No appreciation for classics?!

I don't know if I'm simply overreacting, or is it just me, or am I seeing lately on a lot of threads and a few YouTube videos that have a "top games of all time" or whatever in them and about 95% of the comments/replies to the videos and/or forum threads have all modern games on their list. But that's not all. What's also weird that I noticed is that the lists with all modern games in them tend to get the most in-depth conversations and/or intense arguments, while the lists with classics included (which are the accurate ones in my opinion), get completely ignored.

I mean seriously, what's wrong with today's generation of gaming? While I'm only 15 (and turning 16 in several days), I started playing games when I was 3 or 4 and I remember the first game I played being either Super Mario World or Mario Kart for the SNES. And eventually I got an N64, and I enjoyed that a LOT. But it seems now of days that a vast majority of today's gamers seem to believe that games started out on PS2 (and that's also the system they all started on as well, and most of the "modern gamers" started gaming only several years ago). But anyways, if you're curious to see my top 10 games of all time list, here it is (it has accuracy in it, I never judge by if it's modern or old, I judge by what I think is the best of all games):

1) Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
2) Doom
3) Metroid Prime
4) Super Mario World
5) Super Mario Bros. 3
6) Oblivion
7) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
8 ) Donkey Kong Country
9) Half Life 2
10) Banjo Kazooie

Well, that's my offical list as of right now, but it's subject to a few changes later on. But now onto the question: Why are most of the people who play games today so ignorant and show absolutely no appreciation for the C*assics? Afterall, a lot of C*ssics such as Doom ended up influencing the production of games such as the Call of Duty series, Halo series, etc. (just showing an example, there are a ton of other influential games out there).

P.S. I had to censor the letter "l" in c*assics because GameSpot is telling me about some forbidden HTML error in using that word.

I don't know if I'm simply overreacting, or is it just me, or am I seeing lately on a lot of threads and a few YouTube videos that have a "top games of all time" or whatever in them and about 95% of the comments/replies to the videos and/or forum threads have all modern games on their list. But that's not all. What's also weird that I noticed is that the lists with all modern games in them tend to get the most in-depth conversations and/or intense arguments, while the lists with classics included (which are the accurate ones in my opinion), get completely ignored.

I mean seriously, what's wrong with today's generation of gaming? While I'm only 15 (and turning 16 in several days), I started playing games when I was 3 or 4 and I remember the first game I played being either Super Mario World or Mario Kart for the SNES. And eventually I got an N64, and I enjoyed that a LOT. But it seems now of days that a vast majority of today's gamers seem to believe that games started out on PS2 (and that's also the system they all started on as well, and most of the "modern gamers" started gaming only several years ago). But anyways, if you're curious to see my top 10 games of all time list, here it is (it has accuracy in it, I never judge by if it's modern or old, I judge by what I think is the best of all games):

1) Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
2) Doom
3) Metroid Prime
4) Super Mario World
5) Super Mario Bros. 3
6) Oblivion
7) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
8 ) Donkey Kong Country
9) Half Life 2
10) Banjo Kazooie

Well, that's my offical list as of right now, but it's subject to a few changes later on. But now onto the question: Why are most of the people who play games today so ignorant and show absolutely no appreciation for the C*assics? Afterall, a lot of C*ssics such as Doom ended up influencing the production of games such as the Call of Duty series, Halo series, etc. (just showing an example, there are a ton of other influential games out there).

P.S. I had to censor the letter "l" in c*assics because GameSpot is telling me about some forbidden HTML error in using that word.

Disturbed_King

I totally agree with you, but not all people forget ****cs. Look at here on Gamespot. We know and play ****cs. You were on Youtube, and some people there, can be well, strange. And also, I know HL2 was better than HL1, but HL1 influenced more games than HL2. Alot more games!!!

:Edit: For some reason, gamespot blocked the word c l a s s i c s.

Its just a new generation of gamers out there. people that starded playing on ps2's, xboxes and Gamecubes. or even 360's and ps3's.

the blocked word "classic" has something to do with HTML thingy's

GameSpot's html editor always blocks "cIass" and "styIe."

I think the reason that you see that people are more likely to go in depth in discussions of modern games simply because they're fresher in our minds. For example, if I was going to talk about Zelda games, I'd have an easier time talking at length about Twilight Princess because I played that recently, whereas I haven't touched A Link to the Past in years. Which one deserves cIassic status? I'd certainly say A Link to the Past is worthier, but Twilight Princess is easier to remember in detail.

