I'm done! Nintendo has fucked me on^h^h^h 3 times too many!

[StGabe]

Still cherry-picking.  Both of you.

I know Alias was a borderline choice, but what of the other ones.  Say what you will of Lost but it spent way more time developing characters than any TV series could have done 10, let alone 20, years ago, and has far more sophisticated/realistic motivations.  You couldn't put stuff like that on TV 10 years ago even if you wanted to, the audience wasn't there yet.

As far as music, you're on crack still.  Sure, some movies made ok uses of music more than 20 years ago.  How many?  Very, very, very few.  Now even that guy using a few random rock songs that he likes has far more effective scoring than well 99 out of 100 movies 20 years ago.

[StGabe]

The argument that the state of the art has advanced really doesn't hold weight for books, movies, painting, sculpture, architecture, tv, comics - why should it for games?

Except that most of these have advanced.  The older arts advance more slowly or through creating new subgenres but they still advance.  At some point a given technique does tend to plateau.  But games are still very new.  Some things (like platformers) have plateaued to some extent but a lot of genres are still under tremendous change.

Science fiction literature peaked in the 50s-70s. Shouldn't todays science fiction be better? Well it isn't. Things are more complicated than newer = better.

Hell no.  See my above post.

I went to the Museum of Televsion and Movies (I think that is what it was...) in New York over the summer with a girl I knew, we spent about 20 minutes playing the original Asteroids and Combat. (She kicked my ass in Combat...I was ashamed) She had never played either before. That isn't nostalgia. Asteroids is fun! It has funky high-res vector graphics that leave weird after-images, an interesting control scheme that takes a lot of skill...

Asteroids is fun.  Sure.  And yet the genre of shooters is far deeper today than that.  An aside: just the other day I saw an asteroids game where you play the asteroids instead of the ship.  Cool idea.

We have reached a point as a medium and as an audience where we are past newer = better.

It isn't "nostalgia" to say that Raiders of the Lost Ark is better than National Treasure.

Stop cherry picking already.  Do you think proves anything at all?

And stop talking about the "newer = better" mentality.  That's not where I am coming from.  I don't care about graphics one iota and there are lots of crappy graphics games that I love.  I loved Hack/Rogue for a very long time.  It's not about that.  It's about 20 years of taking the ideas that we had and evolving them.  Game developers would have to be complete idiots not to have learned from that.  Here's a hint: they're not.  We can still make asteroids and super mario brothers today.  But we have a lot of other options and tweaks that make those genres even better.  Everything we did yesterday we can still do today.  The difference is, that there are now a lot of new things that we didn't know to do yesterday that we can do today.

[stray]

Now even that guy using a few random rock songs that he likes has far more effective scoring than well 99 out of 100 movies 20 years ago.

People will still be whistling the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly theme, imitating the Shower Scene Screech from Psycho, doing a cover of Knockin' On Heaven's Door, jam to Shaft, bobbing their head to the Third Man soundtrack, instantly recognize the 007 theme, or EVEN (and I hate to say this) singing the tunes from West Side Story 50 years from now more than some bullshit Good Charlotte soundtrack for the latest That's So Raven! episode.

And for the record, the 70's had the most kickass sitcom title songs ever. Hello? Barney Miller? Fat Albert? Sanford and Son? 

[stray]

Sure, some of those ideas did interesting things with characters and people, but nowhere near what, for example, Battlestar Galactica does with its characters.

You should really get out more.

[CmdrSlack]

As far as music, you're on crack still.  Sure, some movies made ok uses of music more than 20 years ago.  How many?  Very, very, very few.  Now even that guy using a few random rock songs that he likes has far more effective scoring than well 99 out of 100 movies 20 years ago.

Nobody can deny that Repo Man has one of the best movie soundtracks evar.   :-D

If that's cherry picking, then so be it.

[stray]

No, the Repo Man soundtrack is the shit.

Been jonesing for a Plugz album forever. Those guys kick ass. Whoever they are.

[StGabe]

You guys are obviously confusing the quality of the music used for the quality of how the music IS used.  I love the graduate soundtrack because I like Simon & Garfunkel.  I don't think that was a very good example of actually integrating film and music, however.  It used to be that good integration of sound and film was an exception, now we take for granted what would have been amazing a while ago.

