Classic Games aren't as Good as You Think

[Touchfuzzy]

Ok, so I haven't gone on a rant in a long time, so lets get this one going.

First a quick definition: Classic games = SNES or earlier. The jump from mostly 2d to mostly 3d is the most insane jump in all of video gaming, and I use it to delineate when classic games end. Deal with it.

We hear it all the time: "Games nowadays focus on nothing but graphics, they forget the gameplay and stories" "OMG, remember when games used to have stories that weren't suck." etc. etc.

Well, you know what: 99% of classic games had **** stories. They were awful.

I know what you are thinking: But what about Chrono Trigger! What about Phantasy Star IV! What about Final Fantasy VI!

What about them? Yeah, they have pretty good stories. Chrono Trigger and PSIV are pretty solid, and FFVI at least has decent character arcs, even if the main villain is laughable writing wise. But go back and play them now. Seriously. The stories are not complex in any way. The writing is very straightforward, there is very little theme, very little meaning beyond the simple lines of plot pulling us along.

But you know what, those are GEMS. Those are the few. There were tons and tons and tons made, and most of them have absolute, craptastic writing. You are compressing two whole generations of games into about 10 pretty good games and pretending they are the whole of it.

And you want to compare that to modern games? Lets do just this generation. Mass Effect, the first game, not the series as a whole, puts all of those games to shame. Deux Ex: Human Revolution kicks total ass in storytelling. And Nier. Man, Nier might be the single best story ever told in a video game. I could go on and on. Even games that aren't even praised for story, like inFamous, have solid narratives to tell. And once you get outside of RPGs its not even a contest. Non-RPG Classics barely even have a story to speak of, where as most games have something at least SERVICEABLE as a story now. And if you go back one generation to the PS2 era, it becomes even more of a curbstomp. Knights of the Old Republic II has better writing quality than any classic game, and it wasn't even FINISHED.

And you want to get into gameplay? We are spoiled for customization options and fast, comfortable gameplay. than we have ever been. Did you guys even play those old games? I will take modern gameplay over anything from the classic era. Granted I liked turn based games, but more modern turn based games, like Persona 4, put SNES era turn based RPGs to shame.

Old games aren't as good as you think. Just like your childhood cartoons. Take the nostalgia glasses off.

 

[VoxPopuli]

Great, I'm glad you are continuing the discussion! I'm in. I will definitely be part of the thread this evening when I have more time.


Until then ... happy gaming!

 

[Solo]

Actually, Chrono Trigger has a very thought-provoking subtext...

Spoiler

It might all be Schala's dream as she's trapped in the darkness beyond time with Lavos. Remember the "Green Dream" scene near the end, in the forest at night?

 

[B.Ultimus]

Take note, all those making RPG Maker Games with the tag line "Old School RPG feel".

If you're not putting any thought into your enemies, or falling back on random encounters just because it's "Old School" or "Classic", you're being lazy.  Time to think outside the box.

 

[Galenmereth]

This is certainly true for a lot of titles. Then there are a lot of titles where it is not true. Super Mario World can stand alongside Super Mario 3D World today, without any problem. Yoshi's Island as well. Actually, you can take any 2D platforming game after these two--even by Nintendo themselves--and these two games can still hold their ground in gameplay, visuals, and sound design.

It also depends very much on what your subjective take on good storytelling is, but I will agree that most modern games put most SNES and pre-SNES games to shame. For me, at least. But what I find most annoying with modern games is that they too often rely on "tell" instead of "show": on non-interactive storytelling instead of a world where the story is you playing and exploring and observing the world, shaping its story as you go. Games like A Link to the Past does this far better than Ocarina of Time or Skyward Sword, for example. What a good story is, depends on the game and its gameplay.

You are also comparing multiple "generations" (as in hardware) of modern games to a few select from the SNES era. If you set pre-3D and post-3D as the line in the sand as you implied, then I could list a ton of games that stand up today's in storytelling and gameplay without a problem, because we'd have to include the PC too. Let's not forget games Planescape Torment, Diablo 2 and Baldur's Gate, for instance.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

You are also comparing multiple "generations" (as in hardware) of modern games to a few select from the SNES era.

