Trollinator said:
People don't really like old games. They simply feel as if they like old games because of the warm fuzzy feeling they get due to nostalgia.
The fact of the matter is that everything continues to evolve for the better. Nothing from back in the day is as good as what we have now. If you got a kid that had never played a video game before to play Mario Galaxy and then Super Mario Bros. for the NES he'd probably feel like vomiting from his eyes when the older game came on the screen, and he'd think that a 2-button controller is something designed for people with mental disabilities.
It's like when I have to listen to my Grandpa tell me how babe Ruth is the greatest baseball player of all time, or Gordie Howe is the greatest hockey player of all time, and how the games were so much better back then. Gimme a fucking break. Babe Ruth was a fat drunken pig that wouldn't make a triple-A team today, and Gordie Howe could barely skate backwards.
People simply associate old games, sports, etc with the happy feelings they experienced during that time. People think Super Mario Bros is a great game because it was great for it's time, and they had a blast playing it. It doesn't hold up today, though, that's just a fact. No old game does.
You people all seem to think that you're obligated to say that older games are better the same way sports fans feel obligated to put a fat pig like Babe Ruth or a coke addicted racist wife beater like Ty Cobb up on pedestals.
I don't care what any of you liars say, if you could only chose one game to play for the rest of your life it would not be a game from the 16 bit era. You'd end up falling into a boredom induced coma at some point. You'd want a game like World of Warcraft, Halo 3, Killzone 2 or something else where you can interact with other people and every match/dugeon, etc. has the possiblility of turning out different than the last.
Now you can all flame me in defiance, as you try to reassure yourselves that you really do love 16-bit crap more than you enjoy todays technical and innovative masterpieces.
|
You're under the assumption that:
1. All older games get sequels that improve upon them. Not true.
2. All changes to the formula have been for the better. Also not true.
Let's look at Actraiser or Comix Zone, two wholly original titles that never really saw sequels or even spiritual successors. They are the peak of what they did and there isn't anything out there afterwards(that I know of at least) that has attempted to improve on the formula.
Let's also look at the fifth generation wrestling games from AKI corporation, culminating in the amazing WWF No Mercy. Sure there were wrestling games after that, but many agree that by not evolving the formula and instead changing the core game itself, the magic was never recaptured. We can always agree that the graphics got better and the online gameplay is welcomed, but ultimately people want that gameplay scheme back and they get dual analog bullshit instead.
It's not a matter of games not being able to get better over time, it's a matter of developers just not giving the effort to improve upon winning formulas or continuing good ideas and instead scrapping them. It leaves the older games intact, because they've never been threatened.
About your example, I can't say that Super Mario Bros. is better than Super Mario Galaxy, but I can surely say I enjoyed Super Mario World far more than Galaxy, and that comes from me enjoying 2D Mario games better than 3D ones. This is yet another example of Nintendo moving away from a winning formula(obviously just to get to another one) but it doesn't change that preferences will be made and one is not necessarily better than the other.
