One of my friends has a hard time appriciating many games pre-PS2/GC/Xbox despite that he's played video games since the 70's. I don't think I've ever felt that especially if I have had past experience with this PSX game or that SNES game. It's very much like those retro reviews in GMR when they rescore old titles. I don't get it.
Do you believe some games depreciate in quality as technology advances?
- Thread starter OILYWATER
- Start date
It depends if one is more driven by gameplay or by audio-visual novelty. I have nearly 300 current generation games but I can still have plenty of fun with my SNES, Genesis, and other older systems. The bottom floor for me is the early 8-bit era where the hardware greatly constrains the gameplay potential. So I don't get too enthused for Atari 2600 stuff but the only slightly later Atari 800 and competing 8-bit systems can still hold my attention once in a while.
Well on a more specific note. I feel that games have lowered in quality a little as time wears on. Perfect example is squaresoft. Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 3(6 in new order),Secret of Mana,Secret of Evermore, and FF7. They released nothing but gold. Now, I still like the games don't get me wrong, but they're no where near as good in comparison to the storyline and gameplay of the older ones.
My opinion is that they focus so much on making the graphics as good as possible, the storyline and subtle little extra's often take a much greater hit in the process then they did before.
Just my opinion.
My opinion is that they focus so much on making the graphics as good as possible, the storyline and subtle little extra's often take a much greater hit in the process then they did before.
Just my opinion.
mr_pollock
CAGiversary!
In terms of gameplay/fun, I don't think so.
GuilewasNK
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 110 (100%)
Certain games from the NES days are just as engaging today as they were in the past....
Super Mario 3
Contra
Tetris
Each those games came out just when consoles could make more believable fantasies. Also, they pretty much defined the genres they are in. Adventure on the 2600 was a game that many loved, but over time its appeal is less. Even the original Zelda game suffered the same fate. I think with the SNES and Genesis you start seeing games that are original and can have more realistic grpahics, but the systems are still not mainstream. For a system to have mainstream success realism is a necessity. That's the only thing that can explain a curent a market than can support 3 consoles (PS2, Xbox, Gamecube). This couldn't have happened in the early 90's.
Super Mario 3
Contra
Tetris
Each those games came out just when consoles could make more believable fantasies. Also, they pretty much defined the genres they are in. Adventure on the 2600 was a game that many loved, but over time its appeal is less. Even the original Zelda game suffered the same fate. I think with the SNES and Genesis you start seeing games that are original and can have more realistic grpahics, but the systems are still not mainstream. For a system to have mainstream success realism is a necessity. That's the only thing that can explain a curent a market than can support 3 consoles (PS2, Xbox, Gamecube). This couldn't have happened in the early 90's.
Wshakspear
CAGiversary!
They dont depreciate in quality. Tastes change. Zelda will always be top notch, when thought of in its original time frame. Some games get better with time, but those are few and far between (super metroid)
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
I doubt that. It's more that people can see the truth through thier sepia-toned blinders of nostalgia.
Face it... a vast amount of the Atari and intellivision softwares flat out sucked. The forced the industry into remission on the strength of thier collective stench.
Then came the NES. There were lots of great old NES games, but there were quite a few stinkers as well... any kid visiting the video store to rent a game back in the day would have told you that.
SNES and Genesis had piles of refuse as well, despite all of the "greatness" that people seem to remember. Go dig in some used game bins... not every game is a gem.
Face it... a vast amount of the Atari and intellivision softwares flat out sucked. The forced the industry into remission on the strength of thier collective stench.
Then came the NES. There were lots of great old NES games, but there were quite a few stinkers as well... any kid visiting the video store to rent a game back in the day would have told you that.
SNES and Genesis had piles of refuse as well, despite all of the "greatness" that people seem to remember. Go dig in some used game bins... not every game is a gem.
those games that were quality but part of the appeal was in the new use of technology or graphics do not hold up well. And sprites hold up far better than a lot of the ps1 era "3d graphics" games. Certain games have a timeless element of entertainment to them that are unique, while other games have recieved upgrades, or been improved upon, making the original almost useless.
There is a huge wide spectrum of taste. Speaking of which, anyone still playing the original Tomb Raider?....anyone?
There is a huge wide spectrum of taste. Speaking of which, anyone still playing the original Tomb Raider?....anyone?
ykryptonite13
CAGiversary!
I think games can depreciate in quality if you find yourself playing them again after a significant amount of time and not remembering why you liked that game in the first place. At least that's one example. I still love my NES and playing stuff like Castlevania, Metal Gear, Zelda and those'll never depreciate in quality in my mind. Certain games withstand the test of time, but if I go back and play MK1, it's hard to say that this once-killer app hasn't taken a few hits regarding this test while SF2 is still fun.
Yes, I still occasionally play the original tomb Raider 
Not that often mind you, but it does make the inside of my machine every once in a while.
Can't say the same for the rest of the tomb Raider series though . I own them all, but No. 1 was the only one I ever finished as later incarnations of the series required walk-throughs -- which is a ridiculous way to go about planning game design. If the average gamer can't ever be expected to make it through the entire game on their own, what's the point in buying it?
Personally I think the best of the old school games are the ones with the timeless gameplay mechanics regardless of what they look like. It's shocking how much Activision's spider fighter has in common with a modern game like treasures recent Gradius V despite being many hardware generations apart. I think there's a lot of old school/new school gameplay parallels like that one. Good gameplay never dies
Not that often mind you, but it does make the inside of my machine every once in a while.
Can't say the same for the rest of the tomb Raider series though . I own them all, but No. 1 was the only one I ever finished as later incarnations of the series required walk-throughs -- which is a ridiculous way to go about planning game design. If the average gamer can't ever be expected to make it through the entire game on their own, what's the point in buying it?
