Just something I was thinking about after reading some posts on other forums. If you take away the nostalgic childhood memory factor from games you've played, and rated them from a more objective standpoint, where would you stand,and how would your rating change? Give examples.
I'll start with Pokemon Red/Blue. They were actually my second Pokemon Games (the first being Gold/Silver/Crystal), but still in my childhood. I absolutely loved being able to get monsters to travel with, and make them grow stronger. It was very captivating and addicting, and also a little scary at times from the mind of a child. Looking back on it now, it was still pretty innovative for its time with the level of customization involved, as well as the presentation. It was fun being able to go anywhere on the map you wanted in a mostly non-linear fashion (after you go through Rock Tunnel and get to Lavender Town), finding new monsters to catch and train, as well as just exploring to see what's what. The soundtrack was memorable as well. There's two fatal flaws that make these games not as great as the could be: The Bag, which was ridiculously small. I often found myself having to retreat to the nearest PC or drop items to get items required to progress through the game such as the Hidden Machines. Lastly...the glitches. The glitches on the first set of games are out of control. It is ridiculously easy to break the games, even unintentionally. Overall, if you take the nostalgia away from the games, you still have a decent set of games with high replay value due to the level of customization.
i typically still enjoy most of the games I loved from my childhood and regularly discover new games from the blips and boops era that I enjoy (Bosconian is dominating my life right now).
Can't argue with that; I'm still playing games of old that I either didn't have, or missed completely from the lack of the console, such as the SNES. You are still able to enjoy older games if they're designed well enough. I don't expect many, if any, people to have done a 180 on their view from a nostalgic game, just more of the glaring flaws or problems they noticed upon a replay years later, and how it affects the game as a whole. The main inspiration behind this thread was the reading of the posts from other forums by other users. Too often have I seen things like "I played X in my childhood, and it's the best game of all time." Sure it's a matter of opinion and experiences, however, that line always sounds close-minded and nostalgia driven. If you go back and look on older games you used to enjoy from a more objective standpoint, you'll find all sorts of annoyances or problems that you never noticed or paid attention to when you were younger, because the "magic" made you see otherwise, that affect the game as a whole in a negative way. Doesn't automatically make the game as a whole bad (unless it's a REALLY bad problem), but does affect how one would approach it today.
It seems most games are better to me now even without nostalgia since I finally know what's going on and how to really play them.
I enjoy games more now that I can actually analyze them and fully appreciate everything
As someone who didn't even know what a video game was for half of their childhood, I can honestly say nostalgia doesn't factor at all into how I feel about games.
I took notice in, like, the N64 era and ignored it again until, like, the Wii. (I'm not really a gamer)
I still discover games that I like, both new and old. As long as I find a game fun, it doesn't matter when it came out.
I guess I already look at games objectively, hehe.
I don't think Final Fantasy IV is that good without nostalgia. All of my other nostalgia games from the NES/SNES era hold up.
Nostalgia holds the same concept as meeting someone new; It's all about first impressions.
Although this isn't always the case, It would make sense that someone whose first Final Fantasy was FF10
wouldn't have the same love or get the same level of enjoyment out of one of the older 2d installments.
If the first Mario game you had ever played was Super Mario Galaxy 2, and you enjoyed it, what are the chances
that If I plunked you down in front of my NES and handed you Super Mario Bros 3 you'd actually like it just as much,
or even more?
Us older gamers have the luxury of both worlds, we grew up when games were young and fresh, and we grew up with them.
The same goes for new gamers, but they are growing up with a whole new crowd. A flashy, loud, 3d crowd chock full of so much
eye-candy and gaming goodies that to them, it makes the "old stuff" just look like.. old.. stuff.
All this said, I'll never defend the shortcomings of a game from my past, that is if the shortcoming isn't a matter of opinion.
If a game in my past has a flaw, I most likely noticed it when I first played it as a child. I was a kid, not a moron.
Bad controls or poor design still showed itself way back then, and most would take notice. This all stems down to something
else: Forgiveness.
Because people love some games so much, because they made such a strong first impression, the things that would aggravate
or completely disgust a new gamer are disregarded by the older gamers. Most are willing to look past what now could be
considered poor design or poor graphics. Those who aren't willing to do so aren't missing out; those moments were enjoyed already
by many others, not everyone has to like the same things.
