Why do I remember video games being better?

When I was 5-years old I loved playing Super Nintendo all the time. I remember how fun all the games were. But what happened to all the fun games I remember playing when I was 5? Everywhere I look on the internet, I can only find crappy overrated games. Everybody talks about the "classics" such as Demon's Crest and Actraiser, and yet when I was little, I remember playing games that were wayyyyyyyyyy more fun than them.


What happened to games where I did stuff like chasing a falling ceiling?, jump through falling platforms before they fall into spikes?, climb my way to the top of a room with narrowing walls, ect? Where the hell are they? This is not the same Super Nintendo I've played when I was a baby.

Little kids also watch Barney tapes 100 times each day. Would you do that now that you're older? The fact of the matter is that kids are different. What holds a child's attention is not the same as an adult. Kids are easier to placate. As you get older, your expectations rise accordingly. What made a convincing effect when you were 8 seems stupid at 18. As a result, games that appeal to adults are harder and more expensive to make. It's part of why Nintendo focuses on kids. Just shovel out any kind of garbage and they're happy... for a week, then you need more garbage. Make it cheap enough and the parents will just keep on shoveling them to their kids.

As Chilly Willy proves, it's all about perspective.

My own cynical perception is that most games will be more fondly remembered if we first enjoy them as kids. There's nothing so special about Mega Man X that necessarily makes it a better game than today's hits. Nostalgia plays a key role in appreciation of classic games.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMatthews

As Chilly Willy proves, it's all about perspective.

My own cynical perception is that most games will be more fondly remembered if we first enjoy them as kids. There's nothing so special about Mega Man X that necessarily makes it a better game than today's hits. Nostalgia plays a key role in appreciation of classic games.

---

Still, MrMatthews, there's a definite quality standard. SOR 1-3, Sonic 1-3, and games like Eternal Champions still hold up well today, as I enjoyed them regardless of acquiring a sega a mere 2-3 years ago.

Everything seems better when you are young.

Nostalgia.

My theory is when you play enjoy game when you're younger, the memory of loving that game becomes locked in your mind, so I don't think the phrase "still holds up today" holds a lot of water unless it's being used by someone who's experiencing a classic game for the first time.

I remember when I was younger...I'd play "Burnout 3" a lot.

It still holds up today.

Funny you mention that, Rusty. I remember when I was younger, i'd watch Star Wars a lot.

It still holds up today.

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/i...01/oh_snap.gif

Some games I used to play the crap out of when I was 8 or so still seem fun like Zelda, Wizard and Warriors, and Kung Fu. Some are horrible. I remember playing Top-Gun constantly and that game is awful. I remember my best friend and his little brother beating the hell out of each over Commando. Some games seem much better then when they came out like SMB2 and Metroid. I think a lot of it has to do with the fact is that games were hard to come by back in the day. Often I had to make do with what I had even if I had foolishly borrowed Friday the 13th from my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Metal_Sonic

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/i...01/oh_snap.gif

---

It's not quite a "snap," but it's a reference to an exchange Rusty and I had a while back. Classic video games, classic movies - being at the right place at the right time MIGHT be an important factor of appreciation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMatthews

My theory is when you play enjoy game when you're younger, the memory of loving that game becomes locked in your mind, so I don't think the phrase "still holds up today" holds a lot of water unless it's being used by someone who's experiencing a classic game for the first time.

---

What about games similar to those you enjoyed as a young person? For example I just played Sonic 3 for the first time. It's fun as hell, I have no memory of this game from my youth and although I do have memories of Sonic 1. Id rather play Sonic 3 today than anything on any new console. So maybe there's something more than just memories of a game. Maybe it's memories of graphics and in my case 16 bits.

The only two games that seem to have this quality to me (so a significant extent) are the DOS games X-Wing (Collector's CD-ROM) and Return to Zork we got when I was about 5.
The funny thing is I didn't really play either of these in the propper manner, with RTZ I was more or less "back seat gaming" with my dad, and in X-Wing I usually just screwed arround shooting at random stuff (in the "historical missions"), viewing the cutscenes, flying the obstical course and didn't get anywhere in the tours of duty. (I usually played as the preset player with the completed game anyway)

More recently I started playing it again on and off and still like it more than the sequel (Tie Fighter) which seems to get more praise, though I had that at a young age too. (though it was the redone win95 version, though I recently got the DOS CD version)

Similarly we had Myst growing up too (not long after getting RTZ), but I'm still more fond of RTZ despite the general oppinion on Myst. (I really like the comedic, satirical atmosphere in the Zork games, carying over from Infocom's classic text based games, which is why I'm not as fond of Zork Nemesis, but really liked how they wnt bact to the classic style with Gran Inquisitor)

For me I have different games that hold different memories for me from my life so far. Whether it was games associated with different houses we lived in or what my life was doing as a teenager all these games I have fond memories of because of the bigger picture. Some of these games are crap in peoples eyes and reviews they received, but for me they are great as they hold sentimental value!:D

*end of incoherrent babble

I don't think having fond memories automatically means you'll still have a high opinion. Like, I remember really enjoying Cobra Command for NES as a young child, but when I tried it again years later, I found out it sucked. I'm not going to try to convince myself that it's actually a good game, or that it was good at the time but has "aged badly" (which is a load of crap IMO); it's just not a good game. I simply was more easily entertained back then -- partly because of youth, but also because of having limited gaming experience, and not owning much of a game collection at the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMatthews

It's not quite a "snap," but it's a reference to an exchange Rusty and I had a while back. Classic video games, classic movies - being at the right place at the right time MIGHT be an important factor of appreciation.

