There are plenty of games I love main reason being the memories playing it when I was a kid with friends or whatever. And sadly, that probably made the game look better in my eyes. Definitely worth playing the games you like for nostalgia purposes again to see how good they really are.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The nostalgia argument
- Thread starter oni-link
- Start date
sublimit
Banned
Amen to that.
This isn't the nostalgia argument though. Great games will always be great games, but nostalgia helps average games become great in our memories (plus you probably had different expectations for games you played when you were 8 years old). So if someone plays an old average game after hearing the nostalgia-fuelled hype they will be disappointed.
Furthermore, revisiting an 'average' game that you personally have nostalgia for might make it seem better than if you were playing it for the first time, so the hype train continues.
flatearthpandas
Member
What is your point here exactly? That because other people (me, apparently?) sometimes don't promote serious conversation it is okay to dismiss dissenting opinions offhand?
Sounds like a shitty way to go about it but have fun. I wouldn't want to have a "serious" conversation with you and i would be very critical of anything you supposedly learn that way.
I don't like it when people use the nostalgia argument for new games like Shovel Knight. That game doesn't make me nostalgic for anything because it's a new game that happens to look like an old one. It's just well designed and fun.
It's also kind of annoying when people will dismiss actual arguments and reasons and say things like "people are just overly nostalgic and refuse to see these flaws I'm pointing out that may or may not actually be flaws". That seems to pop up a lot in the "Sonic was never good" threads where some will complain about running into shit and not being able to go fast, others will talk about how you need to roll and get used to the maps to properly speedrun the games as well as saying they're not just about speed and that was a marketing gimmick, and then there are the people who say everyone only liked the games due to nostalgia and group A is right.
It's also kind of annoying when people will dismiss actual arguments and reasons and say things like "people are just overly nostalgic and refuse to see these flaws I'm pointing out that may or may not actually be flaws". That seems to pop up a lot in the "Sonic was never good" threads where some will complain about running into shit and not being able to go fast, others will talk about how you need to roll and get used to the maps to properly speedrun the games as well as saying they're not just about speed and that was a marketing gimmick, and then there are the people who say everyone only liked the games due to nostalgia and group A is right.
nkarafo
Member
Its the same as the nostalgia goggles but in reverse.
SerTapTap
Member
It is really interesting and at least partially unique to games I think, how modern controls or other changes can "ruin" older things for you. There's a lot of zeitgeist in gaming, certain things can be very hard to appreciate for a number of reasons--genres become over-populated, control schemes change, expectations in graphics, storytelling change, performance issues happen.
I still love it to this day, but I can certainly imagine someone growing up on 120hz PC games going back and finding Ocarina of Time and it's 20FPS nauseating for instance. I personally find a lot of NES games hard to appreciate because the controls are awkward at a very basic level. Mega Man and SMB3 are huge exceptions, but stuff like Kirby's Adventure (which at least looks lovely) is really clunky. I enjoy Kirby's Adventure still, but I really like the Kirby series and it looks so good, I'm not as kind to lots of other NES games.
And lots of early 3D games have extremely weird control schemes that must have made sense when they were novel or at least been no worse than average, but now that 3D control is pretty standard (and I mean, it's not hard with dual analogs) it can be weird to go back.
terrisus
Member
As someone who spends the majority of my time playing older games (SNES especially), and is constantly discovering and falling in love with "new" older games, any time someone brings out the "It's just nostalgia" card, I pretty much just roll my eyes at this point.
Different people have different tastes and preferences in games. Obviously some people are incapable of understanding that though. Not my problem. I enjoy what I enjoy.
Different people have different tastes and preferences in games. Obviously some people are incapable of understanding that though. Not my problem. I enjoy what I enjoy.
terrisus
Member
That's not "a good game becoming bad," that's your personal tastes and preferences changing.
potam
Ask me about my terrible taste.
"things do get dated and newer games have improved on the mechanics of older games"
+
"it's probably best not to start discrediting dissenting opinions offhand"
=
?
Hopefully you see the irony in that statement...
Goldeneye is in the same tier as Toshinden. Okay man. Hang on, I have to retrieve my eyeballs as they've rolled into the upper atmosphere.
