Support NeoGAF

[sfried]

Well sorry

Spoiler

lol

It's mostly directed those who are "Willfully ignorant". I encountered a similar discussion while visiting some board about Space Battleship Yamato (a.k.a. Star Blazers) and its remake, Space Battleship Yamato 2199: Those who only saw the remake, but are unwilling to watch the original series for context were looked down upon. Some people took it as a form of elitism, while others mentioned that the reasoning behind it is because these newbies formed their preconcieved notions around a "secondary" media installment.

I guess you can say the same thing about people who play Persona, but have never played any mainline Shin Megami Tensei game, or people who started with Final Fantasy VII, but never played any of the older games. There's some form of resentment formed from the more popular installment because it creates false notions about the franchise based on a newer experience.

Kinda like the people who's first exposure to a Tomb Raider game being the 2013 reboot as opposed to the original: They might have, this notion that Tomb Raider, as a franchise whole, is a rip-off of Uncharted and Gears of War, simply basing it on the most recent entry.

 

[jay]

Very interesting article. Reminds me of the time I was banned for calling a thread about "now unplayable games" stupid.

 

[Duster]

History is written by the victors

Both Nintendo and Disney actively work towards preserving the image and relevance that these products have, with constant re-releases, spin-offs and references. They know those products are extremely valuable, not only as recognizable icons and profitable brands, but as symbols of the importance and history that these companies have.

Clever companies will always try to push their achievements into common history - who controls the past controls the future is more than just an overused quote.

Sadly, as I wrote last year, we still lack historians and critics. That means the gaming industry curates its own history, and more often than not the past is only relevant as long as it can be turned into hype - and profit

That's a great point, Nintendo is the example he used and they arguably get a little too much credit for certain innovations and saving the entire videogame industry after the American videogame crash (although naturally they played massive parts in both areas).

You often see websites (and indeed forum posts) being historically selective when it comes to a modern trend, maybe acting like all 80s/90s videogames were expensive cartridges and ignoring budget-range discs or that there were no indy games before 2008.

That's not to say there's a grand conspiracy, it's often simply a young American writer understandably writing about what they know rather than say a 80s home computer that was popular on a different continent long before he was even born.

 

[Tagyhag]

Graphically? Sure, but feature wise, the later games in the series have yet to surpass Daggerfall.

Aside from a few features, Morrowind completely surpasses Daggerfall.

Great read though.

 

[Orayn]

You had me until here. On any enthusiast board, you are much more likely to see a common consensus that older games are the only true and hardcore "real games".

Games are iterative; trashing past works isnt necessarily about hyping the future as showcasing what is new and improved and maybe that you are listening to criticism. Tough to not look like you're dismantling older entries when you are trying to show where you've legitimately improved things. Of course, when all you're improving is the art or writing, it's purely subjective and older entries shouldn't really be compared. Additionally, removing what you think of as busywork or changing core systems for what you believe to be better may not land the same way with your audience. I don't know of many devs that purposely change things for the worse in their own eyes.

This is kind of where I'm at. History is important, and while some people may put up an excessive amount of resistance toward anything perceived as "old" or "outdated," the differences in accessibility are a factor that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Once you're used to dual analog, for example, it can be pretty challenging to go back to something like From Software's old 3D controls, where you tank controls on the d-pad, with strafing and looking up/down on the shoulder buttons. That kind of difficulty comes from there being a fairly different set of muscle memory skills required to properly control the game, not just a spoiled new-school gamer turning up their nose at something that seems dated to them.

 

[inky]

I want to say this usage of "young form of media" is a copout, but upon reflection I guess it suggests another question -- when other artistic mediums were "young forms of media," did they act the same way about their older media?

They did in a way, although it is hard to compare 1 to 1. Novels were once trash romance books read by women only, early cinema was looked down upon by the theater people, etc.

The thing to consider is that the people making it they were also taking it seriously and writing theory and validating it at the same time the medium was growing up. It takes time, but also effort.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Arena and daggerfall are FREE though. To claim to be a hardcore fan and never even try them is pretty dubious. And they're still pretty amazing in many ways.

Well.....
Speaking for myself I have:
0 hours in Arena
20+ in Daggerfall
300+ in Morrowind (without mods) VS 30+ in Morrowind (with mods)
100+ in Oblivion
500+ in Skyrim (with mods) VS 40+ in Skyrim (without mods)

Daggerfall might be one of the most ambitious RPGs of all time, but it's a mess of design decisions. I can't fault anyone that has never tried it. It was my first TES experience and even then it was a headache to make any progress (those dungeons! UGH). The only seemingly sensible solution is to run it with cheats, or else you'd never finish any quests.