Also, I'd say the population on this website tends to be fairly balanced between a younger and older crowd. I'm part of the SNES generation, I caught the tail end of the NES, but the first games I really played to death were SNES games. But there are lots of posters around who don't remember that. My brother for instance is a PC gamer, but when I remember my early PC games I'm remembering King's Quest IV and the original Sim City and Odell Lake, he's remembering Civ III and Medieval Total War. What he considers a cIassic and what I consider a cIassic aren't likely to be the same.

I'm not going to make a top ten list or anything, but I'd probably have a fairly even mix of games that are nostalgic for me and games that are more current if I did.

GameSpot's html editor always blocks "cIass" and "styIe."

I think the reason that you see that people are more likely to go in depth in discussions of modern games simply because they're fresher in our minds. For example, if I was going to talk about Zelda games, I'd have an easier time talking at length about Twilight Princess because I played that recently, whereas I haven't touched A Link to the Past in years. Which one deserves cIassic status? I'd certainly say A Link to the Past is worthier, but Twilight Princess is easier to remember in detail.

Also, I'd say the population on this website tends to be fairly balanced between a younger and older crowd. I'm part of the SNES generation, I caught the tail end of the NES, but the first games I really played to death were SNES games. But there are lots of posters around who don't remember that. My brother for instance is a PC gamer, but when I remember my early PC games I'm remembering King's Quest IV and the original Sim City and Odell Lake, he's remembering Civ III and Medieval Total War. What he considers a cIassic and what I consider a cIassic aren't likely to be the same.

I'm not going to make a top ten list or anything, but I'd probably have a fairly even mix of games that are nostalgic for me and games that are more current if I did.

SophinaK

Great points. (Glad to see someone else who likes the King's Quest games) I'd also add that since the technology behind games is always improving there are fewer games that seem timeless. As the medium evolves more new games are going to stand on the shoulders of past games and improve on the cIassics. A lot of old games are really great games that deserve to be remembered, but I don't think gaming has reached a point where every good game that comes out is going to stand the test of time.

Imagine if Hollywood worked in generations, if movie makers had to relearn their art every 5-6 years. You'd see fewer cIassics I'd bet, and technology would be what motivated filmmakers to improve. Movies that were shot 50 years ago used comparable equipment to what filmakers are using now, obviously there have been improvements along the way, but it has been gradual. Gaming on the other hand is in a constant state of evolution. There is always something new, whether it is the progress in PC tech, or consoles. We haven't reached that point where the technology isn't driving improvements in games. I think that until we hit some sort of technological plateau in gaming tech, people are always going to be itching for the next big thing.

I don't know if I'm simply overreacting, or is it just me, or am I seeing lately on a lot of threads and a few YouTube videos that have a "top games of all time" or whatever in them and about 95% of the comments/replies to the videos and/or forum threads have all modern games on their list. But that's not all. What's also weird that I noticed is that the lists with all modern games in them tend to get the most in-depth conversations and/or intense arguments, while the lists with classics included (which are the accurate ones in my opinion), get completely ignored.

I mean seriously, what's wrong with today's generation of gaming? While I'm only 15 (and turning 16 in several days), I started playing games when I was 3 or 4 and I remember the first game I played being either Super Mario World or Mario Kart for the SNES. And eventually I got an N64, and I enjoyed that a LOT. But it seems now of days that a vast majority of today's gamers seem to believe that games started out on PS2 (and that's also the system they all started on as well, and most of the "modern gamers" started gaming only several years ago). But anyways, if you're curious to see my top 10 games of all time list, here it is (it has accuracy in it, I never judge by if it's modern or old, I judge by what I think is the best of all games):

1) Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
2) Doom
3) Metroid Prime
4) Super Mario World
5) Super Mario Bros. 3
6) Oblivion
7) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
8 ) Donkey Kong Country
9) Half Life 2
10) Banjo Kazooie

Well, that's my offical list as of right now, but it's subject to a few changes later on. But now onto the question: Why are most of the people who play games today so ignorant and show absolutely no appreciation for the C*assics? Afterall, a lot of C*ssics such as Doom ended up influencing the production of games such as the Call of Duty series, Halo series, etc. (just showing an example, there are a ton of other influential games out there).

P.S. I had to censor the letter "l" in c*assics because GameSpot is telling me about some forbidden HTML error in using that word.

Disturbed_King

It's all a matter of perspective. For someone who has gamed for 20+ years, your list is way too recent.

[QUOTE="Disturbed_King"]

I don't know if I'm simply overreacting, or is it just me, or am I seeing lately on a lot of threads and a few YouTube videos that have a "top games of all time" or whatever in them and about 95% of the comments/replies to the videos and/or forum threads have all modern games on their list. But that's not all. What's also weird that I noticed is that the lists with all modern games in them tend to get the most in-depth conversations and/or intense arguments, while the lists with classics included (which are the accurate ones in my opinion), get completely ignored.