Actually, I picked the best of the SNES and NES era, and if you can find anything on the NES worth mentioning I'll throw it in there (seriously by the way, Dragon Quest IV is my favorite game of ALL TIME, but I know its because I have an emotional connection to it, its not nearly as developed as a modern game).


And the only game I mentioned that wasn't PS3 era was KotORII.

 

[Deleted]

Man! I love a good rant.  

 

[Galenmereth]

Are we only talking story, or also story through gameplay? Because like I said, I consider A Link to the Past's story really good with its gameplay taken into account -- it tells a great story through play and with the way the world is set up, but it doesn't tell it to you like, say, Mass Effect does through its extensive dialogue. This is why I often prefer classic games myself to the modern take on storytelling. Other games include Earthbound, Secret of Mana, Secret of Evermore, Fire Emblem: Mystery of the Emblem, Tactics Ogre: Let Us Clong Cling Together (although Clong was a pretty funny typo). The last two, as far as I know, are Japanese only. I first played them import without understanding the story, however. But replaying them later and understanding the story, I found them to be quite compelling. And then there are the ones you mentioned. All in all not that many on SNES alone, but I was never a SEGA owner, and I'm sure there are good stories from that library too.

But if we can include the PC, then there are the ones I mentioned and more: Fallout, Fallout 2 and Icewind Dale. But I hesitate to add more because if you look at them with today's eyes they are archaic and hard to play. Games like Beneath a Steel Sky, for example, have a great story, but getting through it is... painful.

Which brings me to this: I don't really disagree with you. When people are saying that that era of games is better than what we have today, when you consider the visuals and the production quality of modern games, they are looking at the past with rose tinted glasses. But sometimes it's more than that. Many of the games of old required a bit more of your imagination to flesh out the blanks in the story, while the story set the framework for you to imagine the missing pieces. The reasons for missing pieces wasn't always writing, but technical in nature. But certainly modern games are more engaging and easier to interact with than the classic games, and that means a story more people will be able to enjoy.

I think the most important thing is to take the best parts of classic games, and leave other things behind. For example, random encounters by themselves are not really good gameplay anymore--IMO at least. But then you have exceptions like Pokèmon X, where random encounters make sense, and are presented in a context and way that makes them manageable and intuitive in the world. But the very reason random encounters was a thing at first was simply technical limitations. We shouldn't let 20 year old technology limitations hinder advancements in our new games

 

[hian]

I think you're making an issue out of something that isn't.


You're taking the argument "classic games were better", and then applying your definition of "classic"(NES, and SNES)which isn't the one that most of these people use when they say this.


So, that's a kind of pointless argument to have. You're fighting windmills at that point.


In my experience, these people are mostly talking about PSX, N64, and even in some cases, PS2 era games.


They just tend to slap in a few late SNES era games, because they are relevant in the sense that they've had impact beyond their era(Chrono Trigger and FF6 was re-released on the PSX).


Often the argument is also meant in terms of game-play, and in many of those cases that argument isn't necessarily a big stretch.


It isn't clear to me, for instance, whether later instances of the Megaman franchise has had much noteworthy progression in terms of pure game-play, and the same can be said for a large amount of other platforming games as well(Supermario reverting to 2d game-play in many later editions despite being on platforms that allow for 3d gaming is another example).


What about shooters? Same problem.


As for story -


Well, while I certainly agree that stories in modern games tend to be written better in terms of presentation I.E they are written in a more professional manner - however, a large part of story-telling also rests on elements such as plot premise, character archetypes and so forth, and that's something that I don't think have changed so much, and in many cases actually become worse.


While the writing, stylistically speaking, in Chrono Trigger seems simple and childlike compared to the writing of many newer RPGs, the plot, and the characters IMO are far better than most of what is produced nowadays.


And, for a lot of younger audiences it won't even be that relevant. You could also argue that no matter how linguistically well a story is written, if it's a bunch of stereotypical tripe that you've seen in story-telling a thousand times before, many people won't bother.


