Interesting Article

[Xalibar]

The Ghosts of Gaming Past - PS3 Feature at IGN (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/118/1183561p1.html)

Here is an interesting article I read awhile ago. I think it has a good point. What do you think?

[Pike]

Okay, firstly, inb4 this gets moved to General Gaming.

Secondly, whilst I agree that there are older games that haven't aged well, there are also plenty of older games that are just as brilliant now as they were back then. As an example: ...wait for it... SMAC. The game came out in 1999, it looks like freaking this:

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a109/Pikestaff/screenshots/MiriamsGiantStack.jpg

...and it is the greatest video game I've ever played. This is not nostalgia speaking. Why? Because I never actually sat down and played it until about three months ago.

The same goes for X-Com: UFO Defense:

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lo78ujNXcC1qdg3a3o1_500.jpg

...which came out in 1994, and proceeded to thoroughly engage and enthrall me for the very first time in 2010 or 2011 or whenever I first started playing it. (Hint: it was recent.)

Thirdly, it's all pretty subjective. A lot of people say that Ocarina of Time (for example) hasn't held up well, but I played it again about two years ago and loved it just as much as always.

Fourthly, we all know when Pike shows up in a thread because we promptly start talking about SMAC and X-Com. :shobon:

[Psychotic]

Okay, firstly, inb4 this gets moved to General Gaming.:jess:

Yeah, threads about non-Square games or games in general have their own forum, and this is it. Thanks!

[Jessweeee♪]

I judge whether or not a game has aged well by how many bits make me go "omg I hate this part I don't want to do it agaaaain" or how fun it is using cheat codes on it. FFVII does okay by my standards. Not awesome, but I'd play it again. FFVIII gets more replays out of me.

[Slothy]

Secondly, whilst I agree that there are older games that haven't aged well, there are also plenty of older games that are just as brilliant now as they were back then.

At least the article admits as much towards the end, though I'm a bit disappointed they basically just said that they don't know why games like Mario 3 or Half-Life have held up over time, they just have. The interesting part of discussing what games have or haven't held up over time for me is trying to nail down the factors that make a game like Super Mario Bros. 3 hold up better than a game like Cool Boarders.

I think a large part of what makes the games he listed at the end (with the exception of RE4 which I've hated pretty much from the start because of a multitude of little things that bother me) hold up so well is not only that they were built on solid fundamental mechanics within their respective genres, but also that they weren't really held back by the technology of the day. Half-Life is still one of the best FPS games ever not just because of great feeling character movement, weapons, puzzles and level design, but because despite coming out in 1998, it doesn't feature completely retarded AI. And the few things the AI is really bad at don't have a dramatic effect on the flow of the rest of the game. In fact, I'd go so far as to say Half-Life has better AI than a lot of FPS games released now, what with enemies trying to flank you, flush you out with grenades, running from your grenades and taking cover, etc.

Essentially, what it comes down to for me is that a game like Super Mario 3, Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo, Super Metroid or Half-Life couldn't be done much better today if you were to try and make them with present day technology. Sure they may have access to better graphical and sound capabilities, but better technology isn't going to improve the gameplay in Super Mario 3. It's already extremely polished and varied. Just like Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo is very well balanced, the controls are responsive, and the characters are varied and fun to play.

Also, take any chance to talk about X-Com and SMAC that you can Pike. Not enough people have played them. Though I will admit that the one problem I have with X-Com having played it for the first time last year is that the UI is atrocious by today's standards. I had absolutely no idea what the hell I was doing for a while. Which is not good in a game that is as challenging as that can be for a new player. That said, when the only thing you'd improve in a 17 year old game is the ability to tell what all the buttons do on a first playthrough I'd say it's holding up pretty damn well.

[champagne supernova]

I also read this article. I think I played through VII on my PS2 again a bit, but was always more interested in VIII. Jessweee and me are weird like that. When I fix my PS3, gonna definitely play through VIII again. After I finish IX at least.