I think that's at the core of why we get all nostalgic about this stuff.  First impressions matter big and you know, those few movies that were exceptions a while ago stood out.  Nowadays we just expect all that stuff and so we take it for granted when we get it and don't give as much credit.

But anyway, time to start cooking Christmas Eve dinner.

[stray]

No, that Mean Streets scene is done exactly how good pop soundtracks are done now. Johnny Boy's intro into the bar is meant to give you the impression that he's a wild fuckup - and the Stones have that line bursting through "I was born in a crossfire hurricane...." Scorsese deliberately integrated the song's message into the scene.

It's the same way he makes soundtracks today (say, in Good Fellas). The Graduate, I'll grant you, doesn't integrate music as well (except at the end, with Hoffman's frantic rush towards the wedding, and Mrs. Robinson playing in the background), but Scorsese is the prototype of all that came afterwards. Most people think it's Tarantino or some stupid shit.

As for orchestral stuff, Morricone and Hermann. Like I said. There is no argument here.

[stray]

Hahaha. Fucking YouTube. I can find anything. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNZ9s00tKBQ

[schild]

Nearly every entrance in a 60s or 70s film (all the way up to the mid 80s) felt like a softcore porn.

But then, most of them were.

[WindupAtheist]

And for the record, the 70's had the most kickass sitcom title songs ever. Hello? Barney Miller? Fat Albert? Sanford and Son? 

When I was a little preschool age shit, my favorite show in the world was Barney Miller.  I still find that song oddly comforting.

[stray]

Nearly every entrance in a 60s or 70s film (all the way up to the mid 80s) felt like a softcore porn.

But then, most of them were.

Man, that scene is the money shot. It's hardcore.

Johnny Boy owes a fuckton of money to loansharks. Charlie's pissed 'cause Johnny Boy hasn't showed up to settle things. Cue Johnny Boy coming in with two babes, a new suit, a new hat, a new coat, that song blaring, and no money left to give. Charlie's pissed to high hell now.

[schild]

Context or not, still looked like softcore porn. I've probably seen any movie you throw down with and even if I like them and can place exactly what's going on, doesn't change what it looked like. Of course, clothing back then was just horrible.

[stray]

Porn and funny collars aside, this clip is probably up Gabe's alley, since it's a bigger sequence (10 minute long paranoia sequence from the end of Good Fellas, which I'm sure everyone's seen). Technically, it was made 19 years ago, but what the hell...Same old director. He was adding atmosphere and mood through rock music before....Whoever the hell does it now.

[schild]

1986, 20 years ago, Michael Mann made Red Dragon. Pivotal scene used In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida if I remember correctly. It was not softcore porny.

Some people still do it, but it's few and far between since most rock doesn't quite fit the bill. Though the Stones stuff in Fallen worked nicely.

[Margalis]

Apparently anything we can possibly say is "cherry picking." Mentioning the new Battlestar Galactica however is somehow not cherry-picking. Very self-serving logic.

Say what you will of Lost but it spent way more time developing characters than any TV series could have done 10, let alone 20, years ago, and has far more sophisticated/realistic motivations.

Is this an attempt at humor? Lost has basically zero character development at all. Crappy flashbacks do not equal character development. As far as sophisticated and realistic - lol? Two words I would not associate with Lost in a million years. If you like Lost like it for what it is - a pulp serial.

Another point you continually gloss over - how is it nostalgia if you've never played the games before? I got into Deep Purple and Rainbow in 1998 or so, having never heard them before that. Is that nostalgia? How can it be? I didn't see the first Alien until about 5 years ago. Nostalgia again? Shouldn't I be nostalgic for Event Horizon instead? Was I nostalgic for Super Baseball 2020 even though I'd never played it before? Odd.

My dad recently died and today I was looking through his computer. Guess what I found? A Genesis emulator. Guess my dad was full of the old nostalgia - you know, having never played any games past the Coleco-vision era. What do you call nostalgia for things you've never done before? Deja-nostalgia?

I've already mentioned numerous examples of games I didn't play until well after release. How can it be nostalgia when you are encountering something for the first time?

Your entire argument seems to be that no matter how many counter-examples we can throw out they are ALL "cherry-picking." Whereas you can make vague statements like "film scoring is more advanced now" without *any* examples and that passes as a real argument.

