Hanyou
didn't build that
Do you think games can get worse with age? Why or why not? Do you believe people who prefer older games to newer ones are wearing "nostalgia goggles?"
I hear this argument a lot in the gaming community--that older games are somehow worse because the technology used to make them, the mechanics, and the stories have become "dated" with time.
This topic was prompted partly because of the positive response Ocarina of Time 3DS has been getting. We'll see if it sticks--I suspect its final score will be lower than the original game's in '98--but we can still compare scores of numerous games from their original releases to re-releases. This review particularly sparked my ire, because in the first few lines the writer said exactly what I've been thinking for years:
A game which received a perfect score from critics and gamers 20 years ago may well get a much lower and have a worse reception today. Here are some examples:
Pikmin: 2001: 86.86%, 2009: 79.55%
Perfect Dark: 2000: 94.31%, 2010: 79.03%
Sonic Adventure: 1999: 86.51%, 2003: 63.98%, 2010: 52.92%
I realize that aggregate review sites can be dubious, but the trend really is telling, and it's undeniable at the very least that the attitude survives among gamers.
I've been told on countless occassions that I'm wearing "nostalgia goggles" for, for example, still calling Ocarina of Time my favorite game, as if I couldn't rationally analyze other games because I was blinded by my love for something old. People forget, of course, that when that game came out I thought quite fondly of even older games, and it supplanted them in my personal favorites. People also ignore that many of us gamers have played games years after they were released and enjoyed them every bit as much as people did back then. This was certainly my case when I sat down to play the 8-bit Phantasy Star (which laid the foundation for JRPGs) in 2009, even though my first JRPG was Tales of Symphonia, released in 2004!
What people should acknowledge is either that games were overhyped upon release and people did not rationally analyze them, or better games have simply come out, but they're not better simply because of superior tech.
How many movie critics worth their salt would have claimed Jurassic Park was superior to King Kong simply because the technology used to make it was better? I thought so. The fact is, gamers are very shortsighted. So many fail to respect older games, even though no other industry would reject something that's older simply because something allegedly "better" has come around. How many music critics would argue that Bach's music is inferior to Camille Saint Saens', simply because the music of the romantic period developed on some of Bach's ideas? Again, it's an odd case to make.
Critics and gamers should refuse to bash rereleases (would it be bad to get Ben-Hur re-released on Blu-Ray? Who'd be against that?) and should also reject this notion that old games can possibly be dated at all. It makes no sense and it's absolutely childish. Those of us who appreciate older games for the same reasons we did when they were released aren't "wearing nostalgia goggles," we're simply consistent. Meanwhile, gamers who would change their assessment of a 10 or even 5-year-old game simply because of alleged improvements in the industry are completely illogical.
In addition, people should learn to either appreciate older games for utilizing the available technology and mechanics well or simply admit that they're biased. There's no shame in that, but it's disingenuous to claim otherwise when you fail to appreciate an older game for "dated" graphics or somesuch. If you can't appreciate a game's visual design over its graphical technology, if you can't appreciate its brilliance of design over less modern menus and mechanics, then that is your own bias, not a fault of the game or the game's developers.
Thoughts?
I hear this argument a lot in the gaming community--that older games are somehow worse because the technology used to make them, the mechanics, and the stories have become "dated" with time.
This topic was prompted partly because of the positive response Ocarina of Time 3DS has been getting. We'll see if it sticks--I suspect its final score will be lower than the original game's in '98--but we can still compare scores of numerous games from their original releases to re-releases. This review particularly sparked my ire, because in the first few lines the writer said exactly what I've been thinking for years:
Eurogamer said:We have such a strange attitude towards our past as gamers. Our neophilism is such that re-releases are often regarded as brazen attempts at daylight robbery. It's a bizarre mindset that isn't to be found anywhere else in entertainment. ("Remasted Beatles albums? But I already heard Abbey Road.")
A game which received a perfect score from critics and gamers 20 years ago may well get a much lower and have a worse reception today. Here are some examples:
Pikmin: 2001: 86.86%, 2009: 79.55%
Perfect Dark: 2000: 94.31%, 2010: 79.03%
Sonic Adventure: 1999: 86.51%, 2003: 63.98%, 2010: 52.92%
I realize that aggregate review sites can be dubious, but the trend really is telling, and it's undeniable at the very least that the attitude survives among gamers.
I've been told on countless occassions that I'm wearing "nostalgia goggles" for, for example, still calling Ocarina of Time my favorite game, as if I couldn't rationally analyze other games because I was blinded by my love for something old. People forget, of course, that when that game came out I thought quite fondly of even older games, and it supplanted them in my personal favorites. People also ignore that many of us gamers have played games years after they were released and enjoyed them every bit as much as people did back then. This was certainly my case when I sat down to play the 8-bit Phantasy Star (which laid the foundation for JRPGs) in 2009, even though my first JRPG was Tales of Symphonia, released in 2004!
What people should acknowledge is either that games were overhyped upon release and people did not rationally analyze them, or better games have simply come out, but they're not better simply because of superior tech.
How many movie critics worth their salt would have claimed Jurassic Park was superior to King Kong simply because the technology used to make it was better? I thought so. The fact is, gamers are very shortsighted. So many fail to respect older games, even though no other industry would reject something that's older simply because something allegedly "better" has come around. How many music critics would argue that Bach's music is inferior to Camille Saint Saens', simply because the music of the romantic period developed on some of Bach's ideas? Again, it's an odd case to make.
Critics and gamers should refuse to bash rereleases (would it be bad to get Ben-Hur re-released on Blu-Ray? Who'd be against that?) and should also reject this notion that old games can possibly be dated at all. It makes no sense and it's absolutely childish. Those of us who appreciate older games for the same reasons we did when they were released aren't "wearing nostalgia goggles," we're simply consistent. Meanwhile, gamers who would change their assessment of a 10 or even 5-year-old game simply because of alleged improvements in the industry are completely illogical.
In addition, people should learn to either appreciate older games for utilizing the available technology and mechanics well or simply admit that they're biased. There's no shame in that, but it's disingenuous to claim otherwise when you fail to appreciate an older game for "dated" graphics or somesuch. If you can't appreciate a game's visual design over its graphical technology, if you can't appreciate its brilliance of design over less modern menus and mechanics, then that is your own bias, not a fault of the game or the game's developers.
Thoughts?