 

[massoluk]

This is such a great article.
Ironic I think, as the author stated, how could we label video games as arts while so called enthusiasts or the artists themselves of the medium dismiss older titles as outdated (/put on flame suit, like may be due to the fact that it is so pixelated or not shiny enough, or even not cinematic enough).

 

[timetokill]

Historically, yes, when forms of media or even genres are still establishing themselves and finding their footing, there are poor attitudes in terms of critique, preservation, and awareness. They might not face the exact same problems as gaming in these aspects, because different media have different challenges, but looking at the Star Wars example, just think about how the original release of the original trilogy is still unavailable today in any preserved or remastered form. Only the special editions.

With books, it is not uncommon for genres which were considered disposable in their day and derided by mainstream critics to later be identified as something of extreme influence and value. Classics like Count of Monte Cristo were serialized tripe which weren't taken particularly seriously. Jules Verne's works were looked down on for being stuff for children with fantasies, and his works were heavily edited for commercial value. Very little of the original manuscripts are preserved, and there is little historical documentation of Verne's life and insights as a writer because it was simply not taken seriously at the time. If the attitudes towards such works did not mature over time with people taking a keen interest in looking back and finding value and importance in them, we would not be talking about them as classics today.

They did in a way, although it is hard to compare 1 to 1. Novels were once trash romance books read by women only, early cinema was looked down upon by the theater people, etc.

The thing to consider is that the people making it they were also taking it seriously and writing theory and validating it at the same time the medium was growing up. It takes time, but also effort.

Good, thoughtful answers. Thanks fellas.

 

[Fishious]

In general I agree with some of the main ideas in the article, that gaming lacks historians and without them people are easily swayed by marketing. I think the only reason why the initial anecdote about Elder Scrolls really has any merit is because he was speaking to students at a game design school, the very type of people we'd hope would have familiarity with the medium's history. This might explain to a degree why occasionally we'll see developers touting a "new innovative feature" that was present in games decades old, but now largely forgotten.

That said, as much as I am a fan of many older games, there are many crpgs that haven't aged well in certain respects. I think much of this notion relating to what has "aged well" depends on how familiar the controls and interface are to the user. As someone else mentioned, gamers who started playing within the last decade or so will probably have trouble going back to tank controls, which are themselves several degrees removed from point and click and text entry. When the simple act of interfacing with a game is difficult, I can see why people might write them off.

When I was a kid my cousins would play games like Ultima and Kings Quest. I loved watching them and played them myself at times. My first experience with both was game V of each series. While today I find both rather clunky, I can still play and appreciate them. On the other hand when I got the Ultima Collection box in the late 90's I tried Akalabeth: World of Doom--which was sort of the precursor to Ultima-- with one of these same cousins and we kept dying. Over and over and over. We'd starve before we got to the first dungeon. According to the Prima guide that came with the set you had to spend most of your starting money on food and gremlins were the most dangerous monster in the game because they'd steal your food and you instantly die of starvation when you run out. We had little patience for it and considered it outdated. I stand by that today, even as I recognize how it influenced the games that would come after and how one of the most influential PC series started with a guy selling floppy disks in zip locks with Xeroxed manuals.

We need to do what we can to foster an appreciation of gaming history and with digital distribution it's much easier than before, but a straight comparison to film or books isn't totally apt because the way we interface with games has changed greatly over just a few decades.

 

[Imru’ al-Qays]

I think a comparison with literature is instructive. Your average reader of books in the modern Anglosphere has some degree of difficulty reading Moby-Dick, a greater degree of difficulty reading Shakespeare, and may as well not be able to read Chaucer at all. This is due to shifting linguistic norms and stylistic conventions. When a "classic" becomes difficult to understand it's released with a scholarly apparatus, footnotes, updated spelling, etc so as to make it accessible to non-specialists - a "remake" not unlike the remakes of old games we see popping up from time to time.

Gaming sees a similar, albeit much more rapid, shift in norms and conventions. For people who entered gaming after Daggerfall learning how to appreciate Daggerfall involves learning an entirely new ludic "language." That's a pretty heavy lift. That's not to say that specialists shouldn't be willing to undertake it, in the same way that cinephiles are willing to watch silent films or all of us are willing to go back to Shakespeare. But because gaming is such a young medium you don't have to go nearly as far back in time for the norms and conventions to begin to seem unfamiliar: a cinephile can watch any movie shot in the last half century or more with little difficulty, a reader can read any book written since probably the mid-1800s with little difficulty, but a gamer will run up against obstacles playing games as little as five or ten years older than when he first started playing games.

I think as the medium matures we'll see less stylistic flux and more continuity, so maybe today's games will still be reasonably accessible to tomorrow's gamers (in the same way that Shakespeare is reasonably accessible to today's readers and Beowulf is not).

