In this bonus footage from CollegeHumor's Bleep Bloop, pop culture journalist Chuck Klosterman argues that, unlike works found in literature or film, games can be reasonably said to have gotten better and better as the years have gone by in every conceivable way.
"Even if the technology changes, no one looks at Avatar and says, 'that's absolutely a better movie than Star Wars' or whatever. But in videogames, it's pretty much impossible to ever say the old games were better than the new games."
Before you retrogogglers get your pitchforks, remember that Klosterman isn't some ignorant schmuck; he's the guy who rightfully said that people who don't take videogames seriously are "the same people who question the relevance of hip-hop and assume newspapers will still exist in twenty-five years."
As for Klosterman's argument, I don't think I buy it. Games have certainly gotten much more intuitive and pretty over the years, but I can't think of any games in the last decade that match the complexity and thematic depth of Balance of Power or Planescape: Torment.
[Thanks, PrivateFunction!]
Contest:
3:30 PM on 02.10.2010
| 
Your argument is now invalid mister Klosterman.
I can't even let myself say that. Each bit of news that gets released about Other M just makes me want to strangle Team Ninja a little bit more.
Ahem.
New games may not elicit the same sense of wonder or amazement that "old games" did, but I think thats merely a factor of our age and jaded gamer perspective. Stepping back, removing the rose-tinted shades, I'd argue there is not a single game you could bring up that hasn't been surpassed by a more current title.
It's just the nature of gaming, being heavily entwined in the advancing technology that powers it, compared to other entertainment mediums.
OMG WHAT NEWS
i r gud riter
It's really hard for any of us that have been gaming for years to look at past games objectively. I think that in many cases, even games that we all feel are classics would not be interpreted so fondly by someone just now playing them, especially when they are constantly thinking of certain improvements and innovations that have become common in years since that are missing from said game. While someone who played a classic game closer to when it first came out may find even glaring flaws or the lack of many innovations we now have to be "part of the charm", that's the kind of luxury that only those who played the game in the past can enjoy.
Of course, it is easy to say that Klosterman is simply not acknowledging that games are art and that even with technological advancements, you can't improve upon many of the games of yesteryear, and that's probably the right response. But, I like Klosterman and really wanted to play devil's advocate. My short answer to all of this should have just been "he just doesn't understand".
That's MY opinion, at least. I could be completely crazy.
Children now are growing up with Twilight Princess, and having just as much (if not more) fun as we had playing OoT or LTTP back in the day. They will be remembered fondly.
Objectively speaking, games are better now. Nostalgically speaking, they were better then. It's all relative to the person playing them, and with youth growing up with great games today, they'll certainly be remembered with the same fondness as we remember the games of our youth.
It's kind of weird having grown up on an Commodore 64, then moving to an Atari, my badass 386 "gaming" PC of the 80's, then the NES, SNES, Genesis (SegaCD, 32X), Jaguar, PS1/Dreamcast/N64, Gamecube/PS2/XBOX, and now a PS3 and Wii. You'd think I'd be used to playing the old retro games, and would be able to see past the limitations of the "old skool" games. But I just can't, usually. Once I move on to the next gen, I move on.
Theres nothing wrong with the game mechanics in FF7, make a game like that today and I'd buy it.
In general though I do actually agree with what the man is saying though, the vast majority or games are probably better, the ways games are developed are probably alot more refined that what they used to be.
Theres nothing wrong with the game mechanics in FF7, make a game like that today and I'd buy it.
In general though I do actually agree with what the man is saying though, the vast majority or games are probably better, the ways games are developed are probably alot more refined that what they used to be.
Another thing is this is the generation in which I've played the most old games. I'm not talking about my favorites from the past either. I'm talking about old games that I never played before. What I'm finding is that most of them are more complex, more challenging, and more enjoyable that the majority of games from this generation.
And I'm only talking about consoles here. Handhelds are a different story.
There are many things to measure here. How does the game present its narrative? Is that narrative compelling? Is the game visually appealing? Do the visuals have a style that is fitting the narrative or game play? Does the game evoke an emotional response from the player? How well do the game mechanics work? Is the game fun?
Most of these questions are answers that are purely opinion based, and by using a broad generalization such as "new games are better than old games" we are doing the medium a major disservice. I think rather than debate over whether not new games are better, we should examine the gems of the past and determine what made them so good.
As for the point of debate, I'm going to say that on a broad basis I disagree with Klosterman's statement. I feel that majority of "major releases" have little to no appeal to me, and find myself gravitating to more fringe demographics or games that are more polarizing. Sure, there are new games I love, Dragon Age and Blazblue immediately come to mind, but I can't say that they are "better" than their older counterparts.