Maybe I was reading too much into the first line of your post that I quoted, but it suggested to me that you'd be fine dismissing someone's interest in an older game as "simply nostalgia" even after they've gone into specifics.
For me personally, who had a retro gaming binge a few years ago and gobbled up many of the systems/games of my younger years, let me tell you... nostalgia is overrated.
There are many classics that are timeless. But there are TONS of games that I thought were cream of the crop (and maybe they were) back when I played them originally, but going back to them recently .... ugh. So bad. The 5th generation and Dreamcast have so many games that are ruined if you go back and try to play today. It really was the wild west of 3D and we didn't know what we were being fed and mostly accepted it.
My big takeaway is 2D/sprite based games hold up well if the gameplay is good (and many do!). Most of the "classics" from NES/SNES/Genesis era still hold up, regardless of "nostalgia". We have also come a loooooong way in UI, camera, and basic controls. It's amazing how archaic and cumbersome UI and cameras were back in the 5th/6th gen.
There are many classics that are timeless. But there are TONS of games that I thought were cream of the crop (and maybe they were) back when I played them originally, but going back to them recently .... ugh. So bad. The 5th generation and Dreamcast have so many games that are ruined if you go back and try to play today. It really was the wild west of 3D and we didn't know what we were being fed and mostly accepted it.
My big takeaway is 2D/sprite based games hold up well if the gameplay is good (and many do!). Most of the "classics" from NES/SNES/Genesis era still hold up, regardless of "nostalgia". We have also come a loooooong way in UI, camera, and basic controls. It's amazing how archaic and cumbersome UI and cameras were back in the 5th/6th gen.
True, but we can see fixes for this, Perfect Dark on XBLA was re-released with a better framerate and duel analogue control, but it's still the same game, and the same goes for the N64 Zelda games on 3DS
Zen_Arcade
Banned
The problem with this is that you're just assuming the person actually doesn't still love the way the game plays. The nostalgia argument is is flimsy because it basically boils down to "I don't understand how anyone could think that game is great in the modern age, because I don't like that game anymore, so they must have fond memories that are clouding their judgement."
It's a completely baseless argument the vast majority of the time it's used. Unless someone willingly admits that their fond memories shape their perception of the game.
AdventureMike
Member
This post says pretty much everything I was going to say. Levying things as "rose-tinted glasses" or nostalgia is lazy for both the people that automatically chuck everything older than 5+ years in that category and the people that assume New = shiny but terrible because it's new.
One example I tend to bring up in nostalgia threads is always EQ. Many people that never liked Everquest will say it's rose-tinted glasses to like features about that game and want things from it you'd like to see in newer MMOs. "It was never good, you just didn't know any better" was mentioned a good bit. I know what I like and current MMOs are lacking several things I liked from that era of MMOs but are no longer in vogue. Wishing that they were still being included isn't nostalgia just because it doesn't appeal to someone that likes the way current ones are made. It's just an easy answer to stifle having a larger discussion.
As soon as "nostalgia" enters a discussion, that discussion becomes less interesting. There's enough to talk about with old games, so I have no idea why people want to derail a discussion by saying "it's just nostalgia". That may be part of it, but the nostalgia comes from the game being enjoyable and memorable, not the other way around.
justjustin
Member
It's usually not nostalgia. If someone says they love an old game then proceed to tell their life story, not focusing on anything about the game itself, then yes it's nostalgia. "Smash Bros. for N64 is one of the best games ever because I had a blast playing it all day with my friends at my birthday party. I also like how there's no lifebar like in traditional fighting games." That's nostalgia.
And I don't think you can be nostalgic about events in videogames. "Yeah, well, of course you would enjoy flying across an entire level in Super Mario World using the cape as a kid. The game's not great, it's just nostalgia goggles." That doesn't make sense to me. If you're trying to argue certain games or events in games are only appealing to kids then the game is childlike or for people with poor taste or something, not nostalgic. Also, there's no past to return to since you can play almost any old game whenever you want a million different ways. Videogames are of course representative of their time but they're not personal memories frozen in the past that you can wistfully daydream about.