How many examples do we need to not be cherry-picking anymore? 10? 100? 1000? This is just weak. And it doesn't even support your argument. If we can list numerous cherries that means those games are not about nostalgia at all!

You: "People only like good games because of nostalgia!"
Us: "What about X, Y and Z?"
You: "Those don't count."

Um...ok. So your point appears to be that some people like some old things because of nostalgia...or something...

[Kail]

How many examples do we need to not be cherry-picking anymore? 10? 100? 1000? This is just weak. And it doesn't even support your argument. If we can list numerous cherries that means those games are not about nostalgia at all!

I'm not going to touch the whole TV/Movies/Music/Whatever subject, because I don't know that much about it, but I think that with regards to video games, at least, there is a general trend towards better games.  Not as fast as some people would like, maybe, but I do think we make better games today than ten, twenty years ago.

For example, there was a remake of the original Final Fantasy for the GBA, I think.  It was pretty much identical to the NES version, except that the level grind was cut way down, the UI was reconfigured a bit to be more user friendly, some bonus dungeons were added, and the graphics were updated.  It came on the same cart as a similar remake of FF2.  If it's ever possible to objectively say "game X is better than game Y" then I think this would be one of the clearer cases you could make.  And this kind of thing is not unique; if there was a game that was even remotely successful back in the day, there's a pretty good chance that someone, somewhere, has either updated it or ripped it off and improved on it just a smidge.  Most people probably won't like it as much, because it's not as impressive seeing it for the hundredth time with one more cherry on top, but the new game is still better, from a certain point of view (which I assume is the one Gabe is advocating).

A lot of game design revolves around the technical restrictions of the hardware the game is running on, and a lot of game design (especially the niggling little user friendliness aspects) is iterative.  Both of these are progressive.  If you take the original Metroid, it's got a ton of areas for improvement.  Some of these are technical (graphics, basic design, some control issues), some are just a result of us knowing what people find fun (apparently people don't like to have to sit around shooting spineys for an hour to fill up their energy tanks) or intuitive (why can't Samus duck?).  Today, game designers know this (which is, for example, how we get things like Metroid: Zero Mission) and they can do their jobs accordingly (hopefully).

I don't think that all old games are inferior to all new games, though.  I do think that we have the capability to make better games today than we did a while ago.  A lot of old games are still really good simply because nobody has done it better, for some reason or other, or they've screwed up when they tried to.  Daggerfall, in my opinion, is an example of this.  It's not something I've seen done better anywhere.  But I still think it could be done better today.  And while there are a few times when that "could" doesn't translate to an actual product, there are a lot of times when it does.  I can count the number of NES titles that I really love today on one hand.  As the release date gets closer to the present day, though, the number of games I like goes up.  So it's not like I hate all my Genesis games, but the number of Genesis games I actually enjoy is much lower than the number of PS2 games I enjoy (and the PS2 is my least favorite of the last gen systems).  That, to me, suggests that games are getting better.

[Sairon]

For example, there was a remake of the original Final Fantasy for the GBA, I think.  It was pretty much identical to the NES version, except that the level grind was cut way down, the UI was reconfigured a bit to be more user friendly, some bonus dungeons were added, and the graphics were updated.  It came on the same cart as a similar remake of FF2.  If it's ever possible to objectively say "game X is better than game Y" then I think this would be one of the clearer cases you could make.

I don't think that's a valid example imo, if valve took HL1 and threw in a new weapon and release it today they wouldn't get away with it. However if took the exact same formula and updated it to fit todays market  and tech they would, in fact that's exactly what they did with HL2. They even kept the freaking load times between areas, it's virtually the same game with updated technology.

And this kind of thing is not unique; if there was a game that was even remotely successful back in the day, there's a pretty good chance that someone, somewhere, has either updated it or ripped it off and improved on it just a smidge.  Most people probably won't like it as much, because it's not as impressive seeing it for the hundredth time with one more cherry on top, but the new game is still better, from a certain point of view (which I assume is the one Gabe is advocating).