But yeah, some of the games that have lasted have a certain mechanic that hasn't been improved on dramatically and don't have anything that really draws them back. Super Mario is still an awesome platformer that requires you to think. SimCity is still a blast to play because it's core mechanics are nailed so well. StarTopia is, well, just the best thing to ever happen. Still.

And some old games are awesome. Last year I played some epic games (FFXIII, GoW3, FallOut3) but I still fell in love with Chrono Trigger. I'd never played it before. Something that never happened to me with the older FFs (maybe because the dialogue wasn't absolutely retarded).

How VIII works in this, I don't know. I think the locations were just so pretty that I like going back and just seeing them. Again and again and again.

[Mirage]

There are a few things that make a game more likely to pass the test of time than other games, i've been thinking about this for a while today after reading (skimming, lol) that article/blogpost/whatever and I'm going to try to transform it into text here :p.

I think what's almost universal for the games that are still good is that they do what is most important in a game very well, and that is to have good gameplay. When you make games for a platform in any given time period, there are always some technical limitations present. Some things in a game are very affected by these limitations, the most obvious example of this would be graphics. Gameplay, however, is far from as limited by the console's hardware, and neither is a game's story, setting and characters. If you as a developer focus on getting the most out of the aspect of your game that isn't greatly bound by the console's technical limitations, I think your game is likely to be considered "acceptable" for a much longer period of time.

Another thing is that some games are simply not "meant" to become classics. In some types of games, the newest installation is actually meant, and expected to obsolete the previous installation. Tekken and Battlefield would be examples of such games. I don't think Namco expects, or even want anyone to still want to play tekken 5 after they released tekken 6. "No one" is going to play T5 because they thought Jin's storyline was cooler in 5, or because they thought the game's setting was better.

A final fantasy game, however, isn't like that. Of course, SE wants people to keep buying their newest game instead of replaying their old games, but because each of the final fantasy games have unique settings, stories, characters, music, and methods of character growth, they don't really "compete" against each others when a gamer wants to pick a game to play. The games don't need to be the best games in existence, because there are many other reasons than graphics and gameplay that you would replay the game. Also, in the case of final fantasy, the control scheme hasn't changed very much since FF6 or FF7, and the fans still regard menu selections and separate battle screens as acceptable ways to control and play a game.

Also, while gameplay is probably the most important aspect in any game i play, when the quality of the gameplay is good enough, it is usually not a problem to sacrifice a tiny bit of gameplay to get a different story, characters, setting etc, which is what I do when I choose to replay a final fantasy game that doesn't have the very best gameplay that I know of. If not, I would never play anything that isn't FFX-2 :p, and that would get pretty boring after a while.

[Shattered Dreamer]

I don't think I've disagreed with an article on gaming this much ever! Final Fantasy VII hasn't stood the test of time? Does this guy actually have $hit for brains? I played through Final Fantasy VII again there about 2 years ago & it was every bit the great RPG experience it was when I first played it at my friends house when I was 6 or 7 years old! There are very few RPG's I can think of that have a system of character ability customization as user friendly yet intuitive as the Materia system. And the story it really speaks for itself well doesn't it! The only part of FFVII that hasn't stood the test of time is the graphics & when you play games from the 90's you have to leaves any hangs up you have about graphics at the door!

[Wolf Kanno]

Its an interesting article, and like Vivi22, I was a bit annoyed he didn't explore the reasoning behind "Why a game is timeless?" and instead just kind of left it like some cosmic rhetorical question.

I can agree with the idea of certain mechanics getting better with games, I personally love Twilight Princess more than Ocarina of Time, mostly cause TP doesn't play like a paraplegic trying to swim out of a tar pit, but that's what a decade of better controller mechanics will do for you. I feel RPGs generally age better than most game genres cause they are usually not as hampered by technology. ATB has not really had any drastic changes since FFV, VII introduced a movie camera in battle to take advantage of the visuals but overall it still works the same as it does in older games, and X-2 basically just redid FFIV's system but sped it up.