 

[Fugu]

I think a comparison with literature is instructive. Your average reader of books in the modern Anglosphere has some degree of difficulty reading Moby-Dick, a greater degree of difficulty reading Shakespeare, and may as well not be able to read Chaucer at all. This is due to shifting linguistic norms and stylistic conventions. When a "classic" becomes difficult to understand it's released with a scholarly apparatus, footnotes, updated spelling, etc so as to make it accessible to non-specialists - a "remake" not unlike the remakes of old games we see popping up from time to time.

Gaming sees a similar, albeit much more rapid, shift in norms and conventions. For people who entered gaming after Daggerfall learning how to appreciate Daggerfall involves learning an entirely new ludic "language." That's a pretty heavy lift. That's not to say that specialists shouldn't be willing to undertake it, in the same way that cinephiles are willing to watch silent films or all of us are willing to go back to Shakespeare. But because gaming is such a young medium you don't have to go nearly as far back in time for the norms and conventions to begin to seem unfamiliar: a cinephile can watch any movie shot in the last half century or more with little difficulty, a reader can read any book written since probably the mid-1800s with little difficulty, but a gamer will run up against obstacles playing games as little as five or ten years older than when he first started playing games.

I think as the medium matures we'll see less stylistic flux and more continuity, so maybe today's games will still be reasonably accessible to tomorrow's gamers (in the same way that Shakespeare is reasonably accessible to today's readers and Beowulf is not).

This is a bang-on post, and it's important to point out that the relatively inaccessible nature of Shakespeare is in no way a comment on its quality.I think what the author is discussing here is the notion that some in the press and enthusiast community view an adherence to a different set of norms as an indication that the game is out-of-date without the requisite critical thinking.

Doom, clocking in at twenty years old, can hardly said to have been iterated into irrelevancy and yet many of its design traits (keycards, pseudo 3D/limited verticality, super fast guy with eight guns) basically don't exist in the modern gaming landscape.

 

[Arulan]

Is this actually true? How many gamers peg Unity as the best Assassin's Creed? What about Advanced Warfare for CoD? Battlefield 4? Resident Evil 6?

I think the article is overstating the degree to which gamers buy into media hype. Does it happen? Oh, sure. But ask any Playstation gamer to list his top 5 PS console games. How many of those will be PS4? What about PS3?

I disagree, and GAF is a great example at observing the "hype-culture" it produces. You only need to look at the past few big AAA releases and corresponding threads to see this. The AAA industry is fueled by the hype machine and marketing. This doesn't necessarily mean they will hold on to these opinions post-release though. Furthermore, it's evident by the surveys on GAF (e.g. GAF's Essential RPGs) that there is a strong bias for new and recent titles over older ones.

Film dont get outdated nearly as bad as games because the way we interact with it stays fairly similar. You sit and watch. Game on the other hand are constantly reevaluating the ways they are interacted with, UI, number of buttons, number of actions, genre types etc. The constantly iterative process does "outdate" certain mechanics in a way any other business operation can be outdated and replaced.
Im sure many of these games still have incredible stories that hold up well (and have still yet to be matched), but game mechanics can absolutely become outdated over time, and yes there can be a game that is the best in its genre or series, that make other game seem no longer as good because mechanics have improved since then.
Stories, worlds, and characters are timeless, game mechanics are not.

I can't agree, and the notion that only the story, characters, or worlds are the "art", worthy of being timeless or experienced to me is ludicrous. Secondly, design isn't linear, newer games aren't inherently better designed than older ones. In fact, I would argue it's largely the opposite because the focuses of development have changed. Modern design philosophies revolve around simplicity, creating a visually impressive spectacle, and cinematic styling.

I recently argued in a thread about how quest design in modern RPGs, especially open-world ones are severely affected by quest markers. It has a severe negative impact in how the player plays the game. I won't post my full reasoning over again, but suffice to say it's a modern design decision that I believe to be rather poor, and has clear negative repercussions throughout the game. Regardless of whether you consider something better or worse though, it's not obsolete. Grid-based movement isn't obsolete because we can now do indiscrete movement, turn-based games aren't obsolete because we have real-time ones, and 2D shooters didn't become obsolete when we had 3D.

 

[sn00zer]

I can't agree, and the notion that only the story, characters, or worlds are the "art", worthy of being timeless or experienced to me is ludicrous. Secondly, design isn't linear, newer games aren't inherently better designed than older ones. In fact, I would argue it's largely the opposite because the focuses of development have changed. Modern design philosophies revolve around simplicity, creating a visually impressive spectacle, and cinematic styling.