What people tend to forget is that when gaming started out, it was produced mostly aimed at a niche market, or produced as an extension of the creative will of small teams of dedicated producers and developers.


Nowadays, the gaming industry is a huge industry that is driven towards making production for a much larger market, where satisfying the average joe and jane in order to cover production costs is a much larger factor than it was before.


That's problematic because instead of people making the stories they want to make, or making a story for people with the intellect to appreciate it, they're making stories that can catch the masses, and that usually is the lowest common denominator of stories because the masses are stupid as hell.


The average joe and jane wouldn't recognize quality story and quality character even if they had the writing stuck to a baseball-bat hitting them repeatedly in the face.


I'd take MGS1 over any modern action game any day of the week. I'd take FF7-9 over any of the newer editions. I'd take Breath of Fire 3-4, Suikoden 1-2, Alundra, Vandal Hearts 1, Wild Arms 1, Xenogears, Castlevania Symphony of the Night, and Chrono Cross over any next-gen console or PC RPG any day of the week.


That's why I still replay these games to this day on my emulators.


Some people want to call that nostalgia. I call it taste. Just like I'd rather watch the three original star wars movies over the prequels. Nobody goes "omhg nostalgia lololol" when people say they prefer old movies, old music, or old literature, and games really ain't all that different.


Are there great games for NES and SNES? Sure. I can mention a bunch of them that I still think hold up to today's standard when you consider how little these franchise have really changed apart from in terms of aesthetics (Super-Mario, Megaman, Zelda, Tales of- series, Star Ocean, Tactics Ogre, Castlevania, etc etc etc. And those are just of the top of head right now)

 

[Touchfuzzy]

MGS1 isn't even the best game in its own series

 

[hian]

MGS1 isn't even the best game in its own series

 Says you. Whippy comeback, but no real substance.

It was balanced just the right way - not too much exposition in comparison to game-play, and it didn't take itself too seriously, nor was it too silly with too much 4th-wall breaking and meta-commentary.

It was a leap forward from the previous games, without adding stuff for the sake of adding it. Not to mention it had no really game breaking mechanics to it.

Every single MGS game after it has been broken by the fact that they added first-person aiming, while retaining the ridiculously short cone-shape field of vision on the enemies, and a god damn tranq gun.

EDIT:

It's also the only game in the series that can actually function as a stand-alone. Good luck playing any of the other games, understanding anything of substance without having played any of the other, or reading yourself up on wikipedia.

(I don't count MG and MG2 as part of the MGS series)

So no, just no. The idea that any MGS after 1, has, in their relevant times of release, had anywhere close to the evolution as a game compared to MGS1 is share ignorance. MG1 maybe. That's it.

MGS1 set precedents. What did the later games do except being good sequels? Nothing.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

MGS2 is seriously one of the most intelligent games ever written storywise, and was remarkably ahead of its time in theme. It arguably makes more sense NOW than it did when it came out, because the ideas are more relevant to modern day information sharing than the way it was done then. On top of that, it manipulates player emotion better than pretty much any game that has come before or after. Almost everything you feel, even down to the frustrations with the game, are INTENTIONAL. Its a smart smart game. In my opinion, its the most artistic game ever penned. If that isn't revolutionary, I don't know what is.

MGS3 has vastly superior mechanics, and has a much more high energy adventure to go along with it. Also, MGS3 is definitely a standalone game.

There is nothing that MGS1 that 2 or 3 didn't do better. Its a good game. I like the game. It helps to frame the rest of the series, but its easily one of the weakest in its series.

 

[VoxPopuli]

Two of the inherent difficulties in a discussion of this nature is categorization and chronology. Naturally time is a factor in game classification due to technological advancements and in discussing video/PC games it is an important element to consider.


First and foremost, I want to stress I am neither a game expert or authority. I enjoy playing video/PC games when time permits and my primary genre is RPG, secondary is strategy. However, I've not played enough games nor invested extensive research in the RPG genre, individual titles or gaming history. I am just approaching this discussion as a casual player that's played a long time.


To the extent I play games, my criteria is subjective and applies to both new and older games. I champion what I consider are good games or what I feel makes a good game, I do not choose one era over another.