While VII has not aged well in some regards (amusingly its graphics), I feel its held up much better than some of the series more recent entries. Hell, I still feel that FFV has the best gameplay/customization in the series and its almost 20 years old now.

MGS1 is sadly a game that is really beginning to show its age, while it has graphically lost its edge long before the PS1 was retired, the gameplay itself has pretty much been relegated to archaic after MGS2 hit the scene. I honestly feel that Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (16-bit MSX) plays better than MGS1, but I still love MGS1 cause its story and characters have held up nicely.

I think there are multiple factors that contribute to the timelessness of a game but for older games, I would reckon its the simplicity behind game mechanics. Tetris is still an addictive game that will consume hours of your time if not your soul, but it honestly has only a few simple rules and mechanics. The same could be said of the early Mario and Sonic games.

[Pike]

MGS1 is sadly a game that is really beginning to show its age, while it has graphically lost its edge long before the PS1 was retired, the gameplay itself has pretty much been relegated to archaic after MGS2 hit the scene. I honestly feel that Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (16-bit MSX) plays better than MGS1, but I still love MGS1 cause its story and characters have held up nicely.


I play the GameCube remake when I feel like replaying MGS. (Just like I play FireRed when I feel like replaying the original Pokemon, actually...)

[Bolivar]

First off, any article that repeatedly states "i know i'm going to get flamed" is written for that precise reason and probably has little substance to it. As with this one, despite it being well written.

The article seems to argue that the games of yesteryear, especially the most nostalgic ones, don't deserve the reverence they're attributed. It also introduces that there are a few timeless games that by virtue of some magical foresight and gameplay ingenuity manage to achieve god-like status.

That just isn't true. I can still play simple, average titles like Crash Team Racing and have a fun time with them. Even games like Twisted Metal 2 whose both graphics and controls are abominable by today's standards can offer a lot of fun playing them. A game doesn't have to be timeless to escape the disappointment of rose tinted glasses.

The same is true with Final Fantasy VII, which is astonishing that his recurring theme is that FFVII isn't as good today, when he inevitably admits he hasn't checked (it's namedropped as flame bait). FFVII looks horrendous on an HDTV, but on the PSP, which you can now play legally, it actually looks like an incredible portable title. The environments are still unique, the music is still arguably Nobuo's best, the combat is still the most stylish and fluid ATB system, the characters are still colorful, the customization options are still deep, and the game is still incredibly well paced with a variety of story, combat, exploration, mini-games, and tons of other stuff to do other than the previously mentioned. The only thing that hasn't aged as well is the dialogue and script, which is still leagues beyond the FF games that came before it. Even on an SDTV the graphics don't look as bad.

I would actually say the opposite is true, as the years have gone on, my appreciation for FFVII has only increased, especially in light of later video games and FF titles. I see how the combat was much more exciting than the later PS1 games, yet maintains the strategy and uniqueness later titles lack; the music has all the creativity of the later songs but is the last to maintain the charm of being done on a console's sound chip; and I'm constantly finding little nods towards previous titles and little nuances of the world's mythology. After beating every title in the franchise multiple times (except XIII just once) I can confidently claim that FFVII has the best music, pacing, and combat in the series. It's also among the most unique worlds and nails it better than the ones on its level.

I've played FFVII many times over the years and have had a blast on many of them. Most recently I played and beat it exclusively on the PSP, and it's still a better game than most titles on the system, including recent masterpieces like Peace Walker, Vaklyria Chronicles II, and Ghost of Sparta. I also played it a few years ago in undergrad, for the first time on a surround sound system: we cranked it up and absolutely had a blast rocking out to the Sector 1 Mako Reactor bombing mission.

