surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Lol what? They've gotten better graphically, but compare Fallout to Fallout 3, it is clear which is superior.
Chuck Klosterman is a brilliant writer and his books are great reads, but I dont know if I totally agree with him here
I can't tell whether that second quote is being used in favor of Klosterman or in opposition to him. I would assume the former, as the quote is more than reasonable. Anyway, I would generally agree with his statement about new games, though I don't think that his generalizing is entirely accurate. He's not too far off, though.
I'm going to agree with Klosterman on this one. Because the medium is so technologically dependent, better technology is (almost) always going to allow for better ways to explore interactivity, innovative gameplay, and narrative delivery. Obviously a lot of people are going to feel a certain nostalgia for games played during their more impressionable years, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're objectively better in every way than "games in the last decade". Having played neither Planescape: Torment nor Balance of Power, maybe I'm missing something but most of my favorite games 'tend to be' newer games (e.g. Bioshock, Okami, Super Mario Galaxy). The experience I had playing Ocarina of Time (when I was 12) has gone pretty much unchallenged but that doesn't mean that there aren't games that do everything better as a direct result of new technology. Better visuals don't equal a better game, but when coupled with interesting stories and innovative gameplay that can often only be achieved on newer hardware...it's a tough combination to beat. However, I would definitely say that, like film and literature, as the market becomes more saturated with products the ratio of bad games to good has increased (and will continue to) over the years. If games are pieces of art then technology is the artist's tools. You can create incredibly compelling works with simple tools, but better tools (generally) allow the artist to express himself more fully and creatively and can allow for a deeper level of sophistication.
Kraid, Metroid: Other M will be clearly and indisputably better than Super Metroid.
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.
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.
I'm going to agree with Klosterman on this one. Because the medium is so technologically dependent, better technology is (almost) always going to allow for better ways to explore interactivity, innovative gameplay, and narrative delivery. Obviously a lot of people are going to feel a certain nostalgia for games played during their more impressionable years, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they're objectively better in every way than "games in the last decade". Having played neither Planescape: Torment nor Balance of Power, maybe I'm missing something but most of my favorite games 'tend to be' newer games (e.g. Bioshock, Okami, Super Mario Galaxy). The experience I had playing Ocarina of Time (when I was 12) has gone pretty much unchallenged but that doesn't mean that there aren't games that do everything better as a direct result of new technology. Better visuals don't equal a better game, but when coupled with interesting stories and innovative gameplay that can often only be achieved on newer hardware...it's a tough combination to beat. However, I would definitely say that, like film and literature, as the market becomes more saturated with products the ratio of bad games to good has increased (and will continue to) over the years. If games are pieces of art then technology is the artist's tools. You can create incredibly compelling works with simple tools, but better tools (generally) allow the artist to express himself more fully and creatively and can allow for a deeper level of sophistication.
There are a lot of reasons why most indie devs use dated or old-school graphics. But video games did start off pretty weak: as children's toys, commercial propaganda, and coin eating machines.
Is the second paragraph supposed to make us doubt Klosterman's integrity? Hip hop is relevant and newspapers are dying. I assumed these were generally accepted to be true.
I agree with Klosterman because as EVERYONE knows Brutal Legend is BLATANTLY better than Psychonauts or Grim Fandango.
Ahem.
Ahem.
I agree with Klosterman here. Games have always been onwards-and-upwards. Aside from dead (or near dead) genres like light-gun, point-n-click adventures, pinball, etc., gaming has just gotten better and better.
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.
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.
"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."
OMG WHAT NEWS
OMG WHAT NEWS
If you go back and played a game you loved way back when, now, the experience isn't as inciting and fun (ie ff7). Why? Because your imagination filled in the many gaps. Now, as graphical and fleshed out as games are today, less and less are we required to use our imaginations, in effect killing them.
The second paragraph is supposed to point out that Klosterman generally gives games more credit than anyone else in his age group (hence the "before you get your pitchforks..." line).
i r gud riter
i r gud riter
He's actually said that quite a few times over the years. You have to look at where he's coming from. He's not a serious gamer himself and is looking at it from the point of view of the technological side of things. Sure, you could say that he's discounting elements like story, but how many games in the NES days even didn't have much of a story whatsoever? You didn't need to know what the deal was with the princess in Super Mario Bros. or why the hell Sylvia got kidnapped in Kung Fu, you just jumped right into the action.
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".
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".
It's really difficult to imagine, but I have to agree. I played Twilight Princess after Ocarina of Time (don't ask how). I thought Twilight Princess was more fun than OoT. The reason we all like the originals better is because we want to re-experience the same feeling we got when we played that original, and anything different is inferior. Sometimes the game genuinely does suck, though, and sometimes it shines even more regardless of its status as a sequel.
That's MY opinion, at least. I could be completely crazy.
That's MY opinion, at least. I could be completely crazy.
I'd agree that most of the retro gaming love is generally nostalgia. While I suspect no game will ever top Ocarina of Time of Donkey Kong Country as my favorite gaming experiences, it has to be said that these games were also relevant in a time when I was most impressionable. Everybody always loves things from their childhood.
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.
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 really easy to cherry pick a few examples of great old games that hold up or are superior to current titles but that's not really engaging the argument. This is not a case where the exceptions disprove the rules. Especially when his comments are taken out of context from outtakes of a CollegeHumor video. That's just not a fair intellectual fight.
Ups and downs. Highs and lows. Every generation of games has its classics and forgettable titles. The graphics get better and the medium changes with the time but overall, I think its much the same. Though I feel that the raw potential for greater games is higher now than it was twenty years ago.