---

It seems the fact that "Burnout 3" isn't quite "retro", "classic" or even that old has been lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMatthews

Funny you mention that, Rusty. I remember when I was younger, i'd watch Star Wars a lot.

It still holds up today.

---

I saw Star Wars when it was in the theater back when I was 12. It seemed just short of magic then. Now I watch it and notice things like the "armor" across the backs the Stormtroopers' hands are styrofoam squares. It's STILL a great movie that I love, but it's not the magic experience it was when I was younger.

If I saw something that did the same thing today, would I like it as much as Star Wars? Probably not. So nostalgia IS a big factor in these sorts of things.

I think getting older you lose the ability to see the magic in things, although maybe having kids changes that.

Or if you refuse to grow up.... :)

I know what you mean, I'd say that it is indeed that nostalga plays a major role. Not to say that I don't enjoy Mega Drive games I only got introduced to on the internet, like Vectorman (Or other consoles, such as the SNES, Earthbound being a prime example, except I have Smash Bros. Melee to thank for that).

Hell, even watching people play games played a major role in me enjoying the games today (For example, I never actually played Mega Lo Mania until last year, but my mother used to play it a LOT when I was a child, great game by the way).

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that nostalgia is the DEFINITIVE factor in why we enjoy retro games. I'm sure that we'd all agree that a game that was great 20 years ago can still be considered great today.

But I'm specifically thinking of Super Mario Bros. I've recently played through this game a lot lately (thanks to the excellent GBC title Super Mario DX and the remastered SNES version on Super Mario Allstars that I picked up recently). With both versions I was having a blast, and i'd be lying if I said the thought "it still holds up today!" didn't enter my mind several times.

But how much would I appreciate the game if the first platformer I ever played was Super Mario 3 or Sonic the Hedgehog? Did the fact that I have a history with the game factor into how much I was able to appreciate it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMatthews

Keep in mind that I'm not saying that nostalgia is the DEFINITIVE factor in why we enjoy retro games. I'm sure that we'd all agree that a game that was great 20 years ago can still be considered great today.

---

Unfortunately, I grew up with the Atari 2600, PET computers and Pinball. I still enjoy pinball quite a bit, but I really can't say that even 1% of the games on the 2600 or PET computer would hold my interest today. I dust off the 2600 at least once a year and after about 2 hours of lackluster playtime, it goes right back into its storage bin. Even my beloved Empire Strikes Back isn't quite a fun as I remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

Unfortunately, I grew up with the Atari 2600, PET computers and Pinball. I still enjoy pinball quite a bit, but I really can't say that even 1% of the games on the 2600 or PET computer would hold my interest today. I dust off the 2600 at least once a year and after about 2 hours of lackluster playtime, it goes right back into its storage bin. Even my beloved Empire Strikes Back isn't quite a fun as I remember.

---

I once spent 18 hours one Saturday on the 2600 getting the score on Missile Command to wrap around. While I thought that was an awesome use of time back then, I wouldn't spend more than 30 minutes on the same game today.

I think the best 2600 games to still play today are the multiplayer ones. (especially VS)
Like outlay, some of the top-down racing games, or the original pack-in classic Combat. (interestingly Wii Play features a stikingly similar game to the takk sections of combat)

Plus some of the unique ones like Adventure and tunnel runner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chilly Willy

I once spent 18 hours one Saturday on the 2600 getting the score on Missile Command to wrap around. While I thought that was an awesome use of time back then, I wouldn't spend more than 30 minutes on the same game today.

---

I'd rolled the numbers on Space Invaders about 6 different times. People wouldn't believe it until I showed them. I never had the patience to roll the numbers in Missile Command.

The game companies themselves are at fault. They're greedy. See, they don't want you playing old titles. They want you to buy the new stuff instead. Timeless classic? Why do you think every game now takes 6 hours or less to beat? They don't want you to keep playing that game a year, 3 years, 10 years from now because they can't profit from old, used games.

This is why we're also seeing a switch to digital distribution- eliminates old, used copies that can be enjoyed. Not to mention Microsoft killing off backwards compatibility support in favor of selling digital Xbox downloads, and nintendo looking into selling GBA digital downloads.

They don't care if you want to play old games. They make no money off that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

I think the best 2600 games to still play today are the multiplayer ones. (especially VS)
Like outlay, some of the top-down racing games, or the original pack-in classic Combat. (interestingly Wii Play features a stikingly similar game to the takk sections of combat)

Plus some of the unique ones like Adventure and tunnel runner.

