THANK YOU! I've been wanting to write a blog comparing the First Generation Pokemon to the current generation in terms of design and move-set. The generations of Pokemon have always been a cornerstone in any nostalgic gamers argument, but I aim to show them that nostalgia has blinded them from the progress which they do not wish to see.

I'll give you that many people have retro goggles, but there were some AMAZING games in terms of raw level design. Mega Man 2 and 3, to date, have some of the slickest, and most well thought out designs in video game history.

I feel like today, developers can hide behind an elaborate hoax of HD smoke and mirrors. By that, I mean they can hire big budget voice actors, and make the game look pretty to trick people into thinking it's not a shit game. Back then you couldn't do that - there were no true "big" voice actors, because many retro games didn't have voice. As a result, you had to rely on pure gameplay in order to be considered a good game. That's why I think a lot of retro gamers are frustrated.

I'll say this: then, and now, you're going to have a lot of shit games. For every Retro E.T., you have an HD Mindjack.

Jim, you are very wrong. Progress has never accomplished anything.

Also, it was very difficult to write this comment with my rotary-dial telephone attached to a stack of notepaper.

The 15-year rule: NEVER trust your own opinions about something you played FOR THE LAST TIME 15 years ago. Your head really messes things up. A LOT.

Can't believe you didn't reference Cool Spot. Hard to get more commercialized than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iMM2vqrE08

Cue Colette and Chad in 3...2...1...

This summarizes exactly how I feel every time someone gushes to me about how Goldeneye on the N64 was the pinnacle of the FPS genre. It's also totally true on every other count.

Well done, Jim!

I'd don't know. I think this is a case where Jim is painting with just as broad a brush as militant retro gamers. Some games back then were complete shit. Some games now are complete shit. I'll still take Super Mario 3 over Final Fantasy XIII and The Legend of Zelda:A Link to the Past over Kane & Lynch 2 any day of the week.

i want to play jurasic park now

I mostly agree, but I'd like to point out that good level design is timeless and that some of these old games did things that are basically essential to games today.

Case in point, the original Legend Of Zelda: great level design and the save system/second quest.

But yeah, games these days have the potential to be better than everything we have seen before.

Now hang on just a damn second, partner. What's that you said 'bout Legend of Zelda? :)

i'll admit, it was painful to play through zelda 1 and 2. i can appreciate these games for starting an awesome series and recognizing their historical significance, but i doubt i'll ever replay them again.

And I'd sure as hell take Super Metroid over Metroid:The other M.

I don't quite follow where all this is was going. Are you saying better technology makes the experience better for the gamer or are you saying that better technology makes a better game in general? This is also confusing because in your VLOG or rant or costume theatrics peace

The last time I checked games were universal and could be enjoyed by everybody. But then again this is my opinion. Just like yours.

Lol. The only thing that can take away the good memories we have of "awesome" retro games are the games themselves.

So... is there even an argument? I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that games were better back in the ol' days. (Then again, I'm not a very active retro gamer)
I like my Mega Mans and Marios, but I wouldn't argue they were better than how it is now. No matter how much better things look, sound and play now, there still are the games that was fun then and fun now. (I'm looking at you Mario 3)

Have we made advances? Yes. Are games generally better than they were? Yes. Could games be harder? Yes and no, not all games lend themselfs on being hard.

Woah what happened to making constructive and well thought out points.

Games are becoming shorter, they also are no longer as adventurous with there mechanics because they don't want to take any risks. YES lots of them were bad, but lets face it the more money invested the less likely company's will take risks in something new.

As the graphics get better every other aspect of a game becomes harder to match, this is FACT.

Look at the film market and what has happened there, Citizen Kane or Dr Strange Love cant be compared to films like Avatar, yes they don't have 3d or fancy cgi but that doesn't spoil there artistic merit.

Now retro gamers disregarding new titles happens because it often feels like a step backwards in freedom and choice, when really we should be moving forward.
Dumbing down is happening across the board.