I recently argued in a thread about how quest design in modern RPGs, especially open-world ones are severely affected by quest markers. It has a severe negative impact in how the player plays the game. I won't post my full reasoning over again, but suffice to say it's a modern design decision that I believe to be rather poor, and has clear negative repercussions throughout the game. Regardless of whether you consider something better or worse though, it's not obsolete. Grid-based movement isn't obsolete because we can now do indiscrete movement, turn-based games aren't obsolete because we have real-time ones, and 2D shooters didn't become obsolete when we had 3D.

Im not saying a newer game i inherently better than an older game. I am saying that certain game mechanics can become outdated. Fighting games is an easy example, with Street Fighter 1 be nigh unbearable to play. Grid-based games dont become obsolete by indescrete movement, but grid based game can be outdated by newer grid based games that have used the expanded the concept, similar to the rising complexity and quality of Civilization games. Yes some aspects can be a step back, like you were saying quest markers, but that doesnt mean that newer mechanics cant be better than older ones.

 

[Robert at Zeboyd Games]

Furthermore, it's evident by the surveys on GAF (e.g. GAF's Essential RPGs) that there is a strong bias for new and recent titles over older ones.

I wouldn't say that. In the latest Essential RPG poll, 4 of the Top 10 games, including the #1 entry, came out before 2000: Chrono Trigger (1995), Final Fantasy VI (1994), Final Fantasy VII (1997), and Planescape: Torment (1999). Only 13 of the Top 50 games came out in the last 5 years (14 if you count Persona Golden's release date rather than the original release). Only 1 game in the Top 50 list came out last year - Divinity: Original Sin at #23.

 

[Refreshment.01]

It's not a "problem" for software though. It's something that applies, but not in a problematic way. Non-gaming software are just tools. Tools get improved as time goes by and there is no real benefit to looking back and deliberately using older outdated tools. Software engineers are aware of this and it's not taken to be a slight. The same applies for physical tools. There can be an appreciation of contributions made in the past by those who pioneered progress in tools, but that doesn't require actually wanting to use an outdated tool. That's impractical.

The argument here though, is that games are interactive media and would qualify as entertainment and art. As such, what is valued should be somewhat different. Even as tastes change over time, and techniques applied to create these works evolve, in all other such media forms, there is more appreciation towards the history and legacy of defining works. But of course the logical conclusion is that gaming is just such a young form of media that a lot of people are still figuring this out, including the people who write about it.

It's quite simple.

You read a book the same way hundred of years ago as you do now. Until games find a similar treshhold to interact with the medium, the behavior the original post talks about will still take place lots of times.

Related, someone here said this:

Graphically? Sure, but feature wise, the later games in the series have yet to surpass Daggerfall.

The above is a half thruth. Feature wise the older games are richer yes, but interface and feelback are too far behind in comparison to what we have today. Althought not all games fall into the same trap, something like Link to the Past or Super Metroid plays fantastic even today, but those game set mechanics as their main priority and used a matured way of presentation and visual presentation (2D and perspective).

 

[SeventhSon]

I mean....Morrowind is pretty badly dated now. The worldbuilding is fantastic and some of the systems are fun but the basic gameplay (combat, magic) is awful.

Morrowind has the best combat of any Elder Scrolls game.

 

[Wulfram]

More people should try Daggerfall, it's a really interesting game. Perhaps my favourite in the series, though I liked Skyrim and Morrowind a lot too

The quote in the article is a bit off base when it suggests that later criticism didn't matter for opinion forming. Oblivion seems to be widely regarded pretty poorly nowadays

 

[sn00zer]

I dont like the idea that games have been downhill since (insert year here). There are plenty of games that remain timeless and are brought up in conversation time and time again, Super Metroid, FF6, Megaman, etc. But then people ignore the vast majority of shit games during those time periods. Any decade can seem like the best decade/year of gaming ever if you distill them down to their best games.
Truth is, its gotten too expensive to make shitty games anymore (cept on mobile of course) and that vast majority of shitty games is slowly becoming a minority as more talent in the industry and stronger competition even among indies is keeping more people on top of their game. Games as a whole have gotten better, maybe the complexity of certain genres has dropped, primarily RPGs, but games are getting better than they used to. The recent downturn in AAA quality games is not an indicator of gaming as a whole.

 

[duckroll]

You read a book the same way hundred of years ago as you do now. Until games find a similar treshhold to interact with the medium, the behavior the original post talks about will still take place lots of times.

You play games the same way you did decades ago. You still use the same input methods and they're displayed the same way. The difference you speak of is based on user expectations and what they're familiar with. That also applies to books and films. A books throughout the eras different in language use, narrative norms, and how things are depicted culturally. In the same way film language evolves with time, and technical standards also change.

None of that have gotten in the way of there being significantly more interest in the appreciation of classic literature and film history. The reason is because the mediums have matured to a level where there are enough people who do the legwork in bringing to attention the importance of old works and building an awareness to their cultural importance.

