Homeworld. Already a classic.

I don't know about Oblivion not enduring. It's modding scene is still going along. Granted, things have slowed down and its mostly clothing and house mods now, but still.

What does it mean for a game to "endure" exactly?

Well, for my evidence that Oblivion is not an enduring classic:
Every TES fan I've asked, none of them have said Oblivion was the best TES game. I've gotten Daggerfall, I've gotten Morrowind, I've gotten Skyrim. No Oblivion though. It's a practically forgotten about game by most of the world.

Pretty much everyone I know of was all either "Feh, this isn't that good." and went back to Morrowind, or was all "This is awesome." but then when Skyrim came out there were all "OMG THIS IS SO MUCH WIN I NEED NEW BOXERS!" >.>

However, the definition of a game 'enduring' is a good question.

Not a classic yet (only been out for 5 days) but if Primordia doesn't become a classic, I'm going to be concerned about people's opinions on stories in games.

I also have high hopes that Clairvoyance will become a modern classic, being as well balanced as it is.

And I hear To the Moon deserves the title, though I haven't played it yet, myself.

For me, one qualifier for whether or not a game can endure is how well it holds up against modern games when it comes to how fun it is to play. For example, when I compare Deus Ex to Human Revolution, the game feels uncomfortable - the reason is because gameplay and graphics have advanced to the point that Deus Ex starts to become tarnished with age.

On the other hand, DOOM is far superior to DOOM 3 in my opinion. Part of this has to do with the genre shift of the latter game, which makes it harder for me to recognize it as a Doom game. While both games are technically shooters, they are completely different. DOOM is credibly fast-paced, and has a level design that doesn't adhere to reality. This is incredibly important, because the designers can create levels with gameplay in mind. They carefully place monsters and build stages that are designed with keeping the player interested in the game. Most shooters have me feel like as if I am stuck in a box, but DOOM goes the extra mile and makes that into a puzzle box.

There is a ton of things that go into making a game endure, so here is a cliff-notes edition of my opinion:

*Aesthetics are more important than graphical power, as they resist aging.
*Simple controls are critical to making the player become immersed.
*Good writing stays that way.
*A strong melody is key to making game music memorable.
*Games should offer gameplay that is easy to learn, but difficult to master.


A quick list of games that reflect my opinion:

*Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask
*Tetris
*Super Mario Brothers
*Final Fantasy VI
*DOOM
*Castle of the Winds
*Phoenix Wright
*Sonic 3 & Knuckles
*Advance Wars
*Katamari Damacy
*X-COM: Enemy Unknown


HELPFUL VIDEOS

Extra Credits: Graphics vs Aesthetics
http://extra-credits.net/episodes/graphics-vs-aesthetics/

Extra Credits: The Uncanny Valley
http://extra-credits.net/episodes/uncanny-valley/

Extra Credits: Game Music
http://extra-credits.net/episodes/game-music/

Sequelitis - Megaman vs. Megaman X (NSFW)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FpigqfcvlM

Great videos. Highly recommended.

Spelunky
Portal
Psychonauts
Dark Souls
STALKER

I think there are a lot of things that people have said that I completely agree with on this post.

Some things I've seemed to notice:

An observation: The more "cartoony" the graphics, the more likely it seems to stand the test of time graphically. Cartoons seem to change in style, but people love them years later (look at old disney classic movies, or general cartoony games like Mario, Rayman, etc). Even Borderlands is cartoony, which may make it appeal longer. Games like skyrim are vast and pretty, but I think the next vast and pretty game will make it disappear.

...OR...

The gameplay is solid, near "flawless", and revolutionary. Do you remember Wolfenstein? Pong? Pacman? Sonic or Mario? Everquest or WOW? Megaman? Fallout? Mechwarrior or Heavy Gear? Wing commander? All of these games did something seemingly "new", or did it in a flawless and revolutionary way. Or to be honest, they released it at the same time as an equal but marked it better or had better timing. But people remember the gameplay.

...OR...

The story is presented in a way that makes them feel strongly, capturing the heart permanantly. The people who love Amnesia will always talk about how it made them FEEL. Same with Final Fantasy 7 lovers. Any LucasArts Adveture lover will tell you how Day of the tenticle, Full Throttle, and Grim Fandango made them laugh. It made them FEEL good. Or modern games like the witcher that make people FEEL that they make a difference in the game world, which they hadn't ever felt before.

To be a classic, I think it generally needs to be great at 2 or more of the following (or above average on 2 and amazing on the 3rd): Graphics, Storyline, Gameplay.

Look at your favorite games- They probably excel at 2 of them, or fail at none and captured you with 1. My favorites had graphics and story but were super buggy. Others were just simply amazing to play because of the mechanics, even though they didn't have much of a story.

Agree or disagree, those are my thoughts. Many blessings to you all :)

When it comes down to why cartoony graphics age better than photorealistic ones, it is because we, as people, know what reality looks like. You can't get much more real than that, so anything that breaks the illusion of realism in a realistic game is extremely noticeable. By moving away from being 'real', there is a buffer that protects against inconsistency.

On the topic of revolutionary and solid games, I think that games that are solid last much longer. Mind, I do give extra points for being revolutionary, but the game must feel good to play, otherwise I would be driven away and be unable to enjoy the revolutionary aspects of it. For example, both Zelda and Castlevania entered the 3D realm on the N64, but we only remember Zelda, because it was well implemented compared to the other game. C64 had clunky controls, a bad camera, bugs, and an aesthetic style that fell into the uncanny valley.

I will be a bit unfair with a game now and just say that I hate it. That game is Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain. This game apparently had a wonderfully done story, but the controls were so awful for me that I couldn't stand it for more than a hour. This was especially grievous when the fact is that Blood Omen came out well after 'A Link to the Past', which had perfected the top-down puzzles and combat formula for the Zelda series. Furthermore, Blood Omen used graphics that were reminiscent of Zelda's Adventure for the CDI, which proven to be unpleasant to look at and didn't age well at all.

I think Minecraft probably fits the best among currently popular games, but I suspect that it will actually be some future iteration of the game, somewhere between "added and improved features" and "requires a PhD" that will be the one the Minecraft community favors in 2030.

Sort of the way ithat SimCity 2000 and Civ 2 tend to show up in favorite games lists of old timers rather than the originals (when historical significance is not a factor).

I'd have to put a vote in for Batman : Arkham Asylum. Ok, admittedly the boss fights (especially the last) were nothing to write home about but the setting was atmospheric, the script and voice acting were superb and the gameplay itself was just plain fun.

What?!

Yes, yes, you don't like Witcher, yet it got more mentions in this particular thread than Mass Effect, so I suppose it does have a lasting appeal :-P I don't particulary like Sacrifice yet I don't protest against it's cult status.

I could see Minecraft becoming a 'legendary classic', but I wonder how well it will actually handle the tests of time as the voxel engines improve and more voxel driven games pop up, with more advanced graphics etc.

Be interesting to see what happens.