I was reading a forum in the escapist about a guy hating what he calls "Retro Gamer Elitism"

and I was reading another user in the same thread as to why people like me thinks retro games are better then today games I mean he made almost a complete comprehensible explination note though it is very long

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.386416-I-cant-stand-retro-game-elitism?page=2#15412154

please read it, it is not flamebait and I do not want that

He brings up a really good point. Most games today are derivative, and very few innovative. And most games that copy their predecessors do it poorly.

Which is why I am watching Dishonored very carefully... Hopefully it can be a classic like thief.

Whether you accuse people of "Retro Gamer Elitism", or actually buy into that, it all comes from the same place where "Modern Gamer Elitism" comes from. There are modern-day games that are very good, and modern-day games that are very bad...just as how there are indie retro games that are very good, and indie retro games that are very bad.

People who don't see that almost seem like they're just blinded by their own fanboyism.

I understand that granted there are my favorite games this gen like Saints Row the Third

also if you finished reading what did you of his post

He's wrong because ...

Secret of Monkey Island
Beneath A Steel Sky
Doom 1&2
Duke Nukem 3D
Theme Park
Command & Conquer
TIE Fighter
The Settlers
Worms
etc.
etc.
etc.

All games which had many many many clones or sequels and yet these are still amazing fun today. Oh I do get where he's coming from - he is under the delusion that, because games have been improved upon in a technical way, that they age badly which is probably true for the early and mid 80's games that were fighting against technology. However, since the early 90's, there was enough freedom to allow for some really great games. A game like Theme Park, for example, still has a better atmosphere than Rollercoaster Tycoon 1, 2 & 3 although these were deeper and more complex. Worms had many many sequels and other games mimicking it yet the original is still my favorite by far.

In the end, it's narrow-minded to simply look at the technical side of games. The matter is, that games from the early 90's had a lot more creativity in terms of art, music, UI and general design as well. Even if there are more modern updates, these older versions often still stand their ground and offer something modern versions don't. Doom 1 & 2 for example, are still highly enjoyable and it's hard to find a modern equivalent. Not with crappy CoD versions being lame shooting galleries with lots of explosions and tons of scripted events.

There were also games from before which shrewdly used technological limitations to their benefit, like Silent Hill.

I enjoy most old games more than new ones.

I don't mind using manual and reference cards all the time. I like to learn, because when I acomplish something in that game, I feel very satisfied.

I hate when in new game you get those brilliant messages like "quick, find a weapon!" or "you have to kill him by using something something" on the screen.

This kills all my pleasure of gaming, when a game treats me like a fucking retard telling me everything I should do at the exact moment I should do that.

I love old games, I do believe they are better, I do believe most my favourite games aged well. Because I play them all the time and have no problems with them.

Maybe it has to do with the fact I play new-ish games on console and old-ish on PC, I don't know.

It's all about preference, and if somebody tells "it's objectively proven that new games are better, and if you think oldies are better you're wrong, he's just full of crap.

I enjoyed Ultima 4 more than Gothic 4.

Of course there were lots of shitty games back in the day. Probably even more than get released today (not counting indies). But I don't play old games that I think they were bad years ago.

This.

There are some horrible games today

There were some horrible games ten years ago

There were some horrible games twenty years ago.


Actually, after playing for nearly twenty years now, I am fairly certain that less bad games are released today (indies aside) then ten or fifteen years ago.

Mostly because making a mainstream game costs 10 times more than 10 years ago.

Back in the Ultima 1+2+3 era, all you needed was three geeks in the basement to make an amazing game. It's the same thing now with indies, a bunch of dudes can make an amazing game, but it won't look much different than nineties mainstream game (usually)

Three guys won't make Spec Ops, Crysis or Witcher 2 in any reasonable amount of time.

Today's games credits list is longer than for most movies :P

Yup, pretty much that.

As for "good old games". There are two types of "good old games", imo.

One is a group if true masterpiece that held up till today and should be played by everyone who is interested in gaming. "A Mind Forever Voyaging", the "Monkey Island" games, the System Shock series, Terra Nova SFC, Ultima Underworld etc ... (also just about every game Red_Avatar mentioned).