 

[WrenchNinja]

But the gaming industry has one unique trait: It's the only one that will attack their previous release to make the new one look better.

I hate this so much whenever I see it.

 

[Refreshment.01]

You play games the same way you did decades ago. You still use the same input methods and they're displayed the same way. The difference you speak of is based on user expectations and what they're familiar with. That also applies to books and films. A books throughout the eras different in language use, narrative norms, and how things are depicted culturally. In the same way film language evolves with time, and technical standards also change.

None of that have gotten in the way of there being significantly more interest in the appreciation of classic literature and film history. The reason is because the mediums have matured to a level where there are enough people who do the legwork in bringing to attention the importance of old works and building an awareness to their cultural importance.

No, your explamples don't adress what im saying.

We aren't using the same exact input methods, we don't interact in the same way in terms of effciency because of how HUD's and those input methods have been refined or reinvented through out time. We interact with the book the same basic way, independant of language or narrative norms.

An old FPS with arrow aiming and a cluncky interface and HUD design takes a lot of effort and patience when compared to more modern games, this is specially important since it's an interactive medium. A book been in old fashioned english instead of modern one is not an equivalent example.

 

[Cartman86]

I agree with the dissent. Games take a long time to complete. Most people don't watch films that were made 30 years before they were born. And that's a medium that takes little attention or time out of your day and is for the most part shot using the same techniques from 60 years ago. That being said easy access to older games is a large part of the problem, and this is a problem of the hype "Next big thing" attitude.

 

[Sorral]

For anyone interested: Arena and Daggerfall are free by Bethesda themselves.

Paints a funny picture that none of them at the very least tried them, but are 'hardcore' at the series. I guess they got a different definition in their minds about it.

 

[Refreshment.01]

I agree with the dissent. Games take a long time to complete. Most people don't watch films that were made 30 years before they were born. And that's a medium that takes little attention or time out of your day and is for the most part shot using the same techniques from 60 years ago. That being said easy access to older games is a large part of the problem, and this is a problem of the hype "Next big thing" attitude.

Duckroll, this somewhat ties into what im trying to convey here.

i do understand what you are saying, but i think your point of view understimates the key aspect of the medium which is interactivity. This is a way an old input method or retrograde interface will present an obstacle for an user to get into the game. The medium by it's nature demands more effort to experience than other ones, but if we add even more effort and even frustration it just diminishes the chances for a new commer to apreciate the games.

One would say that it's the exact same thing as a new reader trying a book in a more ancient language or one in disuse. But even if superficially this seems like a very fitting comparison the interactivity an extra effort demanded by gaming ends up weighting more in the end. Also this medium changes more rapidly and even abruptly than others. One could easily get into books made hundred of years ago or movies several decades old, there are just more variables to consider in a game.

 

[SonyToo!™]

I think the growth of indies & retrogames on XBLA/PSN/Steam & GoG has helped dis-spell the hate towards older games somewhat. Remember when western game sites would openly bash Japanese games at the start of last gen, before that it was 2D games where whole genres were called archaic with no place in modern gaming. Nowadays we seem to be in strange situation where some games are praised for having archaic qualities while others aren't.

 

[Jimrpg]

How is this a new thing?

Wasn't it painfully obvious in sports games reviews at the very least when every new sports review would start off with trashing the previous years and lauding the current latest version.

It was particularly noticeable when they started criticizing and praising nothing specific. Dribbling "felt" better and the shooting "more refined".... Yawn. They were selling the same game every year with minor tweaks.

 

[Fugu]

No, your explamples don't adress what im saying.

We aren't using the same exact input methods, we don't interact in the same way in terms of effciency because of how HUD's and those input methods have been refined or reinvented through out time. We interact with the book the same basic way, independant of language or narrative norms.

An old FPS with arrow aiming and a cluncky interface and HUD design takes a lot of effort and patience when compared to more modern games, this is specially important since it's an interactive medium. A book been in old fashioned english instead of modern one is not an equivalent example.

I think this is completely wrong.

Let's look at Pac-Man, where the input interface is so basic that the only modern games that would match its input simplicity would, by definition, be labeled as retro. But you can't "improve" on Pac-Man's controls; it wouldn't be a better game if you had full analog motion or the ability to do backflips. Yes, a game like Pac-Man wouldn't exist today because the technological limitations necessary to ferment Pac-Man are no longer in place (though the popularization of different budget levels makes this point at least somewhat moot) but many classic games are classics because they represent a high point in what they set out to do.

I also agree with Duckroll's broader point in that the way that we interact with games on a basic level really hasn't changed much. Maybe the biggest change was the introduction of the mouse but that's not exactly ubiquitous and it's been around for thirty years now.

Your FPS example also doesn't really work because John Romero concluded even before Doom released that K+M offered a greater degree of precision than strictly using the keyboard and the only difference between playing the earliest FPSes with a mouse and keyboard and modern FPSes is the vertical axis.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Smart man.