And I don't think you can be nostalgic about events in videogames. "Yeah, well, of course you would enjoy flying across an entire level in Super Mario World using the cape as a kid. The game's not great, it's just nostalgia goggles." That doesn't make sense to me. If you're trying to argue certain games or events in games are only appealing to kids then the game is childlike or for people with poor taste or something, not nostalgic. Also, there's no past to return to since you can play almost any old game whenever you want a million different ways. Videogames are of course representative of their time but they're not personal memories frozen in the past that you can wistfully daydream about.
Earthpainting
Member
I didn't start playing games until I was in my 20s and the PS2 was already out for a few years, so I understand the difficulty judging older games. I do my best to judge them with the hardware and standards of their time in mind, and on what they were rather than on what they could have been. For instance maybe a game's big defining feature was once sporting cutting edge PS1 3D. That's nice and impressive, but this would of course lose its pull as technology evolves. The best polygon pushing possible on a PS1 will always seem limited and kind of ugly with a 2015 gaze. I'm saddened to say that anything pre-NES is very difficult for me to play. ZX-Spectrum games make me physically ill, and PC games that use internal speakers are also a guaranteed headache.
Another tricky element is deciding on what you place the most importance: "Doing something first or new" or "doing something better/best". It would seems like a no-brainer to gravitate towards "best" with your 2015 perspective, but it's entirely possible that this "best" you are leaning towards was just a directive "me too" rip-off game. Then suddenly "best" becomes harder to respect. It can also feel a bit disrespectful and unfair to lose track of a highly influential game between a sea of copycats.
After having experienced a few generations in real-time now, and having scoped out a lot of older software, I can say I tend to appreciate games with unique hooks a lot more than just simple games that do nothing wrong, but don't do anything of their own either. This is how I ended looking at retro and contemporary games alike.
Another tricky element is deciding on what you place the most importance: "Doing something first or new" or "doing something better/best". It would seems like a no-brainer to gravitate towards "best" with your 2015 perspective, but it's entirely possible that this "best" you are leaning towards was just a directive "me too" rip-off game. Then suddenly "best" becomes harder to respect. It can also feel a bit disrespectful and unfair to lose track of a highly influential game between a sea of copycats.
After having experienced a few generations in real-time now, and having scoped out a lot of older software, I can say I tend to appreciate games with unique hooks a lot more than just simple games that do nothing wrong, but don't do anything of their own either. This is how I ended looking at retro and contemporary games alike.
I'm gonna have to see your empirical receipts, doctor.
Isn't trolling and/or shit posting something you can get banned for?
nkarafo
Member
Honesty, this is probably the worst post i have seen on Gaf.
I dislike 'nostalgia' when it's used as an argument to discount the opinion of hundreds of people simultaneously. The same with using 'overrated' as an argument, it's basically 'all of those people who think it's great are wrong and my single broad-stroke of an opinion, despite being hugely outnumbered, automatically makes all of theirs irrelevant!".
It's much more interesting for me when people use it to describe their own disappointment at finding their old favourites hard to go back to compared to how they remember them, rather than pissing on multiple other people's opinions despite having no idea how recently they all played the title for the first time.
I regularly play NES and SNES games that I didn't get to play 20/25 years ago, and I also go back to my favourites from those consoles too. Personally I think that some games hold up really well, some don't, and it's most obvious with ones I haven't played before. Not only that, but the best ones automatically get more oxygen and are more likely to be visable on the download services, as the companies that made the crap ones have often gone bust and the rights are lost to the mists of time.
For example, I didn't play Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger or Megaman X2 until a couple of years back, and I find all three perfectly playable. There are plenty of popular ones that I loved back then but now find clumsy (I find Super Mario Kart and Starfox tough compared to their N64 equivelents), but in particular the 2D titles hold up really well.
Where games had great controls or physics or writing back then, they are still awesome now. When they relied on graphics or just the excitement of being something new, they have been surpassed by their descendants many times over, and the same will apply to today's games too.
It's much more interesting for me when people use it to describe their own disappointment at finding their old favourites hard to go back to compared to how they remember them, rather than pissing on multiple other people's opinions despite having no idea how recently they all played the title for the first time.