I mean seriously, what's wrong with today's generation of gaming? While I'm only 15 (and turning 16 in several days), I started playing games when I was 3 or 4 and I remember the first game I played being either Super Mario World or Mario Kart for the SNES. And eventually I got an N64, and I enjoyed that a LOT. But it seems now of days that a vast majority of today's gamers seem to believe that games started out on PS2 (and that's also the system they all started on as well, and most of the "modern gamers" started gaming only several years ago). But anyways, if you're curious to see my top 10 games of all time list, here it is (it has accuracy in it, I never judge by if it's modern or old, I judge by what I think is the best of all games):

1) Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
2) Doom
3) Metroid Prime
4) Super Mario World
5) Super Mario Bros. 3
6) Oblivion
7) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
8 ) Donkey Kong Country
9) Half Life 2
10) Banjo Kazooie

Well, that's my offical list as of right now, but it's subject to a few changes later on. But now onto the question: Why are most of the people who play games today so ignorant and show absolutely no appreciation for the C*assics? Afterall, a lot of C*ssics such as Doom ended up influencing the production of games such as the Call of Duty series, Halo series, etc. (just showing an example, there are a ton of other influential games out there).

P.S. I had to censor the letter "l" in c*assics because GameSpot is telling me about some forbidden HTML error in using that word.

nopalversion

It's all a matter of perspective. For someone who has gamed for 20+ years, your list is way too recent.

As a 20+ yr gamer myself I agree. With the greatest games of all time you'd have to start with the Atari and work your way forward. Each console created something new and inventive that spawned something Else.

You'd have to start with games like Pac man and Galaga. Move up to Tetris, Contra, Castlevania. To half life, Tomb Raider, Resident evil, Castle wolfenstein, Move foward another generation from there.

[QUOTE="nopalversion"]

It's all a matter of perspective. For someone who has gamed for 20+ years, your list is way too recent.

leofiregod

As a 20+ yr gamer myself I agree. With the greatest games of all time you'd have to start with the Atari and work your way forward. Each console created something new and inventive that spawned something Else.

Imagine if Hollywood worked in generations, if movie makers had to relearn their art every 5-6 years. You'd see fewer cIassics I'd bet, and technology would be what motivated filmmakers to improve. Movies that were shot 50 years ago used comparable equipment to what filmakers are using now, obviously there have been improvements along the way, but it has been gradual. Gaming on the other hand is in a constant state of evolution. There is always something new, whether it is the progress in PC tech, or consoles. We haven't reached that point where the technology isn't driving improvements in games. I think that until we hit some sort of technological plateau in gaming tech, people are always going to be itching for the next big thing.

rragnaar

I was thinking about this the other day actually, I listened to a game podcast where they discussed an article about timeless games, and came to the conclusion that due to evolving technology games won't be timeless in the way that movies are. I completely disagreed with that article. They were saying something to this effect: Super Mario Bros. and The Godfather are approximately the same age (1985 and 1974 respectively, so there's a bit of a gap, but you get the idea) and while the Godfather can be watched and appreciated by anyone and is still as accessible as it ever was, SMB looks a little dated and is going to be difficult for a child of the 3D generation to appreciate.

The problem is, by 1974 movies were a medium that had decades years of history. Video gaming was still in it's early days of popularity. To really make that comparison you have to go back to a movie from the 20s. How many people of this generation are going to enjoy a silent film? Not too many, I don't think. How about an early sci-fi movie, now that special effects have evolved so much? Again, not a whole lot. They're cIassic movies, but kind of in an academic way. They're appreciated by people who knew them at the time (any who are still alive) and by people who are interested in the craft and history of the medium. Early video games are going to be like that, I think. Not too many ordinary high school gamers are going to pop in Galaga on the weekend for fun, but not too many high school movie buffs are watching Charlie Chaplin on the weekends either.

The Godfather looks kinda dated too, but more in the way that a last-gen game is starting to look dated compared to curren gen games. It doesn't ruin the quality of the movie by any means, but serves as a reminder that it wasn't made yesterday. Probably someday it will be a "cIassic" movie in the same sense that The Gold Rush is cIassic, and maybe someday COD4 will be cIassic in the same way the Godfather is?