So what makes a good roleplaying game (IMHO)? Earlier in a status update I mentioned that it is the "role" in role-playing that is too often ignored. The role is a part played in an unfolding story / adventure. If that story / adventure is dull, then the role is dull, and the game is dull.


This formula can apply to both old and new games. Conversely both old and new games can be story driven and fun RPGs.


The "story" does not have to be intricate or even particularly well-written from a literary standpoint, in fact it can be simple.


Also, Galenmereth makes an excellent point when he asks: "Are we only talking story, or also story through gameplay?" It is the gameplay that becomes the narrative device that guides the roleplayer through the adventure -- if that is effective then the story and game is enhanced. [@Galenmereth: "Huzzah!")


If the story, the fantasy world, the characters and gameplay captures the imagination of the player, regardless if it seems simplistic from a sophisticated viewpoint, then the game is good and it succeeds. And, with certain titles that have been so popular that they span decades and multiple platforms, a whole mythos is created by them and around them.


In terms of what is a good game, I believe that the dichotomies of classic vs contemporary, new vs old, simple story vs complex story, even clichés vs originality (gasp!) become irrelevant.


A good role-playing game captures the imagination -- the heart and mind, if you will -- of the player that plays it. Some classic games do that, some do not. Some new games do that, some do not.


If a game accomplishes that feat then it is a good game. IMHO

 

[Seacliff]

This is one of the problems I have when people Praise Ocarina of TIme. Yes, it's from the early 3D era, so by Touch's standard it's not 'Classic', but it felt appropriate anyways.

When People Praise it for the Story:

Really, It's Zelda for games sake? It's not a BAD story, but it's very simple and straightforward, even less complex than FF6, Chrono Trigger, ect. Not to mention it's pretty much on par in deepness as A Link to the Past and at least the Master Sword wasn't shoehorned into that game.

Gameplay:

It's basic. Sometimes fun, yet basic. But when it came to 'puzzles', Nintendo thought that they could map out a room in 2D then place a random switch on a ceiling or something... that ain't a puzzle.

Linearity:

'Nough Said  , yet by now there are more linear Zelda Games than non-linear. The only choice they gave you in this game was if you want to do the Shadow Temple or Spirit Temple first.

That' my miniature little rant. I don't hate the game by any means, and I understand Nostalgia... but it's when people say the game is 'Perfect' or 'Flawless' that grinds my gears.

But Seriously, if there was a perfect game, why do we always want more?

 

[whitesphere]

I think it is fair to say every year video games have been made, there have been true gems along with a larger number of so-so mediocre games, and a larger still pool of outright stinkers which aren't worth a free download, much less paying for them.  The problem is that, when it comes to the business of making, well, anything, the business exists first and foremost to make money.  If they produce a product that is "good enough" to make a profit, that's all that matters.

In the video game arena, it gets much trickier.  As production costs have skyrocketed, it raises the bar for what's required to at least break even.    This does mean there's a lot of business pressure on video game companies to produce the same old game with a new paint job --- because, as long as it makes a profit, that's all that counts.  As long as Grizzled Space Marine Shoots Bad Guys While On the Toilet makes money, they'll keep making them.

Sure, we can say there are some true gems which were huge risks at the time (The Sims, for example --- a game with no definite end goal?  Madness!  Or, even more so, the original Sim City), but which are now major moneymaking franchises for certain companies.

However, taking those types of risks is just not practical when it costs upwards of 50 million dollars and a few years of development to make a AAA game.  This leaves the more creative, risky, games up to the indie developers.

A lot of the things the original poster noted are preferences.    Some people immensely enjoy 3-D, first person action shooters which also tell a story along the way (Mass Effect perhaps), or 3-D open world games where the story, such as it is, is secondary to the world its in (I think Skyrim fills this bill).

So, I agree 100% that there are tons of stinker games throughout video game history, hence the Video Game Crash of the mid 1980s.  Part of the reason is that we DO focus on the gems, while the many lesser ones slip from our minds when they're done.  But, if they made their company money, they're a win for the company even if they aren't really anything to write home about.