This isn't to say these games aren't good HEY the games now are shocking beautiful, I think a good example would be the original Deus ex compared to its sequel Invisible War.
IW had better graphic and hey it wasn't a bad game, but what happened to the inventory WHY only make one ammo type for all weapons WHY dumb down the stealth aspects. IW had great review scores JUST like Farcry 2 because it had great visual impact! but down the line when that wore off people went WHAT HAPPENED TO DEUS EX AND WHAT HAPPENED TO FARCRY!

Of course its all subjective to personal enjoyment.

While I agree that there were terrible games back then just as there are now, I find it amusing that you praise games such as Gears of War for being "fun" and not trying to be anything more, yet seem to fail to understand that "retro" games, while being technologically limited, were fun to play, as a kid and as an adult as well. It might have a lot to do with nostalgia, but I feel that several games were just so fun that even today they can appeal to any gamer, regardless of the games they grew up with. Magnalon cited Mega Man 2 and 3 as good examples already. I would add the Contra series, the TMNT games (see, licensed games aren't/weren't always utter shit), the countless classic RPGs of the SNES, etc.

and I remember being jealous that you couldn't play as the raptors in the SNES version of Jurassic Park.

Well, what i can't agree on is that all the old games are worse now. There were some things and ideas that stayed true in those old games and were never actually developed into something newer. But a lot of old games, most of them as it always is, are really bad if you look at them today (i'm doing a little thing on my site, where i try playing old games and judge them with contemporary eyes).
About licensed games - why is it not so simple to just bring up E.T., the game that was the final straw before the videogame market crash?:) Sure, we had some good games, like Aladdin on Genesis, which still play good. But we also had so much shite in between some good releases we simply remember, because they were good.
There are some things that we forgot in today's games, things that get remembered and experimented/developed from time to time. The whole transition from 2d to 3d as if it was superior, not DIFFERENT, was a bold and stupid move, since a lot of mechanics are impossible in 3d environment. There are games that were huge and immersive, like daggerfall, which was so good because it tried to make a huge believeable world using random generation and your imagination - something that cannot be done when you do a game with detailed, gorgeous visuals. And we didn't have fucking "press something button" promts you cannot fucking disable.
Sure, there were good things which are bound to return, because they were good. But i really don't understand the entire "the grass was greener, the light was brighter" thing.

"Can't believe you didn't reference Cool Spot. Hard to get more commercialized than that."

I actually had, but I'd actually cut it due to time.

I once had Jurassic Park for the Genesis. I thought it was the best thing in the world to play as a velociraptor. I'll keep those fond memories and will refrain from pulling out that old cartage.

I once had Jurassic Park for the Genesis. I thought it was the best thing in the world to play as a velociraptor. I'll keep those fond memories and will refrain from pulling out that old cartage.

@Max Scoville:
Wow, thanks. I got a good laugh with your comment.

Good and shitty games will always be there. The NES era was not better than this era.

I do agree that the industry as a whole is much more varied and interesting than it was, say, twenty years ago. But that still doesn't change the fact that my Top 3 favorite games of all time were all released in the 90s.

I think it is fair to say that gaming now is amazing ... but gaming in the retro years was just as good. Arguing one side over the other is more the problem. :)

There were shit games then and shit games now. People just need to accept that fact. There was that licensed 7-Up game back then and there's a licensed Chuck E. Cheese Sports Mix game for the Wii now. Nothing really changes.

True. Most times, retro games are looked back at with a lot of nostalgia. Technology and games overall have moved on and on and continue to improve.
Though, I'd say that isn't always the case. Some times, they feel like they have to improve upon older gameplay models/systems and end up with something less advanced/fun. That new hardware can, at times, limit a game more than older tech. Now that's obviously not the new hardware alone but the devs who insist on “improving” certain aspects when it's really just change for the sake of change.
Final Fantasy is a good example. First thing was that as the hardware potential increased, they focused more on the graphics and so on. First thing we lost from FF was the world map in 10. And then came the voice acting. Oh god the voice acting. Maybe the Japanese version is better, I don't know. But it was still a good game even though I felt it declined a bit. I loved FF right up until 12 personally. It wasn't a bad game and I still enjoyed it, but I did not like the battle system at all. And them came XIII. Ugh. For the sake of graphics, they cut so much out. You know yourself so I don't need to go into details. And the battle system took another hit.

