Why older games, particularly Nintendo g ...

This is an off-the-cuff stream of consciousness regarding the timeless qualities of the Nintendo brand and its offerings, and why time will look at the innovative company more favorably than any other. For over 20 years now, video games have captured our imaginations. They've allowed us perhaps the greatest form of escapism that could ever be. Games have also developed in ways we once would never have thought possible. From Pong and Donkey Kong to Grand Theft Auto IV and the capabilities of the Wii, video games have evolved indescribably. While new innovations forever keep us curious what comes next, those same innovations often seem to compliment the games that paved the way, and of the ones that come to mind when considering landmarks, Nintendo always seems to have a place. Take the original NES for example. Obviously the launch of long-standing series such as Mario, Metroid, Zelda, and so on, all have a timeless place in gaming history for simply being the first of their respective brand. However, it still deserves to be said, even trumpeted, that these games are worth full play-throughs today. The original Legend of Zelda is arguably the single greatest video game ever produced. No other game before it ever compared to its depth. As an aside, it was also the first game to support any type of save feature. Regardless of its technical qualifications of the time though, the first Zelda game still stands out as a moment captured in time, one that original players will absolutely never forget. Beyond nostalgic reminiscence, many Nintendo games throughout its to-date history have achieved the near-impossible: They've successfully walked the line between exhibiting the day's highest technical capabilities, and simultaneously creating a feel of absolute timelessness. One such example is an entire system - the extremely underappreciated Nintendo 64. As today's games become so technologically-focused that some type of lack always seems apparent, the N64 is a warm reminder of brilliance through simplicity. While photo-realism is an ever-out-of-reach goal of today's games, the polygonal beauty of Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time become all the more noticeable. As first- and third-person shooters become more developed and still seem to leave now-expected features neglected, the golden days of GoldenEye are remembered that much more fondly. These are games that were, of course, intended to be at the peak of their possibilities, but were also designed to withstand the test of time. Many of the current generation's gamers won't be able to accept the necessary graphical backpedaling, but for those who can, the purity of the experience is almost euphoric. This comes in stark contrast to the name of this essay's writer, ''gamesshdhvmore.'' As the Playstation 2, Xbox and GameCube turned into what we see today, something seemed to get lost in translation. Every single game that comes out today feels as though something is missing. Whether a few small features that could drastically improve overall play or entire elements that seem to have been forsaken in place of perhaps graphical focus, all of the current market's offerings seem to have developed quicker than the gaming community may have needed. As Ian Malcolm said in Jurassic Park, ''...your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.'' To switch into first-person writing, I'll explain the transition from my login name's suggestion to what I'm saying now. As described above, the games of today, and especially those on tomorrow's horizon, seem to be strongly aimed at what's possible instead of what's memorable. The results have always left me curious why more people aren't involved in the testing process. I wrote a review for Saints Row some time ago, citing that even in a GTA-competing game, some simple examples of fluidity were never thought of.
Why couldn't recruited gang members be instructed to get their own car and follow you?
Why couldn't you hand them the gun you wanted them to use?
These and other highly simple additions would have changed the entire game for me. But alas, no one thought to place them. Games to come out since then have even worse examples, and many of them are critically-acclaimed.
Gears of War was linear, unimaginative, and mind-boggling in its mass approval. It was noticeably polished, granted. But the idea that a standard backyard fence resulted in five minutes of arduous trekking just to circumnavigate - that's something the gaming world should have surpassed long ago.
BioShock, while a highly ambitious game and a unique experience, still had fundamental wrongs. The weapon and ammo ''creation'' system was embarrassing to partake in, and the half-baked result of ''Gun 1'' becoming ''Gun 2'' stole most notions of lasting engagement from the otherwise-impressive aura.
Assassin's Creed: To avoid straying into even-more-arbitrary perspective, I'll just say that I for one was severely disappointed. While it did have one shining example of video game innovation -- finally putting reason to the rhyme in how having one remaining ''health bar'' doesn't affect physical ability -- everything, just everything else in the game was lacking. There was essentially one level, and then it gets very slightly altered over the course of an entire, repetitive game. Climbing walls was indeed fun, but pre-release information depicted a never-before-seen control scheme of every limb having a dedicated button, and yet constantly holding a few buttons took care of all climbing needs. For these reasons, and countless others, gamers such as myself have been inclined to look back to a time when polish was often placed higher than possibility, in terms of release requisites. There's a certain jena se qua in many older games, in that they were so well-produced that you couldn't help but wonder what would come next. Now that a new generation has largely taken over the making and playing of games, it seems that wonder has become the top priority, and creating games we'll speak of decades from now has gone the way of the Matrix. Perhaps this is the first sign of gaming elderliness. I'm not above acknowledging that I don't have the time or desire to play games that are more like a job than an awe-inspiring throwback to childhood. Nonetheless, examples of sheer neglect, such as the aforementioned three, are indefensible, and I think we could all agree that graphical presentation could be bridled if it resulted in a more memorable experience. Choosing such high ground isn't a box-office guarantee though. Games like Zelda: The Wind Waker, even with its high marks, may still go underappreciated because of the new-age focuses. Also, one may accurately counterpoint that more-games-than-not have always gone the route of ''could'' over ''should.'' But, in the pre-128-bit era, the limitations were evident enough that we could appreciate the content for what it was.
Today is without excuse.
As we see games like Assassin's Creed sacrifice almost all gameplay for the sake of breathtaking visuals, it's startling to think that these are the games that receive ''A'' ratings. For this gamer, it's enough to be reminded that where we've come from is more appealing than where we're going. It's no wonder that many of yesteryear's best games are already receiving a ''vintage'' price tag.They're not just older; they're better.Why older games, particularly Nintendo g ...
Put wall of text in the title. :PAnyways, a good topic (maybe better as blog). Of course Nintendo classics will live on forever as the best games, although that's not to say Sony and Microsoft haven't had their share of good games. Of course the thing that puts Nintendo above them (IMO) is that they are much more innovative and always have completely different controllers and games and do all they can to change the way we see and play games. Oh yes, get ready for some disagreements. Why older games, particularly Nintendo g ...
Ehh, I didn't read anything that you said (you should bullets, lists, headings, and smaller paragraphs if your ultimate goal is to get people to read it) but i'll assume it included something about simplicity and all attention being paid to gameplay.
The retro games are fine and dandy for the old geezers in the gaming community that take a look back for semantics but i'm a firm believer in that games continue to evelove with time removing any reason to revisit the inferior old games.