But there are also the true gems which, by definition are always rare.  This is true in any industry --- and a company which makes today's gem might make tomorrow's stinker, or vice versa.  For example: Hyundai cars are slowly but surely moving up in reliability while Toyota's slipping some, when it was once the golden standard for reliability.

My point is:  quality has nothing to do with the era in which a game was produced.  Sure, technical specs may have increased dramatically, but that does not change the game's inherent quality, one way or the other.

 

[TheTonyOne]

I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not facts. This thread strikes me as "You misunderstand your own opinion and mine is right!"

Also I think most 3D games pre-PS2 have not aged well at all, even though I like them. Some of them, at least. The problem isn't that "No classic games were good!", the problem is we're comparing games from a relatively simpler time when it comes to gaming. It's like comparing Mario Brothers to Deus Ex: Human Revolution. It's just not something one would or should do.

At least, that's my opinion.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

I think everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not facts. This thread strikes me as "You misunderstand your own opinion and mine is right!"

No its more "I'm tired of the stupid argument that video games all have crap stories nowadays when the writing quality and complexity of video game stories have been skyrocketing for years."

Most of the classic games who are lauded for their stories wouldn't even be given the time of day now, even if the graphics and visuals were brought up to modern standards. Even the PSX era, which is when the story driven games really started to take root, most Japanese games (which is where you got most of the story heavy RPGs) suffered from mediocre localization teams that lacked anything resembling a real writer. (The exception being Working Designs, that was legitimately good at localizations)

And people who talk about the "every game is about the same thing" stuff, man, if everyone didn't perceive the older generations as the few gems, they would realize that like 95% of the NES and SNES library was terrible clone shovelware games trying to capture a bit of what some other popular game managed.

And that is the thing: I like these old gems. Dragon Quest IV is my favorite game of all time. Chrono Trigger and Phantasy Star IV are games I've replayed an untold number of times. Shining Force II is brilliant for its age, and has done a few things I don't think any game has done since.

But they don't really compare to the proficiency of modern games. And its not just the graphics. It the story development and writing. The Writing quality of a modern game at the top level is better, and the writing quality of a mediocre modern game BLOWS AWAY a mediocre game from the classic era.

People keep comparing the average modern game to the best of the best of the classic era. And its just stupid.

 

[hian]

MGS2 is seriously one of the most intelligent games ever written storywise, and was remarkably ahead of its time in theme. It arguably makes more sense NOW than it did when it came out, because the ideas are more relevant to modern day information sharing than the way it was done then. On top of that, it manipulates player emotion better than pretty much any game that has come before or after. Almost everything you feel, even down to the frustrations with the game, are INTENTIONAL. Its a smart smart game. In my opinion, its the most artistic game ever penned. If that isn't revolutionary, I don't know what is.

MGS3 has vastly superior mechanics, and has a much more high energy adventure to go along with it. Also, MGS3 is definitely a standalone game.

There is nothing that MGS1 that 2 or 3 didn't do better. Its a good game. I like the game. It helps to frame the rest of the series, but its easily one of the weakest in its series.

Oh really....While I certainly agree that MGS2 has a brilliant story if it's analyzed in that post-modernistic sense, I doubt it was as well thought-out initially as fans have construed it to be after the fact. That opinion really smells of "superbunnyhop-ism", rather than being in tune with what actually goes on in Konami, and Kojima's track-record.

MGS2 begun a horrible trend of retconning above and beyond what MGS1 ever did, and the presentation of the entire game pretty much rests on the achievements of MGS1(and pretty much every subsequent game does the same). Up and until peace-walker, pretty much every MGS is a re-telling of MGS1, and while that certainly might be seen as something done on purpose, it becomes a hollow excuse once the characters and situations turn stale and worn compared to their original counterparts.

I can't really think of a single MGS character post MGS1 measuring up to the case of that game, with the exception of the boss and big boss themselves

(anyone who thinks Fatman, Vamp, and Fortune, or the Cobras measure up to Psycho Mantis, Raven, Sniper Wolf etc. are insane IMO).