---

Warlords is timeless. It's one of the few 2600/VCS games I could play with a group and find it just as fun as the first time I'd played it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diosoth

The game companies themselves are at fault. They're greedy. See, they don't want you playing old titles. They want you to buy the new stuff instead. Timeless classic? Why do you think every game now takes 6 hours or less to beat? They don't want you to keep playing that game a year, 3 years, 10 years from now because they can't profit from old, used games.

This is why we're also seeing a switch to digital distribution- eliminates old, used copies that can be enjoyed. Not to mention Microsoft killing off backwards compatibility support in favor of selling digital Xbox downloads, and nintendo looking into selling GBA digital downloads.

They don't care if you want to play old games. They make no money off that.

---

Wow, so many things wrong here, I don't even know where to begin.

*takes deep breath and pops knuckles*

First of all, an retail-focused industry that is only interested in making money?? MADNESS!!!!!!

And is there really a trend of today's games being beaten in around 6 hours? Really? Try doubling that, for a start. And just about every game these days offers some incentive for replay: multiplayer, for the most part. Try telling all those Halo, Call of Duty, and Gears of War fanatics that they haven't gotten their money's worth out of the games when they've been playing online every day for the past year.

As for the industry going with full-on digital distribution (which I suppose would reduce the number of used games available), we'll just see how well that goes.

Microsoft has "killed off" backwards-compatibility? Is that why most original Xbox games will work on the 360?

And Nintendo's looking in to digitally-distributing GBA games? First of all, we're a long ways off from that, since you can still buy *new* GBA games in stores. And I think they'll cycle through their GameBoy and GameBoy Color games first, don't you think? And regardless, how is that any worse than them digitally-distributing any other type of game? And as long as used game stores are still in operation, digital distribution will in no way "eliminate old, used copies." Even the most uneducated gamer knows that used games can be picked up just about everywhere . . . providing that they have the hardware to use them.

For all other consumers who for whatever reason want to partake in digital distribution (which we're seeing more of because it's a much cheaper way to distribute software), Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are more than happy to take their money.

And don't get all rosy-eyed and try to convince yourself that the industry was any different 15 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamevet

I'd rolled the numbers on Space Invaders about 6 different times. People wouldn't believe it until I showed them. I never had the patience to roll the numbers in Missile Command.

---

Yes, rolling the score on Missile Command was a chore. When you need to use the bathroom, you have to earn another city and run just as you hit the last missile. You also need to coerce your little sister into periodically bringing you a sandwich and something to drink. :D

You also need the use of the TV and 2600 for an entire day... which is the hardest part of all in a big family. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrMatthews

Microsoft has "killed off" backwards-compatibility? Is that why most original Xbox games will work on the 360?

---

Well this is somewhat true, but they started with more limited compatibility (updates increasing this), but it's mainly limited by the switch from the Xbox's x86 architecture to the 360's RISC based PowerPC architecture. (meaning all backward compatibility is through emulation, something I wonder whay they didn't try with the PS3 instead of including PS2 hardware in the early backward compatible models)

I don't remember the Super Nintendo EVER having the abnormal slowdown problem everybody knows about today, when I was playing games when I was little.

Seriously I can't beleive I played so many Snes games when I was 5 years old, and yet always picked games that didn't have the problem?

You can get the SNES to slowdown on "Super Mario World" if you really try.

Mario + Yoshi + underwater level + 3-4 sleeping fish after you = Slowdown City.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kool kitty89

Well this is somewhat true, but they started with more limited compatibility (updates increasing this), but it's mainly limited by the switch from the Xbox's x86 architecture to the 360's RISC based PowerPC architecture. (meaning all backward compatibility is through emulation, something I wonder whay they didn't try with the PS3 instead of including PS2 hardware in the early backward compatible models)

---

As far as I understand it, the 360 doesn't "emulate" the XBox. What it does is download a NEW executable from the network (if one is available), and then use the original disc for the data files. Game support comes from the original developers compiling a new executable, or providing MS with the code to do so. That's why there's such a strange mix of games supported or not supported.

Ah, that makes more sense, I was thinking the 360's CPU didn't seem powerful enough to emulate Xbox hardware. (and the PS3 probably isn't powerful enough to emulate the PS2 either, though it should easily do the PSX, but there wouln't be much insentive for Sony to include that)

I don't really know exactly how the 360 BC works, but the 360 is certainly powerful enough to emulate the Xbox hardware on a limited basis. Emulation tailored to individual games requires much less power than a general-purpose, fully-compatible emulator. Bleemcast for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rusty Venture

You can get the SNES to slowdown on "Super Mario World" if you really try.

Mario + Yoshi + underwater level + 3-4 sleeping fish after you = Slowdown City.

---

That doesn't work on my game

Older Games were more entertaining but shorter. Now they are longer and tedious.

Give me vintage or give me death!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dragonboy

That doesn't work on my game

---

You better post that R@RE version on ebay then.

I know exactly what part you're referring to, Rusty. It's that underwater level where you need Yoshi to get the key for the secret exit, and towards the end of the level there are five or six sleeping fish that wake up and chase you.

And yeah, the game really chugs.