While I agree with the general thrust of the argument that gaming is hype-driven and publishers often have motivation to trash their old products in order to promote the new, I think the element of interactivity makes comparisons to classic movies a lot more difficult to swallow. The barrier to entry that comes from older control and UI paradigms is very real, to the point where playing the foundational games of the WRPG genre is more akin to reading Chaucer than watching a black and white movie. Chaucer is absolutely worth reading of course, and modern novels have no business billing themselves as new and improved versions of the "obsolete" Canterbury Tales, but the disconnect is definitely there and it's not surprising to hear that people aren't well versed in the history of a major genre or long-running series.

This is to say nothing of the fact that a lot of older games have been rendered completely inaccessible due to lack of backwards compatibility for anyone who limits their gaming to consoles. I wouldn't recommend that, but it's a common enough situation.

I've mentioned before how iteration and preference gets muddled in alot of people's minds. I'd like to think I hit home with that.

This is hugely important and everybody should read it. It's a crucial understanding that all players should have.

Because it's true that some games age badly. Maybe even many games, because as new technology and experience develops games only stand to improve. But players also pick and choose games that are apparently unplayable by today's standards.

Players can sometimes judge a game on what it isn't instead of what it is, and they can choose not to enjoy it beforehand. People play old games over and over again for nostalgia, and others discount those same games for being too dated to play.

I think a great example is MGS1 and Super Mario Bros. These games are simultaneously timeless and dated because some people grew up with the series and others find traveling back difficult.

I know somebody who wanted to play MGS1, but gave up extremely early in the game because he kept dying. He said he would spend an hour trying to clear two rooms and then get killed the second he stepped into another one. He found it "impossible." He said the game kept killing him cheaply and it was garbage.

So I asked him, "now that you know about the lasers, would you run into them next time?"

And he said no.

And it's like he suddenly got that games used to be designed with failure in mind.

But truthfully, if a game was good in 1997, it is probably still good now. It just takes a certain frame of mind to play it.

Failure being percieved as a flaw in the game by default did real damage. Real ugly damage.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Completely on point. And I won't denny that it affects me and that I ride that hype as well when it comes to games. I would love, for instance, a remake of almost any classic game I love made before 2000 on modern hardware as long as they remain as they were, but with improved visuals. I would never be happy to hear that they are remaking any of my favorite films made before 1960.

 

[Man God]

Graphically? Sure, but feature wise, the later games in the series have yet to surpass Daggerfall.

Yep. Daggerfall is one of the most ambitious titles ever released.

 

[MetroidPrimeRib]

I mean....Morrowind is pretty badly dated now. The worldbuilding is fantastic and some of the systems are fun but the basic gameplay (combat, magic) is awful.

So just like Oblivion and Skyrim then?

Great article.

 

[PBalfredo]

But the gaming industry has one unique trait: It's the only one that will attack their previous release to make the new one look better.

What the hell is he talking about here? The only example he has of this supposed phenomenon is Fallout 3 previews pointing out criticisms of Oblivion and hoping they are addressed. Thing is though, those criticisms of Oblivion are totally legit. Oblivion is a great game, but it's hardly perfect. Pointing out its flaws in hopes that its different-franchise successor would improve upon them is less tearing down predecessors for the successor's benefit, and more of realizing the previous game's very real flaws once the hype and the honeymoon is over. Back then, who wouldn't have hoped Fallout 3 would do away with the crazy bloom reflecting off of every NPC's ugly potato face that we saw in Oblivion?

I can't think of any other example of this phenomenon except in cases were the predecessor had glaring flaws and deserved backlash, like how Bioware is keen to point out Inquisition's wealth of content to distance it from the DA2's recycled assets.

 

[jblank83]

I mentioned this on Twitter when I first read this article but it's one of the pitfalls of comparing games to other mediums like books, music, and movies. Games are in iterative process; the next one will always take the lessons the previous game learned and apply them in new way. This is the primary reason why games are always looking towards the next big thing.

Underlying this is the idea that old is bad and new is good, and further that games learn from and improve on the past.

This isn't true.

Elder Scrolls is a perfect example. The series continues to use mechanics that are, at their core, the same janky mechanics from 20 years ago. Combat is the prime example. Elder Scrolls has evolved very little beyond moving to a 3d engine.

As others have already mentioned, Elder Scrolls has in fact simplified its mechanics, for instance spell making.

The question is how do we get people to treat the history of video games seriously. Part of the answer is to catalog the most important and the most timeless classics and present them in a history format. That is, present Asteroids to understand where shmups came from, Donkey Kong for platforming, and so on.