[QUOTE="rragnaar"]

Imagine if Hollywood worked in generations, if movie makers had to relearn their art every 5-6 years. You'd see fewer cIassics I'd bet, and technology would be what motivated filmmakers to improve. Movies that were shot 50 years ago used comparable equipment to what filmakers are using now, obviously there have been improvements along the way, but it has been gradual. Gaming on the other hand is in a constant state of evolution. There is always something new, whether it is the progress in PC tech, or consoles. We haven't reached that point where the technology isn't driving improvements in games. I think that until we hit some sort of technological plateau in gaming tech, people are always going to be itching for the next big thing.

SophinaK

I was thinking about this the other day actually, I listened to a game podcast where they discussed an article about timeless games, and came to the conclusion that due to evolving technology games won't be timeless in the way that movies are. I completely disagreed with that article. They were saying something to this effect: Super Mario Bros. and The Godfather are approximately the same age (1985 and 1974 respectively, so there's a bit of a gap, but you get the idea) and while the Godfather can be watched and appreciated by anyone and is still as accessible as it ever was, SMB looks a little dated and is going to be difficult for a child of the 3D generation to appreciate.

The problem is, by 1974 movies were a medium that had decades years of history. Video gaming was still in it's early days of popularity. To really make that comparison you have to go back to a movie from the 20s. How many people of this generation are going to enjoy a silent film? Not too many, I don't think. How about an early sci-fi movie, now that special effects have evolved so much? Again, not a whole lot. They're cIassic movies, but kind of in an academic way. They're appreciated by people who knew them at the time (any who are still alive) and by people who are interested in the craft and history of the medium. Early video games are going to be like that, I think. Not too many ordinary high school gamers are going to pop in Galaga on the weekend for fun, but not too many high school movie buffs are watching Charlie Chaplin on the weekends either.

The Godfather looks kinda dated too, but more in the way that a last-gen game is starting to look dated compared to curren gen games. It doesn't ruin the quality of the movie by any means, but serves as a reminder that it wasn't made yesterday. Probably someday it will be a "cIassic" movie in the same sense that The Gold Rush is cIassic, and maybe someday COD4 will be cIassic in the same way the Godfather is?

Nothing's wrong with this generation of gamers. In case you haven't noticed, Atari, SNES, etc. aren't around (legally) anymore. Hell, PS1 games aren't even sold in stores anymore. Unlike the movie and music industries, where you can buy VHS tapes, cassettes, etc. of music/movies from decades ago, this industry tends to move fast; stores take games off the shelves within months, they get old systems returned in exchange for the latest systems, and game companies tend to update their earlier-gen games to the new gen. That's not the kids/teens of today's fault.JerseyJ2007

Show me a mainstream store where I can still buy VHS tapes. You pretty much have to buy them online or in specialty stores, which is the same place you can get older games. Yeah, you're not going to walk into your local GameStop and find a copy of Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2 for N64 on the shelf, but it's exaggerating to say they're not available anywhere. True, older movies are updated in forms that play on whatever the newer players are be they DVD or Blu-Ray or whatever, but I think we are going to see that more and more with games also (see XBLA, Virtual Console, Xbox Originals, compilation discs for rerelease). It's a very young medium. It's not really surprising that they have a bit of catching up to do in that regard.

Show me a mainstream store where I can still buy VHS tapes. You pretty much have to buy them online or in specialty stores, which is the same place you can get older games. Yeah, you're not going to walk into your local GameStop and find a copy of Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2 for N64 on the shelf, but it's exaggerating to say they're not available anywhere. True, older movies are updated in forms that play on whatever the newer players are be they DVD or Blu-Ray or whatever, but I think we are going to see that more and more with games also (see XBLA, Virtual Console, Xbox Originals, compilation discs for rerelease). It's a very young medium. It's not really surprising that they have a bit of catching up to do in that regard.

SophinaK

Okay, I was exaggerating. I thought it was possible to buy VHS tapes (I still watch mine). Guess not. About the games not sold in stores, when I meant was, not in average stores.

No offense, but your list doesn't exactly strike me as balanced nor does it come off as a list written by somebody who has a firm grasp of the "classics".

Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
2) Doom
3) Metroid Prime
4) Super Mario World
5) Super Mario Bros. 3
6) Oblivion
7) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
8 ) Donkey Kong Country
9) Half Life 2
10) Banjo Kazooie

Metroid Prime being included on a top ten list seems ludicrous to me, especially considering that Super Metroid, which really is a sublime gaming experience, is nowhere to be found.

The inclusion of Doom on your list is solid but Ocarina of Time is an obvious and frankly cliché entry for the number one spot.

The inclusion of two Mario Bros. games is redundant since you only need one or the other, especially considering how many truly ****c games are missing from your list, like Street Fighter II, Virtua Fighter, and Bionic Commando. Also, technically speaking, GTAIII should be on any list that purports to choose ****cs that redefine gaming, as GTAIII is easily one of the most influential games ever released.