I regularly play NES and SNES games that I didn't get to play 20/25 years ago, and I also go back to my favourites from those consoles too. Personally I think that some games hold up really well, some don't, and it's most obvious with ones I haven't played before. Not only that, but the best ones automatically get more oxygen and are more likely to be visable on the download services, as the companies that made the crap ones have often gone bust and the rights are lost to the mists of time.
For example, I didn't play Super Metroid, Chrono Trigger or Megaman X2 until a couple of years back, and I find all three perfectly playable. There are plenty of popular ones that I loved back then but now find clumsy (I find Super Mario Kart and Starfox tough compared to their N64 equivelents), but in particular the 2D titles hold up really well.
Where games had great controls or physics or writing back then, they are still awesome now. When they relied on graphics or just the excitement of being something new, they have been surpassed by their descendants many times over, and the same will apply to today's games too.
sublimit
Banned
SliceSabre
Banned
Nostalgia is a very real thing that can color a person's view of a game. However nostalgia is also subjective and not everyone is going to view it the same.
As it stands though I tend to see people throw the nostalgia argument at old games other people enjoy but they did not.
As it stands though I tend to see people throw the nostalgia argument at old games other people enjoy but they did not.
While the concept of nostalgia affecting people's perception is an absolute truth, the problem is that people's use of it as an "argument" is subjective. It's hard to say how much it affects someone in any given situation. Like most short and overused arguments, it's not substantial enough to really make a case. It's also often used in a really derogatory fashion, so yeah, that's why people hate it.
Nostalgia is one of the strongest forces in the human psyche. If you're attacking it, you're probably just being a dick and failing to acknowledge your own persona biases. You're also probably arguing about something highly subjective and not worth arguing, to be honest.
Nostalgia is one of the strongest forces in the human psyche. If you're attacking it, you're probably just being a dick and failing to acknowledge your own persona biases. You're also probably arguing about something highly subjective and not worth arguing, to be honest.
Primal Rage was never good.
Thumbs up.
There's plenty of old games that I've played for the first time in recent years and they were great. And there's plenty I've played for the first time that weren't great.
There's plenty of older games I've gone back to that were great, and plenty that weren't.
People just need to play each individual game they want to play and judge them as individuals. The general hand waving of older games is pointless. And the same of modern games.
Each game is either good or bad based on its individual traits.
They're the same games they ever were. They didn't change. People changed, and everybody changes in different ways, so someone very well might find the original Warcraft to be timeless even when you do not.
nkarafo
Member
Primal Rage wasn't that great in 1995 as i remember reading from magazines of the time.
Warcraft 1 was nice but Warcraft 2 was better for most, thus people have this one as the staple. But at the same time most people like Warcraft 2 more than Warcraft 3 too. If anyone "accuse" them for being nostalgic it doesn't even make sense as they prefer Warcraft 2 over the first one.
Like how i got accused for being "just nostalgic" because F-Zero X and Starfox 64 are my favorite entries in their franchises (so i love those more than GX and Assault). Even though i had played an loved SNES Starfox and F-Zero back in the day and i still love X and 64 more than those even.
I think old mechanics can get in the way of enjoyment of certain games. Some games still have awesome controls, even by today's standards. I think basically every Mario game qualifies.
However, some early 3D games had horrid controls, and some control mechanics that just seem strange by today's standards. So it make sense when some people find the mechanics to be a barrier to entry.
I have found the same in some older classic RPGs. Some of the gameplay decisions just feel archaic and it can take the focus away from the game.
If you aren't put off by the controls or mechanics of a game, then you will enjoy it if it truly is a great game. No matter how old it is.
However, some early 3D games had horrid controls, and some control mechanics that just seem strange by today's standards. So it make sense when some people find the mechanics to be a barrier to entry.
I have found the same in some older classic RPGs. Some of the gameplay decisions just feel archaic and it can take the focus away from the game.
If you aren't put off by the controls or mechanics of a game, then you will enjoy it if it truly is a great game. No matter how old it is.
I don't think it's so much that nostalgia can turn bad games good, but I do think they can blind people to the issues that those games have.
'Tomb Raider has perfect controls', for instance, is a I consider to be clouded by an awful lot of nostalgia. It concentrates on the times that the controls worked well (well designed platforming areas) and ignores the situations they worked very poorly (navigating smaller spaces, combat).