TL;DR
Chastising someone for liking an older game, or being chastised for not liking an older game are the same thing; shallow and ultimately
pointless. Using "nostalgia" as a dirty word is just in poor taste. Those who never grew up with something most likely won't appreciate
it as much as those who did, and vice versa.
sorry for the long winded post, I forgot to look up while I typed
I do find that I, most of the time, enjoy 3D over 2D. This isn't always the case though. The 2D Super Mario Bros. games are a lot better than the NSMB series (although NSMB2 is actually really good, arguably on par with SMB2). Typically, though, sprite games don't hold my attention as much as model games. Don't really know why.
Brief exposure overview: I started with the Atari and NES and didn't have a 3D console untl the N64 when I was seven or eight. I started gaming at two. I still generally prefer 3D games [though a lot of modern ones shut me out. The N64/GCN era seems to be my sweet spot].
There are a few N64 games I like a lot (Mario Party 1 and 2, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 and 2) which are all from about the same era. The main reason I like them so much is nostalgia (though I didn't get THPS2 until about 2005 or 2006 I think). Without that, I would probably not like Mario Party that much because (I think) it's totally unfair, like on purpose. It seems like it does everything within its power (rigging dice values and chance game turnouts, etc) to change the game on you. That might seem crazy and I could definitely be wrong, but some things just seem a little coincidental for me so I'm suspicious.
The Tony Hawk games were really good, but now they're pretty dated. I can get all 30 tapes in THPS1 in a sitting, but to this day I've never gotten past that one level (Venice Beach I think it is) in THPS2. Maybe I could, but I haven't put the time towards it.
You are not wrong. Nintendo has always partially rigged their games, particularly the party ones. A good example would be Mario Kart's rubberband system.
I just googled it. Found this insane YouTube video of Waluigi getting three stars in one turn:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR7CJzLSdX4
And, I think I've noticed rubberband ai in Mario Kart Wii because I can race as hard as I can and usually get 4th place or up, and a child can come behind me and do not much worse...
(09-04-2013, 03:31 AM)Super Goombario Wrote: [ -> ]There are a few N64 games I like a lot (Mario Party 1 and 2, and Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 1 and 2) which are all from about the same era. The main reason I like them so much is nostalgia (though I didn't get THPS2 until about 2005 or 2006 I think). Without that, I would probably not like Mario Party that much because (I think) it's totally unfair, like on purpose. It seems like it does everything within its power (rigging dice values and chance game turnouts, etc) to change the game on you. That might seem crazy and I could definitely be wrong, but some things just seem a little coincidental for me so I'm suspicious.
The Tony Hawk games were really good, but now they're pretty dated. I can get all 30 tapes in THPS1 in a sitting, but to this day I've never gotten past that one level (Venice Beach I think it is) in THPS2. Maybe I could, but I haven't put the time towards it.
This is exactly what I mean. If you take the nostalgic onlook of something away, it becomes much more of an open book in which you can analyze all the flaws and good points, yet still be entertained, rather than a movie where you're just idly watching and being entertained, hardly giving much of a second thought to.
Pretty sure there's an entire field of art theory dedicated to the study and analysis of film.
But when you're a kid, you don't think about it that way. You just like the characters, colors, and the fact that it's a game.
As you get older, you then see how to properly pick things apart. By that time, you'd actually realize things like "Oh, he was actually a pervert; I didn't know THOSE were the kinds of things he was saying as a kid," because most of that stuff flew over your head when you were younger. The perfect example for this would be Ren and Stimpy. Many of us watched that in our childhood, but as kids we didn't really get why it was such an extreme cartoon on a kids station, and why people were trying to get it banned, or moved.
The same sort of oblivion applies to games. Kids will play them because it's something to try, and they haven't played it before. They'll say things like "That's not fair!" in regards to them losing a life or getting hit in the game, whether it actually was or not. It's not until you get older when you learn about things like hitboxes and hit detection, where you can truly determine how fair things were, and if that is actually a flaw in the game or not. Kids wouldn't pay attention to things like how empty a map is compared to how teens and adults would. So for example, many kids would just like the fact that Hyrule Field on Ocarina of Time is wide and open, but when they look back on it years later, realize how empty it really is, with not much to do but walking from point A to point B with no reason to stop for anything.