 

[SeventhSon]

Graphically? Sure, but feature wise, the later games in the series have yet to surpass Daggerfall.

Morrowind surpassed it in actually having a designed game world.

 

[Flipyap]

"None of them had ever played Arena or Daggerfall. They don't have any first-hand experience on its gameplay and couldn't come to that conclusion by themselves. So where did that prejudice come from?"

I generally agree with the sentiment, but this argument is deeply flawed. They most likely came to that conclusion through prior experience with games of that era. They're not being asked to write a detailed critique, simply justifying why a game isn't for them. A single screenshot of either of those games will tell them that it's not what they expect from an RPG today.


"Now, if the 1994 X-COM needed a "modern remake" in 2012 to be "accessible to new generations", we can perhaps assume that it will need another one in 2030 or even earlier. Perhaps yet another in 2048. If every new remake/reboot makes the previous one outdated, then what you are talking about doesn't sound like the work catalog of an artist, but rather like a software's release history."

And this one just does not work. Video games aren't like other media. This person might as well be talking about a "work catalog of an artist" whose early work can only be played back on a hand-cranked phonograph.
Old games don't become "not accessible to new generation" just because they don't look cool enough anymore, you also have to consider stuff like changing interface and ease of use standards.
These aren't "new generations of historians", most of those people won't want to jump through hoops to learn how to operate that UFO defense tactics game their grandpa liked so much. Because the game sure as hell won't explain itself to them.

 

[Ralemont]

I disagree, and GAF is a great example at observing the "hype-culture" it produces. You only need to look at the past few big AAA releases and corresponding threads to see this. The AAA industry is fueled by the hype machine and marketing. This doesn't necessarily mean they will hold on to these opinions post-release though.

And often they don't, especially in 2014. I think you are right about the pre-release hype machine, though.

The article does, however, mention two possibilities for why the last game suddenly has a myriad of flaws when the newer one is being released. It's possible that it's simply tearing down the old game to build the new one up. OR it's possible that the old one always had these flaws that the media/devs simply neglected to focus on. I think the latter is the truer case, personally. And if so, then the actual problem is the lack of balanced discussion about newer games, not the portrayal of older ones.

Furthermore, it's evident by the surveys on GAF (e.g. GAF's Essential RPGs) that there is a strong bias for new and recent titles over older ones.

Robert pointed out how this isn't exactly true, but even if it is: So what? That doesn't mean that bias is solely due to the media telling gamers these new games are better. I'd prefer to think that the article is worth reading because of the point it makes about people claiming to be enthusiasts but dismissing older games without playing them, but having been exposed to Felipe's writing in other contexts, I am actually suspicious that this article is a backdoor way to undermine criticism leveled at older games from people who have played them.

 

[RipperGrim]

But isn't it true anyways? For the most part games do get better. It's not like they are lying or anything. One game will have a bad mechanic and if the dev is competent it gets fixed in the sequel and that just makes going back to the older game harder.

I had no issues with Uncharted 1 but then I played Uncharted 2 and 3, then went back to 1 I found myself not enjoying it as much because I could see the issues a lot more clearly.

 

[John Kowalski]

I mentioned this on Twitter when I first read this article but it's one of the pitfalls of comparing games to other mediums like books, music, and movies. Games are in iterative process; the next one will always take the lessons the previous game learned and apply them in new way. This is the primary reason why games are always looking towards the next big thing.

Uh? Why wouldn't other mediums be iterative as well? They all are. You always learn from you past works and you always try to apply what you've learned in your new works. Iteration isn't exclusive to games, though it may be more readily apparent because of how popular sequels are.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I think a comparison with literature is instructive. Your average reader of books in the modern Anglosphere has some degree of difficulty reading Moby-Dick, a greater degree of difficulty reading Shakespeare, and may as well not be able to read Chaucer at all. This is due to shifting linguistic norms and stylistic conventions. When a "classic" becomes difficult to understand it's released with a scholarly apparatus, footnotes, updated spelling, etc so as to make it accessible to non-specialists - a "remake" not unlike the remakes of old games we see popping up from time to time.

OT, but this only really applies to English Literature, as it is a very freely evolving language based on usage - a piece of French literature from the 1700s uses the same language as modern French because there is a specific institution dedicated to curating the French language and determining what is and isn't allowed to be 'real' French.

 

[Durante]

This is a wonderful and highly important article, and I'm happy that someone made a thread about it.

There has been a valid point raised about time investment earlier in the thread, but then again, why shouldn't there be a requirement for significant time investment in order to be an "expert"? There is in most fields.