Personally I think the best of the old school games are the ones with the timeless gameplay mechanics regardless of what they look like. It's shocking how much Activision's spider fighter has in common with a modern game like treasures recent Gradius V despite being many hardware generations apart. I think there's a lot of old school/new school gameplay parallels like that one. Good gameplay never dies
Outdated technology doesn't destroy a game. Only three things do:
1. It was never much fun to begin with.
2. The game was notable for it's technological innovation, not it's gameplay. For instance, Quake was all the rage way back when, being the first fully polygonal FPS, but isn't much played today. Neither is Unreal. Many are also realizing this about DKC, and countless others.
3. There have been better, more recent games released with similar gameplay. This business is 5% innovation, and 95% expanding on existing ideas. Truly innovative games, such as Tetris, or the Sims, in which no games before them have ever played quite like them, are very rare, coming once or twice every five years or so. More often, an existing concept is expanded on (almost any FPS, fighter, or racer).
1. It was never much fun to begin with.
2. The game was notable for it's technological innovation, not it's gameplay. For instance, Quake was all the rage way back when, being the first fully polygonal FPS, but isn't much played today. Neither is Unreal. Many are also realizing this about DKC, and countless others.
3. There have been better, more recent games released with similar gameplay. This business is 5% innovation, and 95% expanding on existing ideas. Truly innovative games, such as Tetris, or the Sims, in which no games before them have ever played quite like them, are very rare, coming once or twice every five years or so. More often, an existing concept is expanded on (almost any FPS, fighter, or racer).
Parathod
CAGiversary!
After picking up Midway's Arcade Treasures last year, i'd have to say that a lot of games tend to depreciate in quality. I loved Rampage and Gauntlet when I was younger. I probably spent a good $30 on both games at arcades, and payed $65 for them on the NES. So, naturally, they were 2 of the first games that I tried out on MAT, and they bored the hell out of me. Same thing goes for Sonic Mega Collection and many PS1 or Genesis games.
That's not to say that all games must follow this pattern. I think if a game is either:
a) original and never copied
or
b) one of the best games of it's type
that it's value will never go down. It may even increase with time (as Wshakspear said). Good examples of these type of games are Nights, Mario games (specifically All-stars), Zelda:OoT, Dragon Force, and most puzzle games (Tetris Attack, Dr. Mario, No One Can Stop Mr. Domino, Bust A Move, Bomberman, etc.). Whereas games like Gex, Croc, Oddworld, Earthworm Jim, Mortal Kombat (some might argue this one), Wild Arms, Dino Crisis, Clay Fighter, most sports games, Spyro, Tomb Raider 2, Colony Wars, Parasite Eve, Last Bronx, Donkey Kong 64, Fighting Force, Sonic Adventure (another one that you may disagree with) and Battle Arena Toshinden were better at the time due to graphics, sound, gameplay ideas that were original at the time but overused by now, graphic content (Mortal Kombat), or the fact that they were the next best thing to the "original" games (i.e. Donkey Kong 64 was inferior to Banjo Kazooie, but because games were limited on the N64, it was accepted on the same level).
I love my SNES. I have the type 2 model and around 80 games (i'm guessing), but i've come to realize that there are only 15 or so games that I truely love for it. Which means, that as of now, I like more games on my PS2. However, I know when the PS3/Xbox2/Revolution comes out, the number of games I like for the PS2 will decrease as well. I know some of you see this as dumb, but the only thing that's dumb is you not accepting that some games that you have liked in the past aren't really as great as you originally accepted them to be. It's like movies or music. Some will be recognized forever as being great examples of what should be done in the media, while others will entertain for the time being, but fade when that time is up.
That's not to say that all games must follow this pattern. I think if a game is either:
a) original and never copied
or
b) one of the best games of it's type
that it's value will never go down. It may even increase with time (as Wshakspear said). Good examples of these type of games are Nights, Mario games (specifically All-stars), Zelda:OoT, Dragon Force, and most puzzle games (Tetris Attack, Dr. Mario, No One Can Stop Mr. Domino, Bust A Move, Bomberman, etc.). Whereas games like Gex, Croc, Oddworld, Earthworm Jim, Mortal Kombat (some might argue this one), Wild Arms, Dino Crisis, Clay Fighter, most sports games, Spyro, Tomb Raider 2, Colony Wars, Parasite Eve, Last Bronx, Donkey Kong 64, Fighting Force, Sonic Adventure (another one that you may disagree with) and Battle Arena Toshinden were better at the time due to graphics, sound, gameplay ideas that were original at the time but overused by now, graphic content (Mortal Kombat), or the fact that they were the next best thing to the "original" games (i.e. Donkey Kong 64 was inferior to Banjo Kazooie, but because games were limited on the N64, it was accepted on the same level).
I love my SNES. I have the type 2 model and around 80 games (i'm guessing), but i've come to realize that there are only 15 or so games that I truely love for it. Which means, that as of now, I like more games on my PS2. However, I know when the PS3/Xbox2/Revolution comes out, the number of games I like for the PS2 will decrease as well. I know some of you see this as dumb, but the only thing that's dumb is you not accepting that some games that you have liked in the past aren't really as great as you originally accepted them to be. It's like movies or music. Some will be recognized forever as being great examples of what should be done in the media, while others will entertain for the time being, but fade when that time is up.
Parathod
CAGiversary!
Also worth noting, most games on the sega saturn that were great (Gaurdian Heroes, Saturn Bomberman, Nights, Panzer Dragon, Shining Force III, Dragon Force, etc.) when the system was still out, are still good today. The reason this is, is because the Saturn was an inferior machine to begin with, so it's games needed to have unique or superior gameplay to make them get noticed.
bread's done