Then there are good old games that were good at their time because they were something new and unique, but they have been taken over by newer, better games. Eg, the Elite Series, a lot of the old D&D games, Eye of the Beholder (has been made "obsolete" by Grimrock if you will) Warcraft I, Dune II. Those games had mechanics that are simply unbearable today hand have been improved on just about every level by other games. Even the old classics like Civilisation or MoO, which are a brilliant games, but have been seen better successors (Often from their own series (as CiV II and MoO II showed). Also BG, imo. It brought the RPG back to the mainstream market, but it would be pretty much forgettable if it would be released today.

Therefore, there is "Retro gamer elitism" and it is (due to the former nature of GOG) very prevalent here. But there are also great old games, that can still hold their own today.

Can I at least ask if you guys read ALL of the guy's post

Yeah, I should've stopped reading at this point too. I should've known that this will be another generic text about how old games are bad because they're old.

I must have different sense of aesthetics, because I love to look at old graphics. Only using basic colours, ASCII art for trees and rivers, etc etc.

And it's not like I've grown on games looking like Ultima 4. I started my gaming adventure with NES console.

Maybe I like to use a lot of my imagination during gaming.

(I am open to corrections)

Judging from the post here I notice you thought if the OP I meant the commentor

his post
Short version

First, I will preface this with one indisputable fact: MOST truly old games do NOT age well.
As much as I enjoy running around in Tower of Doom and mowing down the hordes in Gauntlet, not all retro games sustain themselves well.
Most of them have been improved upon by newer games, and it's the classic games that were NOT copied or cloned or otherwise heavily exploited since their heyday, that get misused as representatives for *everything* in their era.

Hence, many will point to games like Deus Ex, Chrono Trigger, X-COM or System Shock 2 as games that made their era, but not milestones in a series like Unreal Tournament 1, Quake 1, or most Enix games. Mario gets recognition, but it's always used as a measure of respect since Nintendo effectively had a REAL monopoly on gaming when they launched most of their iconic franchises (all but Pokemon and Kirby).

Clear on that? OK. So with that out of the way, lets talk about Derivatives, or games that are cut from the cloth of some other older game, and change little about it.

It isn't that modern games are BAD, but even after eliminating shovelware and bombs from the equation, they're mostly just derivatives of whatever was popular year before. It gets old seeing the same fucking game done over and over again.

The only time it really seems appropriate to retread old mechanics, is when it's a planned contiguous story from start to finish (rather than just a sequel that was hastily taped onto the end of the previous story...Bioshock 2, Resident Evil), but to date, I can think of ONE story in gaming that has really started well and ended well (Baldur's Gate 1 & 2).
The rest are either incomplete (Half Life 2) or ended badly (ME3), so I don't put much stock into this caveat anyway.

The problem is that those derivatives, which dominate the market, are offering experiences going "Sideways, not Forward." and in many cases "Backwards, not Sideways" (when the gameplay is dumbed-down/streamlined/simplified, whatever you prefer to call it).

Since most of these modern games are based upon groundwork laid out by their Retro Ancestors, it makes those Retro games appear much better in hindsight, sans technical differences (graphics, sound, program stability). Sometimes better than they actually were...

Yet in some cases, mechanically, it's indisputable which game is better.

Yeah, that's pretty much all that there is to say.

But for me, it's different. For example, I play a lot of Age of Empires 1, even though I know it's way inferior to AoE2. But I still prefer playing this one.

Somehow, I really like playing Civilization 3 even though I know Civ4 is better (but I prefer Civ3 graphics, really!)

Dune II may be too clunky, but Dune 2000 still holds up bravely for me, and I play it from time to time. (Red Alert 2 is better than Red Alert 3 for me, too)

I like to play old RPGs like Ishar too, but yeah, they are a little bit rusty. Not because of the graphics, but there isn't much combat options, that's the biggest problem for me.

Most of the time, if I prefer newer game it's because they have more options, more buildings, more fractions, etc etc. not because of the interface or graphics. I can adapt to old mechanics, if I have enough free time to learn.