 

[poppabk]

There is a technology aspect at play on video games that doesn't occur in other media. Movies pretty much look the same throughout most of the modern era. Visual effects have changed, but except in a few circumstances there is very little barrier to watching old movies. Imagine if older movies were only available at the fidelity of VHS tape, I'm sure people would be less likely to go back and revisit them.
I think the problem is getting over that first hump, when you are asked to invest in an assemblage of blocks as a person, and a vague blur as a magnificent vista. If you can push through that then eventually you will become immersed in the game, and that yellow cube will be a deadly missile, those rectangles will be snakes, and you will care about what happens to that bunch of blocks.

 

[Fractal]

Elder scrolls is kind of a bad example because the first 2 games actually have aged incredibly badly. I agree with the overall point though.

Same here... being a big fan of the TES franchise, tried playing the original TES games for the first time recently, but it just didn't work out. When I found out how huge and confusing they were, with the map being randomly generated, I turned away.

 

[Barsinister]

It's my belief that history is lost because people leave the hobby in their late teens or early twenties. How many of us here on this board are over forty as a percentage? By the time I hit my thirties, I was the only guy who regularly bought and played games in my social circle. Movies and books are timeless, videogames are mostly thought of as childish. Not my opinion obviously, I still game at forty-two.

 

[Lostconfused]

There has been a valid point raised about time investment earlier in the thread, but then again, why shouldn't there be a requirement for significant time investment in order to be an "expert"? There is in most fields.

The lack of individuals who made the time investment to develop the expertise would probably support the youth of the industry argument.

There is a technology aspect at play on video games that doesn't occur in other media.

Someone brought it up before and I agree with them that it is more about UI, control, and similar form of limitations that are far more problematic than visual fidelity.

If you watch a movie, you watch a movie. The action remains the same, with reading as well. Obviously reality isn't that simple and any art form can demand varying amounts of pre-requisite knowledge or critical analysis to grasp the creators intent. However with video games the way one engages with them could be entirely different from one to the next. Different controllers, control schemes, accepted forms of practice for interface and control design of that time.

 

[mclem]

Graphically? Sure, but feature wise, the later games in the series have yet to surpass Daggerfall.

I'd say not just graphically, I played Arena fairly recently (in fact, it's the only Elder Scrolls title I've played!), but there's quite a few things in the design I'd regard as massive clangers. It's interesting from a historical and evolution of game design standpoint, but I don't think it holds together as a game particularly well.

I'm well aware, though, that Daggerfall is a huge step up. I'm sure I'll get to it sometime!

I do tend to run counter to the sentiment expressed in the OP; I'm very interested in the history and evolution of the medium, and as such it's very rare for me to not play a series in order - even when doing so requires going a long way back. As well as the Elder Scrolls: Arena example, the year afterwards I played the first Might & Magic title, an even older game (and one I felt held up better than Arena, actually)

I do recognise that the point the OP's quote made, and it's definitely got some truth to it, but I think that reflects on the nature of your engagement with the medium. There will always be people like me, and there will always be people more interested in the 'best' given experience, and would take the necessary guidance to find it.

 

[NoblesseOblige]

I'm somebody who grew up on CRPGs. Absolutely love them. However even I can't bring myself to go back to some older titles, and it has nothing to do with new titles being 'hyped'. I pay no attention at all to it and in fact typically don't play a game for several years after its release (I like saving money as well as having the 'complete' edition with all the added content and bugs worked out). The reason I have trouble going back to them is that their mechanics are poor, or they're missing certain conveniences that weren't developed until after the initial release, and sometimes even it's just that graphically I can't get into it (especially those titles that are locked at super low resolutions that require mods to display fullscreen which end up looking super tiny). Blaming it on hype is silly.

 

[JCX]

One thing I've been thinking about for a while. Is there more merit in playing a game on the original console/controller it was released on, even if updated versions exist?

I've been playing a lot of PS1 classic on Vita. While it's super convenient, sometimes I wonder if I mis things by not playing on a bigger screen or on a controller closer to what it was made for.

 

[Tain]

One thing I've been thinking about for a while. Is there more merit in playing a game on the original console/controller it was released on, even if updated versions exist?

I've been playing a lot of PS1 classic on Vita. While it's super convenient, sometimes I wonder if I mis things by not playing on a bigger screen or on a controller closer to what it was made for.

You're missing the display characteristics the game was made for, at least, but as tech advances we can better simulate older displays on newer ones.

 

[YoYo Switch]

I never understood the concept of a game being "dated"

If it was good then it's still good now.

I aged the original Resident Evil last summer. It was my first real shot at tank controls. I couldn't believe how big of a baby everyone was being over "dated tank controls" they made perfect sense to me, playing it in 2014 who was three when the game came out.

Retro games carry that awful stigma sometimes and I can't help but look to modern game design and wonder if it has conditioned players to find older mechanics unacceptable.

Each game is different. And I'm not even slagging off modern games or anything. It's just that they are objectively less difficult and more homogeneous in their design then games of old.