I can also claim the same for Goldeneye, to some extent. Someone argued with the gameplay innovations like multiple grenades, aiming down the sights, and the controls, that Call of Duty is simply a better game than Goldeneye in every respect. But play split screen couch mulitplayer with Call of Duty and when you run out of adequately sized maps to play, try Goldeneye. I can't vouch for the dude who wrote the article, but I still have fun with people who really cared about it. The controls and graphics are arguably horrendous, but I've found the same thing with Twisted Metal 2 - there's just some innate design quality to the split screen couch multiplayer that remains to this day.




Anyway, IGN is cheap. And wrong.

[Mirage]

MGS1 is sadly a game that is really beginning to show its age, while it has graphically lost its edge long before the PS1 was retired, the gameplay itself has pretty much been relegated to archaic after MGS2 hit the scene. I honestly feel that Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (16-bit MSX) plays better than MGS1, but I still love MGS1 cause its story and characters have held up nicely.


I play the GameCube remake when I feel like replaying MGS. (Just like I play FireRed when I feel like replaying the original Pokemon, actually...)

Yes, and it saddens me that MGS TTS will not be part of the MGS HD bundle for PS3 and 360.

[Slothy]

MGS1 is sadly a game that is really beginning to show its age, while it has graphically lost its edge long before the PS1 was retired, the gameplay itself has pretty much been relegated to archaic after MGS2 hit the scene. I honestly feel that Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (16-bit MSX) plays better than MGS1, but I still love MGS1 cause its story and characters have held up nicely.

I'm not really sure I agree with you on this. While I wouldn't necessarily want to see the stealth genre regress to MGS1 style gameplay, I don't think you can really do a top down stealth game much better than MGS1. The controls were very responsive and felt great (I might even argue that the controls felt better than some of the later entries which piled on more and more moves to the MGS1 base), and the gameplay itself was quite challenging and compelling. I really don't think the game becomes less playable because the later games added to and changed up the formula a bit. In fact, aside from the fact that MGS2 added so many different ways to interact with enemies and the environment, I'd say MGS1 was a much tighter and more balanced gameplay experience. MGS2 made the stealth element a bit of a joke with the tranquilizer gun which takes almost all of the challenge out of the game. It wasn't really until MGS3 where they managed to work it in without completely breaking the gameplay.

[Mirage]

Do you even start with a tranq gun if you don't start at easy difficulty?

[Slothy]

Do you even start with a tranq gun if you don't start at easy difficulty?

It's been a long time since I played it but I don't believe so, at least for the Raiden section of the game. It's not long until you find one though, and I personally find the parts where you don't have one to be the most compelling. Unfortunately, I felt like the game was really designed around assuming you had the tranquilizer gun as the difficulty is all over the place if you try not using it.

[Mirage]

Try hard difficulty then :p
Personally, I can't get past the 5000 rexes on anything higher than normal

[Wolf Kanno]

MGS1 is sadly a game that is really beginning to show its age, while it has graphically lost its edge long before the PS1 was retired, the gameplay itself has pretty much been relegated to archaic after MGS2 hit the scene. I honestly feel that Metal Gear 2: Solid Snake (16-bit MSX) plays better than MGS1, but I still love MGS1 cause its story and characters have held up nicely.

I'm not really sure I agree with you on this. While I wouldn't necessarily want to see the stealth genre regress to MGS1 style gameplay, I don't think you can really do a top down stealth game much better than MGS1. The controls were very responsive and felt great (I might even argue that the controls felt better than some of the later entries which piled on more and more moves to the MGS1 base), and the gameplay itself was quite challenging and compelling. I really don't think the game becomes less playable because the later games added to and changed up the formula a bit. In fact, aside from the fact that MGS2 added so many different ways to interact with enemies and the environment, I'd say MGS1 was a much tighter and more balanced gameplay experience. MGS2 made the stealth element a bit of a joke with the tranquilizer gun which takes almost all of the challenge out of the game. It wasn't really until MGS3 where they managed to work it in without completely breaking the gameplay.