I do see what Klosterman is saying. I have whipped out my NES and started playing games that I used to be obsessed with, and find that when I play them today, they've lost that fun charm they used to have. I attribute this to the fact that I have been playing games that are graphically superior and allow for more freedom while playing. For instance. The original Super Mario Bros. doesn't allow you to go back through a level. Once you start moving forward, the previous section of the level becomes unavailable. Whereas NSMB WII let's you move freely throughout the level.
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.
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.
I would agree that technology is improving, however a development teams ability to use the technology is still important and varies widely.
@SnatchTease Played FF7 and 8 last year and they where just as good and even better than some RPG's (Star Ocean 4...) I have played in recent year.
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.
@SnatchTease Played FF7 and 8 last year and they where just as good and even better than some RPG's (Star Ocean 4...) I have played in recent year.
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.
I would have to say just the opposite. Games today suck more than ever before and old games are better in every way.
No matter what he or anyone says about generations 1-5, I really think gen 7 is worse than gen 6. Gen 6 was the generation when videogames started to look pretty realistic and when online play began getting big on consoles. And despite what people say about the Wii, it was the PS2 that really brought gaming into the mainstream. Gen 7 has basically just improved online functionality. When I think about current generation games, I immediately think "cinematic" games that constantly need patching and try to do things graphically that the hardware just isn't ready for.
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.
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.
Every generation of gaming has their gems. Saying "new games are better than old games" is not only ludicrous, but strictly a matter of opinion. That's were this debate becomes ultimately pointless.
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.
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.
So many angry torches in this post.
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?
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?
I disagree. Games SHOULD be infinitely better, but they rarely are. If you take any modern console, what you have is a box full of seriously powerful hardware, some kind of input device and a screen to display. With these elements devs should be able to create mind blowing, unique experiences. Instead we get Call of Duty, Bioshock, Half Life or Gran Turismo, Forza, Need for Speed. Developers are lazy and keep churning the same crap out again and again. In the 8bit days genres were not as set in stone and developers realised that what they had was a blank screen to do with whatever they wanted. The results weren't always great, but at least there was some originality.
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.
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.
Film technology has plateaued a lot more than gaming has. The difference, at least in technical aspects, is exponential when you look at games. Its like comparing avatar to a grainy black and white silent film with a 5 minute run time and a shoestring budget.
Dastardly, did you just say that the Half-Life series is just the same crap churned out again and again?
Really?
Really?
As in, yet another unoriginal FPS yes. I wouldn't say HL2 is crap, no, but I'm certainly not a fan of it. And I completed it.
Nonsense.
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.
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.
There are plenty of older games that are better than current games.
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.
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.
Wow, definitely don't agree. I started gaming in 1993 or 1994, in the SNES era, and yet some of my favorite games ever are NES and SMS games. That's not nostalgia, I just think those games are fun.
Pretty. Shiny. Sleek. Cool. That's the graphics of today but do the other aspects of gaming measure up? As we see graphics in games progress to realism, some developers tend to focus on smacking new graphics on old games and marketing it as the best thing ever since sliced bread.
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'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.
Wasn't there a GI article showing the best games of all time, and most of them being from SNES, NES, and SEGA? I don't think they have improved at all, were in the HOLLYWOOD era of games, they have begun to look prettier, but are in no way more innovative. They all tend to use the same medium (a guy with a gun). I hardly think the gaming industry has progressed enough at all.
I honestly can think of very little games that are unique and amazing in this day and age of graphics.
I honestly can think of very little games that are unique and amazing in this day and age of graphics.
@volomon: I'm sure they were, since the majority of editors and reviewers at GI are like me late 20's and early 30's. We grew up on those games and as such nostalgia and bias, as well as the simple fact that these were the game we played in our formative years, will creep into it. Ten years down the line when we've been supplanted as the largest block of gamers when they publish best of lists you'll see a preponderance of games from their formative years, games focusing on the ps2 and ps3 and gamecube and wii and xbox and 360.
I think he's absolutely right. People are getting their panties in a twist because they think he's referring to specific games. He's not. He is saying that the medium as a whole has gotten better as the years have gone by, and he's right. There is no way you can tell me that Bioshock is not more powerful and affecting than Pac-Man, okay?
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.
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.
I love Klosterman, but he's off on this point. The entirety of Nintendo's catalog of first party games seems to contradict this. I would agree that it's a lot harder to get away with a truly awful/irredeemable game (excluding "licensed" games) than it used to be, but that's only lead to a greater trend in mediocrity - not necessarily a better overall experience.
@Burch
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.
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.
This one's a little tricky... Sure, I hold a lot of the NES and Genesis classics of my youth to be "great" but I guess a lot of that is nostalgia. Even though I love Startropics tons more than, say, Twilight Princess, it's hard to make the argument that it's actually a better game. But a few special cases come to mind. I COULD make a reasonable argument that Beyond Oasis is way better than, I dunno, Phantom Hourglass (I guess). And if the trend in the rise of game quality continues, will there be a time when we look back at Shadow of the Colossus and say "What a piece of crap that was"? That's not rhetorical. The answer is no. The roof has expanded, but the basement will always be in the same place. Shitty PS3, Wii and 360 games are just as bad as shitty NES and Genesis games. Bad gams are bad. And yeah, comparing a PS2 great like Ico to a Genesis great like Beyond Oasis inevitably comes up as a win for Ico, but Beyond Oasis is still great. There are those classics that withstand time, but video games are a new medium, and have only recently begun to be treated as a form of art, so they are few. Also, any growth in overall game quality has definetely leveled off by now, if you consider how lousy this generation has been so far. (Or hasn't or whatever. Bah! Opinions.....)
follow