All that being said, I'd pick Quake 3 over Modern Warfare 2 any day.
I honestly don't think Klosterman was aiming at offending the hundreds of amazing games that were made in the "retro" era.
Just think about it though guys. I love old snes and genesis and arcade games just as much as the next guy, but games these days ARE better in gameplay and presentation, and that's a huge factor. Sure we not every game is a classic, but we have so many great games spewing out back and forth that look good and present a fantastic narrative that we need to pull the nostalgia out from our eyes and just accept that our old games are getting outdated.
Again, I love so many old games that I'd never say to put them down in favor of the next GTA or whatever, but judged those games back when they were surrounded by all the other trash games coming out in that era. Can you honestly say with a straight face that the games that we used to play would be reviewed the same way now they were 20+ years ago?
Occasionally we get a glimpse of the way it could and should be with the likes of Portal, Shadow of the Colossus, VVVVVV, but games like this are so rare its embarrassing.
New games are certainly NOT better than old ones in every way, but they should be.
Really?
My fist non-PC gaming system was a Nintendo 64, but I still consider Super Mario Bros. 3 one of the best games ever. The 8-bit era isn't considered amazing simply out of nostalgia. The games are legitimately well-crafted, using their limitations to their advantage, to create a very simple and pure experience.
What will you say next..."baaaa"?
Unlike books (and for many genres movies), technology is a limitation on the medium. But if he is talking about gameplay, then he is flat out wrong. Many games have not captured the quality or innovation of older games. This is not to say that games now are bad, but you can't with any more certainty say newer games are better than older games.
That is unless if you are talking about graphics and production value, but then you could say the same thing about any medium that is technologically driven. And if that is the basis you are determining quality, then you just invalidated your opinion.
Also, when considering it's "quality" we are still talking about a medium that is just barely breaking through a generation gap. I would say it's just now that we are seeing a divide between the "retro" gamers and the modern gamers. And it is pretty clear that there is a divide along many issues about what constitutes a game.
Is story important? How difficult should it be? How important are graphics?
Retro gaming was centered around the Arcade. That's why they were typically harder and with this thing called "Game Over." They were designed to be challenging 50 cent or so endeavors that you could lose at. When they started moving to home consoles that same principle was the foundation of the classic side-scrolling games.
However as games got more modern, Arcades took a tail dive in popularity. That's why games are easier, because they are following a different model, a Television/Film model. When a game is drawing it's inspiration from an Arcade game, the final price of the game is derived from how many quarters it takes you to beat the game. Buying a game was like buying your own arcade machine. Whereas now it's like buying a movie or maybe a television series on DVD.
Now there are plenty of good games out there now, but you want to say "the now is clearly and completely better than the past?" What a joke.
I'm relatively younger then the average 'retro' gamer, missing out on many classics such as Final Fantasy VI, Chrono Trigger, Metal Gear Solid and others simply due to not being old enough at the time. However, when I revisited these games, either via remakes on the Gameboy Advance and Nintendo DS or an emulator for those games that virtually no longer exist on the market, I find myself enjoying these games more then what is produced nowadays.
So, 'retro' games? They're just as enjoyable as they were years ago, as long the CD can be run or the cartridge doesn't collect dust. Much like the books on the shelf; you can pick them up at anytime and enjoy them all over again. Few games in this era offer such a playing experience and that's the saddest thing of all for me.
I honestly can think of very little games that are unique and amazing in this day and age of graphics.
You stay clever, chief.
Yes, yes, System Shock 2, I know, but that game had issues that we would now consider to be fairly significant, and Bioshock resolved many of those issues. The experience as a whole was perhaps better in System Shock 2, but that was despite the game's flaws.
And Fallout is great, but Fallout 3 is worlds better in terms of successful implementation of game mechanics and the like, not to mention accessibility.
Ahhhhhhh ok gotcha.
Anyways, re: article...
I think he's theoretically right. Of course, there are outliers like Super Metroid and what have you, games that will always be good no matter what happens with technology. But video games are a technology-reliant industry, moreso than the other forms of media he talks about. More powerful technology gives you the power to do more, and video games are all about doing. The caveat about this is that more power does not necessarily translate to better quality (and bringing "quality" into an objective argument is opening a whole different can of worms, so I won't go into that).
I guess all I can say is that Klosterman SOUNDS right and he SHOULD be right, but you can't say with absolute certainty that what he says is 100% true.
Also, I don't know that I agree that films also haven't gotten better with time. There are films that won Best Picture pre-60s that wouldn't even get nominated nowadays (obvious classics excepted - Citizen Kane, Casablanca, et al). Maybe the progress in film quality has flatlined a little since the 60s, but I wouldn't really go so far as to say it went down.