While I can agree that the original is far more challenging than MGS2 and for me MGS4, it partially because of how awful the controls hold up. Fighting in MGS3 is actually more of a chore because the auto-aim is dysfunctional and Snake is nowhere near as flexible about moving around more agile fighters. Back when MGS4 came out, I played through the whole MGS series again and frankly the gameplay in MGS1 does not hold up as well. Its more challenging but its because Snake is more limited but also because the controls are really unrefined. In MGS2, if I screw up, I can honestly say its because I screwed up, because the controls are so precise.

The AI also doesn't hold up as well, you can literally run through segments of MGS1 with little problem, but that won't work as well in MGS 2 and 3, 2 cause its stage design is very restrictive and 3, because the use of camo and open environments require the enemy to be that much more competent. Hell, the game even suffers a bit of Zelda syndrom with the boss fights, with most of the bosses having one sure way to win, whereas later installments allowed you to tackle most of the bosses with several different strategies. While MGS1 is certainly not the weakest link in the franchise *cough* MG1 *cough* playing through MGS1 up to MGS4 is like playing the FF series in the order of US releases of I to IV, to VI, to VII. The jump in quality is astounding, and its pretty hard to go from MGS3 back to MGS1.

The problem with the Twin Snakes though, it while the gameplay is MGS2, the game still uses MGS1's level design and AI scripts, so the game is a freaking cakewalk when you can tranq and headshot everything. Revolver Ocelot is a boss fight designed around MGS1's shitty controls and auto-aim, when you get FPS mode firing, you literally stand in one spot and and just shoot him while he runs back and forth. The challenge is sucked away, yet to be fair, the challenge itself was more of an issue of working with poor controls.

[Slothy]

Its more challenging but its because Snake is more limited but also because the controls are really unrefined.

See, this I can't agree with. As someone who has beaten MGS1 more times than I can count and even got to be one level shy of 100% in VR Missions, the controls were anything but unrefined. They were very precise if you ask me, and I never felt like I died because of anything that was the fault of the controls. In fact from MGS2 on, I was far more apt to die from trying to finaggle the controls into doing what I wanted than in MGS1, because they piled so many moves onto the control set. Now that's not to say that the controls in the later games weren't very good given how many moves they were piling on, and MGS3 in particular stands out as perhaps being the best (with the exception of not being able to move while aiming), but none of the later games managed to get the same simplicity and responsiveness that MGS1 did if you ask me.

[DMKA]

I'm playing FFVI right now and loving the hell out of every second. It's the most fun I've had playing a game in the last year.

So yeah, dude is way off. Opinions, etc.

And FFVII is still my favorite game.

[Wolf Kanno]

Its more challenging but its because Snake is more limited but also because the controls are really unrefined.

See, this I can't agree with. As someone who has beaten MGS1 more times than I can count and even got to be one level shy of 100% in VR Missions, the controls were anything but unrefined. They were very precise if you ask me, and I never felt like I died because of anything that was the fault of the controls. In fact from MGS2 on, I was far more apt to die from trying to finaggle the controls into doing what I wanted than in MGS1, because they piled so many moves onto the control set. Now that's not to say that the controls in the later games weren't very good given how many moves they were piling on, and MGS3 in particular stands out as perhaps being the best (with the exception of not being able to move while aiming), but none of the later games managed to get the same simplicity and responsiveness that MGS1 did if you ask me.

Then you must have Zen like skills with the auto aim cause I find it makes combat much more sluggish and tends to have hiccups when you shoot at multiple targets. I ain't saying MGS1 is a bad game, O myself played the hell out of that game and got my Big Boss rank back in the day, but I must say my last playthrough of the game was a bit of a sobering experience cause I found the game less fluid than later entries. Its one thing to throw it in for a good run, I feel its issued came after going through the games in reverse order. Going from MGS3 back to MGS1 is quite a bit of a leap in quality.