'Tomb Raider has perfect controls', for instance, is a I consider to be clouded by an awful lot of nostalgia. It concentrates on the times that the controls worked well (well designed platforming areas) and ignores the situations they worked very poorly (navigating smaller spaces, combat).
nkarafo
Member
Newer games can have worse controls than older ones. And since you mentioned Mario, Mario 64 has much better and more versatile controls than Galaxy, for instance. In 64 you can do all sorts of crazy combinations and acrobatics (if you are good) but in Galaxy you don't have such freedom of movement, nor as many moves.
I'm not assuming anything. If it's a game you played before then your memory of it will be a factor in whether or not you enjoy it and to what extent. I would never try to assert that someone is 'only' enjoying a game because of nostalgia, but at the same time it would be naive to think that you are completely immune to this (or any other) factor. Maybe you would still enjoy the game without the nostalgia, maybe you would enjoy but not as much, maybe you would hate it.
The context given in the OP was people playing old games for the first time and not understanding the hype. In this instance it is reasonable to suggest that nostalgia is a stronger factor for this particular game and without the benefit of this nostalgia someone might not enjoy the game and be left with the feeling that they just don't 'get' it. Even in this case there is no assertion that the game is only good with nostalgia, since different people will naturally form different opinions.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Ugh. I have a much bigger problem with the word "magic" than I ever did with "nostalgia." Nintendo makes great games, yes, but there's no damn "magic." They're really polished, fun, engaging games. End of story.
Anyway, nostalgia becomes a problem when it prohibits the person from thinking logically, in the context where they're engaged in discussion with others. For example, it's objective that A Link Between Worlds, being a more modern game, controls smoother/better than A Link to the Past. It's also more accessible. Someone who is blinded by nostalgia would make the argument that "ALttP is superior in every way," which of course is objectively false. They're blinded because they had a really awesome time with ALttP (and I don't blame them, it's a freaking awesome game in its own right).
Liking something aesthetically (which is subjective) is no problem. Everyone has their preferences, and they should be respected. But failing to acknowledge things that are objectively better in more modern games, that's the "bad side" of nostalgia.
I love the soundtrack, atmosphere, and stories of the classic Resident Evils, but compared to modern REs, those classic ones look and control like shit. The modern ones objectively look and control better.
Newer games can have worse controls than older ones. And since you mentioned Mario, Mario 64 has much better and more versatile controls than Galaxy, for instance. In 64 you can do all sorts of crazy combinations and acrobatics (if you are good) but in Galaxy you don't have such freedom of movement, nor as many moves.
You also don't need to pull off those moves in Galaxy or especially 3D World where the game is more obstacle based than exploration based. I don't think not having as many flashy somersaults because of how excited the developers were about the analogue stick makes those games control worse and I actually prefer the movement in 3DW.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Using nostalgia as an argument is largely the result of a huge backlash toward people that bash newer games without providing any arguments other than "it's not what I had as a kid".
Try observing the Pokemon fanbase and you'll get what I mean. For example, on GAF, it's very difficult for a Pokemon thread that isn't an |OT| to not have some drive-by post about everything after the Generation 1 (aka. the 151 Pokemon that make up Red/Blue/Yellow) being terrible, regardless of whether the topic was even about designs or Generations. This is something that has been going on for a very long time in the Pokemon community so there's a lot of bitterness attached to the concept of nostalgia. I think that bitterness causes people to forget that love for older things isn't inherently a bad thing.
Try observing the Pokemon fanbase and you'll get what I mean. For example, on GAF, it's very difficult for a Pokemon thread that isn't an |OT| to not have some drive-by post about everything after the Generation 1 (aka. the 151 Pokemon that make up Red/Blue/Yellow) being terrible, regardless of whether the topic was even about designs or Generations. This is something that has been going on for a very long time in the Pokemon community so there's a lot of bitterness attached to the concept of nostalgia. I think that bitterness causes people to forget that love for older things isn't inherently a bad thing.
Calamari41
41 > 38
Newer games can have worse controls than older ones. And since you mentioned Mario, Mario 64 has much better and more versatile controls than Galaxy, for instance. In 64 you can do all sorts of crazy combinations and acrobatics (if you are good) but in Galaxy you don't have such freedom of movement, nor as many moves.