This is where you're wrong, I can name a bazillion games from "back in the day" that was really popular and haven't been updated or ripped off, at least not for ages. Lets name a few: Syndicate, Cannon Fodder, Lemmings, Speedball, Death Rally, Strike series, Dungeon Keeper, River city ransom etc. I bet you there were way more diversity and waaaay more genres back in the days.

A lot of game design revolves around the technical restrictions of the hardware the game is running on, and a lot of game design (especially the niggling little user friendliness aspects) is iterative.  Both of these are progressive.  If you take the original Metroid, it's got a ton of areas for improvement.  Some of these are technical (graphics, basic design, some control issues), some are just a result of us knowing what people find fun (apparently people don't like to have to sit around shooting spineys for an hour to fill up their energy tanks) or intuitive (why can't Samus duck?).  Today, game designers know this (which is, for example, how we get things like Metroid: Zero Mission) and they can do their jobs accordingly (hopefully).

If you compare Super Metroid from the SNES to the new ones to nintendo hand helds, the SNES one is still better in pretty much every regard.

I don't think that all old games are inferior to all new games, though.  I do think that we have the capability to make better games today than we did a while ago.  A lot of old games are still really good simply because nobody has done it better, for some reason or other, or they've screwed up when they tried to.  Daggerfall, in my opinion, is an example of this.  It's not something I've seen done better anywhere.  But I still think it could be done better today.  And while there are a few times when that "could" doesn't translate to an actual product, there are a lot of times when it does.  I can count the number of NES titles that I really love today on one hand.  As the release date gets closer to the present day, though, the number of games I like goes up.  So it's not like I hate all my Genesis games, but the number of Genesis games I actually enjoy is much lower than the number of PS2 games I enjoy (and the PS2 is my least favorite of the last gen systems).  That, to me, suggests that games are getting better.

If you count number of good games vs number of bad games for PS1 and PS2 I think it would be somewhere around the same for me. If you count it for games from the past I think there were more good games per bad game. I played a lot more in the past than I do today, A LOT. Is this because I've grown tired of games in general? No, I really hunger for games, but there's so very very few that can satisfy me today.

[Azazel]

1986, 20 years ago, Michael Mann made Red Dragon. Pivotal scene used In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida if I remember correctly. It was not softcore porny.

Some people still do it, but it's few and far between since most rock doesn't quite fit the bill. Though the Stones stuff in Fallen worked nicely.

Manhunter, but based on Red Dragon, with all of the references to Red Dragon removed in post. And the footage lost/destroyed. 

[stray]

Right. Manhunter. I should watch that again. I didn't think much of him when I watched it, but I've since grown an appreciation for Brian Cox (he still wasn't better than Hopkins though).

[naum]

What people will do get a Wii!

[Kail]

I don't think that's a valid example imo, if valve took HL1 and threw in a new weapon and release it today they wouldn't get away with it. However if took the exact same formula and updated it to fit todays market  and tech they would, in fact that's exactly what they did with HL2. They even kept the freaking load times between areas, it's virtually the same game with updated technology.

That's kind of the point.  If they took HL1 and added a few new weapons, who would care?  Who would consider it better than the original?  Almost nobody who played the original would.  But if you took someone who hasn't played the original, who can objectively evaluate both games, then they'd probably say the new one is better (because it's got more stuff).  And while I can't flat out say that this new person is right and the old one is wrong, it seems like the new person would be less suceptible to nostalgia.

Although you do make a good point about there being more diversity back in the day.  I kept trying to rationalize it ("River City Ransom is really just a poor version of... um... X-Men Alliance, maybe?") but yeah... I suppose I'll concede that one.

edit: for clarity

[Margalis]

I certainly agree that some old games could use some cosmetic/interface updates. For example in the (one of the?) FF remakes they upped the walking speed. Very simple change that makes it much more playable. I'm all for making those sorts of changes in re-releases. Some other changes like adding jobs to FFV seem to be messing around just for the sake of messing around.

If there are very simple things you can do in a re-release to make the game play better I'm all for that. But there are plenty of old games that are playable without any tweaks at all.

---

On same level it makes sense to think that we *can* make better versions of old games, and in fact we can. But that doesn't mean we always do. I liked F-Zero X better than the GC version. (Mostly because of the number of cars onscreen and I love games that have you drive in traffic) Nintendo could have made the GC version an upgraded N64 version, and in many ways the GC version is much nicer with a story mode, customizable cars, etc. But in the end the N64 version is just more fun.

