroid came out first and there was no Super Metroid back then, but my point is that now we have Super Metroid and we can play either Metroid or Super Metroid. A game that was good back then might not be good NOW.

[Bill Aurion]

(OH NO IT HAS A TIME LIMIT IT MUST BE EVIL!)

That pretty much sums it up!

[mouse_clicker]

Ugh, I HATE comparing games. Comparing games to one another is the stupidest thing you can do. Comparing games forces you to rationalize the games' differences in order to sync up their similarities, and then to rate their similarities in relation to one another. All it does is create false images of the games. When I rate a game I look at it and only it. I don't think about how it stacks up to other entries in the genre, all that matters is if that one game is good. My friends joke about how I'm always calling games incredible. I do that because I don't let comparisions cloud my opinion of a game- if a game is fun on its own that's all that should matter. I don't see how the possibility another game is more fun has any relevance at all. So basically, I don't care if Super Metroid is better than the original- I think both are very good games and that's all that matters. Why should I care that Super Metroid is more intricate, or has better graphics? That doesn't make the original Metroid any less fun. It's futile to debate things like this. You should just enjoy a game for what it is instead of trying rank it to others- I think you'll find you enjoy games a LOT more if you do so.

[Deguello]

"When I rate a game I look at it and only it. I don't think about how it stacks up to other entries in the genre, all that matters is if that one game is good. "

If only major review sites dealed in that kind of wisdom.

[Infernal Monkey]

Mario Kart isn't anything like Halo! Nintendo really have dropped the ball on this one, it obviously deserves nothing. - IGN.

[Syl]

Quote
"When I rate a game I look at it and only it. I don't think about how it stacks up to other entries in the genre, all that matters is if that one game is good. "

The more you watch/play/read the more you realize that certain things you previously thought were great, are simply mediocre.  

Ignorance can be useful for enjoying something once, but eventually you have to come to terms with how it stacks up to everything else as a whole, If the only game you've ever played is GTA3, then you might consider it the most amazing thing ever.  Same can be said for things like Halo and other titles that got far more attention than their worth (*cough* Evangelion*cough*).  Of course, those people will full-heartedly incest that their opinion is correct, though its based purely on ignorance and hype.

Quote
Mario Kart isn't anything like Halo! Nintendo really have dropped the ball on this one, it obviously deserves nothing.

Surprisingly, I generally find myself agreeing with IGN's scores of things, even if i don't agree with the way they got them.   I don't think i've ever seen IGN say something that blatantly stupid though.  They did compare double dash to mario kart 64 a decent amount in the review, and thats all to be expected.

[mouse_clicker]

Quote
The more you watch/play/read the more you realize that certain things you previously thought were great, are simply mediocre.

Only because of a possible change in my tastes. I told you, I rate things by themselves, not in relation to others.  I look at a game alone and determine whether I like it, not compare it to other games and determine how much I liked it in relation to them. That's just plain stupid. If I did that I'd be ignoring what's good about one game simply because another game did it better. It's nice that another game does it better but that doesn't mean the original one did it badly. When you obsess yourself with finding only the best you miss the ones that aren't quite the best but still good none the less, and if you only play the best you're skipping dozens of other very good games.

Quote
Ignorance can be useful for enjoying something once, but eventually you have to come to terms with how it stacks up to everything else as a whole, If the only game you've ever played is GTA3, then you might consider it the most amazing thing ever. Same can be said for things like Halo and other titles that got far more attention than their worth (*cough* Evangelion*cough*). Of course, those people will full-heartedly incest that their opinion is correct, though its based purely on ignorance and hype.

I think it occurs to me that I don't care what other people's opinions are. Who cares if their opinion is based on "ignorance" as you put it? No, you never eventually have to come to terms with how it stacks up to everything else, because I fail to see how much I like one game affects how much I like another game- that doesn't make much sense to me. F*ck how much a game "stacks up to everything else", all that matters is whether or not I like that game specifically, and I don't want other entries in the genre affecting my opinion.  

[GoldShadow1]

Quote
Originally posted by: Syl
Of course, those people will full-heartedly incest that their opinion is correct, though its based purely on ignorance and hype.

I'd rather not get into any arguments in THAT family...