The only move in that gif that you can't do in Galaxy or 3D World is the dive, which wasn't even necessary there.
"People like this game and I don't, and it's old. Therefore nostalgia".
It seems to me like that its most common use, and I strongly disagree with it. It's not that some games don't age badly, but new games aren't inherently better. Also, liking something because it's shiny and new is even more shallow than this supposed nostalgia. I'd only use this argument against nonsensical statements that imply a game is better by virtue of being older, or what someone grew up with.
It seems to me like that its most common use, and I strongly disagree with it. It's not that some games don't age badly, but new games aren't inherently better. Also, liking something because it's shiny and new is even more shallow than this supposed nostalgia. I'd only use this argument against nonsensical statements that imply a game is better by virtue of being older, or what someone grew up with.
InfiniteCombo
Banned
Yup, me too. For all the reasons you mentioned.
nkarafo
Member
You don't NEED to do them in Mario 64 either. But you can, if you want and have the skills, to use them in a creative way to do better times, for instance. Its the freedom of choice and one that makes the game more enjoyable, especially if you are into speed gaming.
flatearthpandas
Member
Not really. Maybe you want to point out how I've discredited some dissenting opinions offhand? You want to argue that things never get dated and old mechanics can never be improved on? Go for it.
That first statement is not a hard and fast law, but reasonable people will acknowledge that some older mechanics have been objectively improved on.
Birgitte2004
Member
I don't use Nostalgia with regards to specific games.
When I think of Nostalgia filter, I think of it in terms of generic things about gaming as a whole.
Like when I see someone say "Back in the NES days, graphics weren't important, it was all about gameplay", that's when I see a Nostalgia filter.
Because graphics were important to games and gamers even back then, and time has filtered away examples of good graphics/terrible gameplay games from memory.
When I think of Nostalgia filter, I think of it in terms of generic things about gaming as a whole.
Like when I see someone say "Back in the NES days, graphics weren't important, it was all about gameplay", that's when I see a Nostalgia filter.
Because graphics were important to games and gamers even back then, and time has filtered away examples of good graphics/terrible gameplay games from memory.
It's easy to win an argument against a straw man, but you won't learn much from the experience
It's not a strawman if it has happened to me, lol.
Calamari41
41 > 38
The exact opposite happens too, though, and the "nostalgia goggles" argument applies fully there. You have had people tell you that the old game you like isn't good because its old, but I have had people tell me that the new game in a series is shit because it isn't as magical as an older game in the series, with no other reason than that given. What is that other than blind nostalgia?
AdventureMike
Member
I'm with you on the "magic" term. That's a subjective nostalgic response. As in my earlier example, it'd be the same as saying "Everquest was fucking magical. This world was better than WoW's!". Yeah, that was my experience because it was new but it doesn't make sense in the context of speaking about WHY a game had stuff you enjoy and why you enjoyed it.
I wanted to mention though that things get kinda hairy when you start naming things as objectively better though. I'm kinda with you on comparing something like Alttp and Albw, because one is supposed to be an (albeit modern) sequel to the previous game. However, I could also see the argument that someone DOES prefer the controls in Link to the Past over the 3DS version. It could be anything from an SNES controller in their hand being more comfortable than a 3DS to the way the controls worked within the context of the game. It's not a 1:1 comparison, so I have trouble with saying one is OBJECTIVELY better over the other. Using Tomb Raider as another example (because it's being brought up a lot), Tomb Raider on the PS1 and Tomb Raider (2013/2014) are two completely differently made titles. One is closer to Uncharted than a classic Tomb Raider game, even though they both share a franchise. The modern one makes use of a cinematic style and QTE's, so it doesn't seem to gel to have one being said its better than the other. It's all up to preference.
staticneuron
Member
That is exactly what it is though. I play alot of older games as well but some of the games I picked up again I had Rose colored glasses when remembering them so the reality is like a bucket of cold water to the face. At times I think to myself.... maybe I should have left this one to memory. For me it doesn't happen on every game. JSR was just as I remembered it, but for some reason I thought F.E.A.R. was much better graphically and gameplay wise, so when I went back to it I was floored at how badly I got the details wrong.