Many people prefer old wrestling games to new ones. Again, someone could just make newer versions of those old games - but often they don't. The same is true in all mediums.

Technology improves ever-upwards but artistry does not.

[stray]

Features and tweaks don't qualify a better "game" to me. It's whether the core gameplay has changed or not that makes the biggest difference. And it's that area where I think many old school games haven't really been improved upon much.

I do think that technology has opened up the possibility of gameplay ideas, but not by much. First Person Shooters, for example, brought new ideas -- but then again, not anything totally revolutionary. Rail and scrolling shooters (from Operation Wolf to Duck Hunt to Space Harrier), flight sims, and space sims offered some of that experience already.

Or take Ico, for example. Great game, but it doesn't feel that different to me than Out of this World or Flashback. The basic idea is the same, despite technology or perspective changes.

[stray]

Katamari Damacy or Gish, on the other hand, seem like totally unique ideas. I can't think of anything from the past quite like them. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[schild]

Gish was a platformer with some neat physics based attributes.

KD on the other hand shockingly original. Line Rider is fairly original as wel.

[Trippy]

Features and tweaks don't qualify a better "game" to me. It's whether the core gameplay has changed or not that makes the biggest difference. And it's that area where I think many old school games haven't really been improved upon much.

I do think that technology has opened up the possibility of gameplay ideas, but not by much. First Person Shooters, for example, brought new ideas -- but then again, not anything totally revolutionary.

Maze Wars, written back in 1974 (for the networked version), was the first FPS.

[Riggswolfe]

Lord, reading all this "old games rock/suck" stuff is really making me pine for The Goonies 2. That was a game I loved on the old NES. Give me that, Zelda 1, and Metroid 1 and I'm a happy camper. Hell, if it was avaialble on the virtual download list for Wii that'd tip me towards buying the system.

[Sky]

First, aren't the Bethesda CRPGs of today basically the same as they were ten years ago? Daggerfall and Oblivian really are not very different at all.

They are very different. Each generation gets more simplistic and shiny.

I'd like to see Arena and Daggerfall in Oblivion's engine, though.

[Riggswolfe]

First, aren't the Bethesda CRPGs of today basically the same as they were ten years ago? Daggerfall and Oblivian really are not very different at all.

They are very different. Each generation gets more simplistic and shiny.

I'd like to see Arena and Daggerfall in Oblivion's engine, though.

Were we playing the same games? Daggerfall was much more simplistic than Oblivion. NPCS? Literal cardboard cutouts with cut and paste "dialogue". Dungeons? Totally random. Quests? Sort of.

About the only thing Daggerfall had on Oblivion is that the world felt bigger, but it was also extremely shallow.

[Yegolev]

Daggerfall and Oblivian really are not very different at all.

Daggerfall is more complex than Oblivion in some ways at least.  Hard for me to recall, unfortunately, but I do remember going crazy as a werewolf without buying an expansion.  I seem to remember a greater diversity in equipment and character options.  The Morrowind spellmaker was not more complex than the Daggerfall one.  Morrowind had light/medium/heavy armor types while Oblivion cut that down to light/heavy.  If there's a way to fly in Oblivion, I haven't found it.  Of course, they are spending more resources on making the world pretty and fitting it into a console these days.

If you take up the stance that Daggerfall was buggy as hell and very generic, you are correct.  We can compare Morrowind to Oblivion instead.

[Samwise]

What people will do get a Wii!

When the 360 came out there was an ad on Craigslist in which a single mom offered her anal virginity for a 360.

[stray]

She was lying.

About the virginity, I mean.

[Riggswolfe]

What people will do get a Wii!

When the 360 came out there was an ad on Craigslist in which a single mom offered her anal virginity for a 360.

Damn, that's one expensive blowjob!

[Jain Zar]

The thing is she is apparently giving the head and 250 for a system, which is kind of opposite.

And even if its a joke its still a sad commentary on sex and greed and consumer whoredom.

But I am one of those wierd people who thinks sex should mean more than just sex otherwise why not just rub one out and not worry about diseases, pregnancies, or another person which makes me a freak with old fashioned values or something.