As a example, the timesplitters series improved and perfected on the basis layd in goldeneye wich is in all parts inferior to the new game.

(I still revisit old platforms for the game genre's that have died out now as shmups and 2D-platformers)
[QUOTE=''hot114'']The retro games are fine and dandy for the old geezers in the gaming community that take a look back for semantics but i'm a firm believer in that games continue to evelove with time removing any reason to revisit the inferior old games.

As a example, the timesplitters series improved and perfected on the basis layd in goldeneye wich is in all parts inferior to the new game.

(I still revisit old platforms for the game genre's that have died out now as shmups and 2D-platformers)[/QUOTE] Rose-tinted glasses undniably play a part, but the nostalgia doesn't disappear for me even when I'm actually playing the game. Goldeneye will always feel more special to play than Timesplitters, justified or not.
before it was about who creates the best game, is betternow, like everything else, its just about business...the faster you produce it the faster you sell it, people still buy. Look how many call of duties there are already, they are basically same. While mario 64-sunshine-galaxy, all very different. Why make them pay 1 time when you can make them pay 4 or 5 times on sequels
Thank you for sharing your English class essay for us :P.
I completely agree, games these days just don't feel the same in general. I just got OoT last year and in my opinion it still has better graphics than most recent games artistically.
[QUOTE=''Funkyhamster'']I completely agree, games these days just don't feel the same in general. I just got OoT last year and in my opinion it still has better graphics than most recent games artistically.[/QUOTE]Plus the plot feels more epic than most modern games. I say most because there's an exception: old school remakes :P.
I stopped reading when I saw Nintendo 64 and beauty mentioned in the same sentence. This reeks of fanboyism.
[QUOTE=''doubutsuteki'']I stopped reading when I saw Nintendo 64 and beauty mentioned in the same sentence. This reeks of fanboyism.[/QUOTE]
Beauty in gaming is always in context with the hardware of the platform in mind.

hell chrono trigger was beutiful and donkey kong plain mindblowing with its semi-3d graphics.
[QUOTE=''hot114''][QUOTE=''doubutsuteki'']I stopped reading when I saw Nintendo 64 and beauty mentioned in the same sentence. This reeks of fanboyism.[/QUOTE]
Beauty in gaming is always in context with the hardware of the platform in mind.

hell chrono trigger was beutiful and donkey kong plain mindblowing with its semi-3d graphics.[/QUOTE]What's that supposed to mean? I can't compare it with something else? Of course I can! He talked about the graphics on the N64 and N64 games and compared it with the graphics of recent consoles and their games. The 3D graphics on the N64 blows, big time. Anyone who says differently clearly has no sense of aesthetics. The N64 was terrible. The NES and SNES is where it's at. Chrono Trigger and Donkey Kong Country (which I believe is the Donkey Kong game you are referring to) are SNES games.
I don't really think many N64 games have aged well. that's all I'm going to add to this topic.