Sometimes, I feel like they need to take a step back and think “maybe we should just polish it a bit more and improve on what we have” rather than chuck it out the window altogether and throw in something else to just change things up.

I remember commercialism in video games as a kid. That 7-Up game that was released on pretty much everything under the sun at the time.

"Cool Spot" I think it was called.

Hold the phone, did I just hear Jim utter the words "Final Fantasy" and "great games" in the same sentence!?

MIND.BLOWN.

Old games aren't shitty, but they were designed with a different status quo and technical limitations. Keeping those in mind, "retro" games can be just as brilliant as current games.

Progress doesn't necessarily make the old stuff bad, it just makes the new stuff potentially better.

@PappaDukes -- Hahahaha. I had to come calling after I saw that headline. :)

Street Fighter was a retro game. Mortal Kombat was a retro game. Mario, Sonic, Zelda, Star Fox, Tetris, Afterburner, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Kirby and countless other still-popular franchises. If they were shitty, why would they still be around? Hell, NSMB Wii, Kirby's Epic Yarn and DKCR all embraced retro gameplay, and everyone loved them. So did Sonic and Star Fox. Mortal Kombat is going back to it's old school gameplay roots, as did Street Fighter. Hell, Goldeneye is considered retro too and it's widely considered one of the defining FPS's even today.

Or is this based entirely off of games like ET or Top Gun or that shitty XMen game for NES? Yeah, there were a lot of shitty games, but there were also a lot of really good games too. And, especially on the Wii, that hasn't changed one bit. In fact the NES probably had a better ratio of good to crap than the Wii does currently.

Not to say that progress isn't important, otherwise we'd be playing Black Ops on an Atari 2600 with a single pixel soldier as the main character. But to say retro games were shitty when they've influenced so much of current gaming is kind of hypocritical.

I don't quite follow what you're saying here. Are you saying technology makes the gameplay more enjoyable or are you saying that technology makes a better game in general?

But to make a response to this. I always considered video games a form of entertainment. If you really think about it, it really comes down to the person turning the console on and off. Where "retro games are shit" comes from is beyond me. If it's the retro game community that is shit, I'd partially agree with you.

I only tried playing The Legend of Zelda a few months ago and it was indeed horrible.

The thing about now and why things are better, you can still play those old games, play games that look like old games and new graphically superior games. Back then, you could only play the old games.

i always thought Legend of Zelda (NES) was overrated, too.

"I actually had, but I'd actually cut it due to time."

Ah, I see. Also, I have to echo Chad's sentiment here. Both 'retro' and 'modern' gaming have their fair share of merits and faults. Championing one over the other really just comes down to personal preference.

I think it all depends. There are refined games in all eras. For example, i would play FFVI again over FFXIII (a thing i'm in fact doing). I love playing games from all generations, only if, of course, they could stand the test of time.

Some retro games pass it, some not. It's the same thing today.

In fact, whenever i play a game, be it old or new, i think "what would i think if i played this game again in the future?" If the answer is somewhat negative (say, "i wouldn't have the patience to go trough this again", like i did with inFamous), i stop playing.

el g0rd0: The main point is that, from a business standpoint, videogames have never gotten worse. Games were always about cash-ins and making a quick, dirty buck.

However, twenty years ago, it was just puerile shit peddled to kids, with no strong adult audience. Now, not only do we have the awesome technology, we also have an older audience for a far greater range of mature games.

I mean, I've made my complaints about Heavy Rain, but we'd never have gotten something even remotely like that on the NES.

The thing is, like a game because it IS good, not just because is 'retro'. And if it's new doesn't mean that it IS better than the old ones.

I'd rather play a Tony Hawk or Skate game than Skate or Die. But I would prefer playing MGS3 instead of the MSX Metal Gears. (I love the MSX games but with better controls, more choices to do things I prefer MGS3)

Now that I think about it. Mechwarrior for the SNES is probably terrible.