In many ways it seems that Kojima is doing this simply because he isn't really capable of moving away from his first real internationally successful story, and of course milking fan nostalgia(Ground Zeros anyone?).

As for MGS3? Did you even play the game? The game was riddled with the same issue as MGS2, which is the introduction of modern game-play mechanics while retaining enemies that still play by the MGS1 rulebook. It also introduced the laughably annoying camo-index system, stamina and healing system, that bogs down game-play with long-winded menu operations, and transitional loading times that add absolutely nothing of value to the game-play except time padding.

Non of these elements actually add anything of value except for adding superficial change to make the game conform to the markets expectations of change and evolution in games that belong to series.

MGS1 did story better. The story was more down to earth in a sense, and kept the scenario to a small cranny of "the world" so the game didn't have to resort to paranoid illuminati rip-off conspiracy theories as a main theme, and rather kept them illusive and in the back-drop, like such theories deserve. MGS1 has a story that "could have happened"(but not really), while MGS2-3 had stories that just could never have happened period.

The game also had balance. MGS2-3 went way overboard with codec conversations and cut-scenes compared to the first game.

And at the end of the day, the most successful mechanics that made MGS2-3 enjoyable to play, already existed in MGS1(essential the same sneaking mechanics, same gun-play with the exception of 1st person shooting - which is a good thing -, same weapon set-ups).

At the end of the day, MGS1 had better boss encounters, more interesting/memorable characters, less contrived story, less retconning, better balance between story exposition and game-play, and all the game-play elements that have made MGS what it is today, without any of the later contrived and unnecessary game-play mechanics that have appeared in later editions.

Fine, you think later games are better. Good for you. I think you're insane.

 

[Galenmereth]

Deus Ex 1 has a better story than Deus Ex: HR. Better gameplay too. HR is a great Deus Ex game, but Deus Ex 1 is the better game in all aspects. More /real/ choice (not just three choices at the very end that show a different ending cinematic), better gameplay (no cover mechanic, more varied implants/upgrades, more interesting hacking results, more diverse levels), and overall much more player driven causality. It's inferior engine-wise, but it still is the better game. Oh, and no boss fights. Those were absolutely asinine in HR.

 

[Touchfuzzy]

@hian, I have no idea what you are talking about with MGS2 retconning.


Unless you are referring to the fact that it contradicts itself a lot in the game, which is completely understandable when you consider the point of the game and the fact that everyone who tells you anything throughout the entire game was lied to.


Also, better boss battles!? How can you even compare the sniper battles of Naked Snake vs The End and Solid Snake vs Sniper Wolf. The End's boss battle is miles and miles above in gameplay. I would say its probably the best boss fight in the entire series. (Especially when you count in trying to stamina "kill" him. trying to sneak up on him was awesome).

Deus Ex 1 has a better story than Deus Ex: HR. Better gameplay too. HR is a great Deus Ex game, but Deus Ex 1 is the better game in all aspects. More /real/ choice (not just three choices at the very end that show a different ending cinematic), better gameplay (no cover mechanic, more varied implants/upgrades, more interesting hacking results, more diverse levels), and overall much more player driven causality. It's inferior engine-wise, but it still is the better game. Oh, and no boss fights. Those were absolutely asinine in HR.

 
The original Deux Ex is super super clunky and has lots of weirdness in the engine. The story is good, but that game did NOT age well gameplay wise. The enemy AI is atrocious, the fact that weapons are actual SKILLS turned the whole beginning of the game into "Here is a gun, don't expect to be able to his the broad side of a barn despite being a highly skilled secret agent".


I've played it, I've beaten it, but I don't think I would ever want to play it again. And I have replayed a lot of older games that I think are worth it.


And even on the storytelling front, There isn't a single location in DX that has the atmosphere and storytelling depth of Jensen's apartment. Like every detail of that apartment is amazingly crammed with interesting information about him.


Also, pick up the director's cut version of HR next time its on sale on Steam. The boss fights in the director's cut are GREAT. (Boss fights and the battery system are the only two things I really thought were borked about the original game. Director's Cut fixes 99% of the issues with both of them.)