You also have an inordinate amount of platformers, some of which, like Donkey Kong Country, really haven't stood the test of time; at least not to the extent of being included in a top ten list. It's also interesting to note that you don't have any pre-NES games cited, omitting defining ****cs like Pac Man or Berserk.

Truth be told, distilling this medium down into ten games is damn near impossible and that is why so many games, including ****cs, so often get omitted. It's not about respecting the ****cs so much as it is about personal preference and experience.

Okay, I was exaggerating. I thought it was possible to buy VHS tapes (I still watch mine). Guess not. About the games not sold in stores, when I meant was, not in average stores.

JerseyJ2007

Sorry to come across so harsh, I just reread my post and realized it sounded kinda snappy. I just wanted to point out the exaggeration. :P

Sorry to come across so harsh, I just reread my post and realized it sounded kinda snappy. I just wanted to point out the exaggeration. :P

SophinaK

lol. Ironically, I was snappy myself -- as I often get in these types of threads -- when I was replying to the TS.

I don't know if I'm simply overreacting, or is it just me, or am I seeing lately on a lot of threads and a few YouTube videos that have a "top games of all time" or whatever in them and about 95% of the comments/replies to the videos and/or forum threads have all modern games on their list. But that's not all. What's also weird that I noticed is that the lists with all modern games in them tend to get the most in-depth conversations and/or intense arguments, while the lists with classics included (which are the accurate ones in my opinion), get completely ignored.

I mean seriously, what's wrong with today's generation of gaming? While I'm only 15 (and turning 16 in several days), I started playing games when I was 3 or 4 and I remember the first game I played being either Super Mario World or Mario Kart for the SNES. And eventually I got an N64, and I enjoyed that a LOT. But it seems now of days that a vast majority of today's gamers seem to believe that games started out on PS2 (and that's also the system they all started on as well, and most of the "modern gamers" started gaming only several years ago). But anyways, if you're curious to see my top 10 games of all time list, here it is (it has accuracy in it, I never judge by if it's modern or old, I judge by what I think is the best of all games):

1) Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
2) Doom
3) Metroid Prime
4) Super Mario World
5) Super Mario Bros. 3
6) Oblivion
7) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
8 ) Donkey Kong Country
9) Half Life 2
10) Banjo Kazooie

Well, that's my offical list as of right now, but it's subject to a few changes later on. But now onto the question: Why are most of the people who play games today so ignorant and show absolutely no appreciation for the C*assics? Afterall, a lot of C*ssics such as Doom ended up influencing the production of games such as the Call of Duty series, Halo series, etc. (just showing an example, there are a ton of other influential games out there).

P.S. I had to censor the letter "l" in c*assics because GameSpot is telling me about some forbidden HTML error in using that word.

Disturbed_King

It's all a matter of perspective. For someone who has gamed for 20+ years, your list is way too recent.

nopalversion

Took my words.

It really is a result of not only age (a good majority of game forum members are those who have time to both play and extensively discuss games... my guess is the majority of older gamers don't have that time/desire, myself and some others excluded of course ;)), but also of actual game experience. The number of gamers seems to have been growing exponentially from about the mid PS1 and particularly PS2 period. Therefore, it seems only natural for those gamers, young or old, to gravitate towards the games they know and have played.

It's analogous to any early adopter syndrome. You see this all the time with people who were "fans of the band before they were famous and sold out" or anything similar. I also see a little egoism in it. People enjoy knowing/thinking that they knew about something earlier than others, particularly if that thing has become popular: to know you are ahead of the curve is a fun feeling. Hence the derision of "noobs", the flaunting of knowing the classics better, etc.

My observations? I've noticed that the intelligence and maturity levels seem to jump up when the discussion of older games comes into play (on average). Coincidence? ;)

Some very good points have been put forth so far. As a film buff myself, I really enjoyed SophiaK's analogy of Mario to movies in the 20s, etc. It's a perspective I've never considered, but agree with. That analogy works really well when you consider the early approach to movies and the early approach to gaming (this is still an early period). The infant stages of any new art form tend to mimic those which are more established. Early movies tempted to merge stage plays with photography: static cameras framed with photography-like dimensions and sense of balance while filming what essentially amounted to a stage play. Now that the technology of gaming is starting to reach somewhat of a visual threshold using current display technologies, we are starting to see it move from a technical focus to one of more artistry. What do we see in this artistry though? Mimicry of film. We now look for the "cinematic" moments in games, etc. I think eventually, like in any artform, the creators of games will start to understand the unique characteristics of their medium, those which set it apart and allow them to illustrate that which cannot be done in other media.