I have to disagree, at least with the broad generalization that older games are worse. There were bad ones, don't get me wrong, but there are still gems that to this day I can go back and play, no matter how many times I've beaten them in the past. And that's really the difference I feel between games of the past and games today. The industry today is focused heavily on multiplayer because it sells games and is relatively easy to develop (you hardly need a story board for multiplayer). Single player has gotten the boot recently, with a few notable exceptions. This multiplayer trend is based on constantly obsoleting the previous games's multiplayer in order to sell new copies thus heavily eliminating any replay value once a new game comes out. The previous game's experience seems instantly dated. I think Call of Duty 4's multiplayer was the best in the series, but I can't go back and play it because it's missing too many things I've come to expect in the newer versions. That's hardly innovation, it's just brutal market tactics.

The point: am I going to play Bad Company 2 in 10 years? Probably not. Did I play Mario 64 ten years after I originally played it? Yes. And it was a lot of fun to boot.

Favorite thing about now compared to old times: greater access to variety, and it's only getting better.

iCarly is much better than those other shitty kids shows

A classic and truly good game is timeless.

On average old games were pretty terrible except the ones that have survived the test of time. It was the low cost that caused this tsunami of cash-ins and crap but it also opened the door for people who made games as hobbies.

I will say the biggest pitfall of games today is because of how expensive it has become to produce a game causes sea of games to be mostly mediocre. Which is why it is always the smaller companies that shine while the bigger ones often churn out a thick slurry of "Hardcore games".

Some games that were made in the "retro" eras were shit. Some were and remain awesome. Some games now are shit. Some are awesome.

That wasn't very hard now, was it?

Definitely true that SOME retro games are revered simply out of nostalgia, but as a gamer who enjoys both new and old games, and consistently buy both, I think it's foolish to say that the undying classics of the bygone days are shitty. I also think that in many cases, a lot of those technical achievements you referred to can actually get in the way of making a game that is of the same calibre as those classics.

The entirety of the 8-bit and 16-bit library were not great, and by and large it was awful, but that doesn't change the fact that design, imagination, and good solid gameplay are what really keep many of these games fondly remembered, and frequently played.

As a personal example, I finished Super Castlevania 4 a total of 4 times during the span of time that I was playing through God of War 3. I enjoyed it more than the highly anticipated and critically acclaimed game of today. Designers back in those days worked with what they had, and in turn, the designers who actually mastered the tools of that generation produced legitimate masterpieces of gaming, just like this generation will produce it's masterpieces. Unfortunately, not much has changed, and the majority of what we receive every year is middling to awful.

I think the main "problem" is if I think of the games I played in 1993 I will most likely not remember the ones that were bad even then to begin with, because they're not worth remembering. Add to those the games that were ok back then but do not stand the test of time in any way, and you can see why what we remember is mostly good, in comparison to today where the memories are much more recent (and possibly, we buy many more games with our adult money than we did as kids, thusly inevitably buying more crap) and we cannot filter out the bad ones just yet. Ask me in ten years and I'll not remember much of this stuff.

There is also an additional issue, that many of the good SNES and Genesis games were a decisive step up from the previous generation, in some cases, enough to stand the test of time. There has been only one NES game I enjoyed when I backlogged them (I started playing at 15, so I had missed 8 bit consoles), and that was Super Mario Bros. There is many more 16 bit games that remain good because the ones that could were a step up in colors, control, level design, music, ideas, everything, and those that did not do that evolution we just don't remember.

I mean, do you remember Halo, or that space fps released at about the same time with the space sheriff I forgot the name thereof, what was it, Mace-something? And do you remember Valis or Gunstar Heroes?

Also to some extent I think playing a new game should be approached with a certain "being young again" mindset, not physically but more in the sense of "let's push aside years of grime and cynism, and just play the game without thinking how good games were when I did not have to push aside the "debris of aging" to enjoy them.

Jim, most of what we have seen through the use of the massive advances in technology is simply games emulating cinema to a greater and greater degree.

Also I hope you one day get to actually play the Biker Mice From Mars game that you wrote off as commercial shit, because it is actually a fantastic isometric racing game/brawler.

I also don't get the hate for Zelda 2, it holds up a lot better now than the first one and provides a varied and difficult adventure which was completely unique in the repetitive Nintendo franchise.

Also, there were quite a few good licensed games back in the day, like the TMNT and Disney games. Also, Batman for the NES.