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

[schild]

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but it seems to me that when the giant that holds up the earth dies, we are screeewwwed!

[StGabe]

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

And reference a genre-wide movement towards character-driven storytelling.  I'm not the only person mentioning that by the way. Talk to well, basically any modern Science Fiction writer.  Yes, there was Roger Zelazny 20 years ago and a few other examples but they were the ones breaking the trend that set us up for we are now.

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.

You seem to be making my point into: "if it is older than 5 years than it is crap."

Tell me where, once, I said that.  I haven't.  There are lots of games that were made well years ago and are still fun to play.  I referenced Go as a great example of a game made thousands of years ago that still stands up.  That doesn't mean that there isn't still a lot of nostalgia for past games.

Instead I have said:

Generally we've made a lot of discoveries over the past 20 years.  If we want to make SMB now, you know what, it isn't that hard and you know, we can and do go a lot further. Game development, as a craft, has improved tremendously.

And, a lot of games that get a lot of rabid fanboyism get it only because of when they were made and really, don't stack up very well to modern standards.  That's nostalgia.  Enter Chrono Trigger, a great game for it's time, which has a non-existent plot and non-existent gameplay by today's standards.

Meanwhile we have genre-wide trends like trends towards character-driven plot in Science Fiction and Fantasy.  New techniques that significantly augment past genres.  Take a look at the rock-skipping scene in Amelie and tell me that it wouldn't have been a big deal to do that in a movie 20 years ago (and now it's expected).  To keep on gaming, consider how it's now possible to prototype quite sophisticated 2d games in mere days (which means that your design cycle gets try out a lot more possibilities and is responsible in part for the dramatic growth of the casual games market).

Note that a game like God of War is really the direct descendant of a game like Double Dragon and that it's pretty much impossible not to notice a significant increase not only in graphical capabilities but game making.

If you weren't entrenched in a certain mindset I'm not sure why any of this would be the least bit controversial.

That stuff 20 years ago got credit because the competition wasn't there.  It was easy to be revolutionary and different in that scene.  Now it's a lot harder to do.  But that is an indication of just how far we've come!  Stuff that was awesome 20 years ago is just old hat now because we've covered so much other ground in the meantime.

[Margalis]

Generally we've made a lot of discoveries over the past 20 years.  If we want to make SMB now, you know what, it isn't that hard and you know, we can and do go a lot further. Game development, as a craft, has improved tremendously.

That isn't what you said at all. Stop trolling. Is this a fucking Geldon "cross your fingers and pray nobody can scroll up" attempt? Everyone here can read what you said, and it wasn't confined to obvious statements about craft.

Here is a question for you: why isn't someone making a SMB3 game? At least for the DS? New Super Mario brothers is not even close to SMB3. Why isn't someone making a better Aliens? A better Casablanca?

The craft has improved but making games is not simply craft. You can't seem to wrap your brain around that. What games have you made that are better than SMB3? Please list them or stop talking. You do work in games right? So you don't have any excuse when your list has zero items in it. With all the fancy tech and craft you should be able to make something really great. So why aren't you? Why is it that every game you've worked on is far worse than the old tech we are all so nostalgic for? Feel free to prove me wrong. We both know you won't.

Sorry to make it personal, but if you are going to claim that anybody can make something that good and you work in games the followup question is rather obvious.

Meanwhile we have genre-wide trends like trends towards character-driven plot in Science Fiction and Fantasy.  New techniques that significantly augment past genres.  Take a look at the rock-skipping scene in Amelie and tell me that it wouldn't have been a big deal to do that in a movie 20 years ago (and now it's expected). 

Is having trends by itself a great thing? No. In twenty years are you going to be telling us that the awesome new trend in sci-fi is plot-based stories and how everything that isn't plot-based is lame? I would assume so.

As for the rock-skipping scene in Amelie -

Ok. You got me. You win. That scene is the single greatest scene in cinema. Your other examples were all weak but you've now shown you are a true film and arts scholar. Other movies may have better plots, characterization, dialog, pacing, set design, lighting, effects and cinematography but Amelie has rock skipping. WOW.

It is really a shame that 20 years ago nobody could make a film as good as Amelie. It is obviously entirely safe to say that any film made before Amelie was in fact crap compared to it, due to a lack of rock-skip technology.

Amelie, on the day it was released, was the greatest film of all time. Only recently eclipsed by Happy Feet which could clearly never have been done 20 years ago. Did you know that the computers used to render a single frame of Happy Feet could compute all the effects for Citizen Kane in 20 nanoseconds?

Edit: You've consistently demonstrated that you can't distinguish between art and craft. Your world-view simply does not fit with the actual world around us. The best science-fiction is not being written today. The best comics are not being written today. The best movies are not being filmed today. The best paintings are not being painted today. The theory you've espoused is that all these mediums should be at their ever-increasing peak in the present, because technology and techniques evolve and people learn over time. The best architecture is right now? The best sculpture is right now? The best playwrights are writing right now, as we speak?

Your argument is logical on some level but fails the very important "get your head out of your ass and look around" test.

[StGabe]

Watch that scene.  Watch the director's commentary to see all the crazy shit he did.  And tell me it wouldn't have been a "holy shit" scene 20 years ago.  And now it's so blaise in comparision to everything else we're accustomed to seeing (i.e. our expectations have risen to such an extent) that you can bitch me out about it and think you're somehow not an idiot. 

That's all nostalgia is.  Something blew your fucking mind 20 years ago and you still remember that feeling.  Nowadays it's easy to reproduce that and in fact it's even boring to reproduce that level of quality but you still have that feeling from when it was new.  New stuff comes out and you know, it's good, even better, but you don't have that "oh my god" moment with it and it's easy to dismiss it as nothing.  Like the Lost storytelling.  You know I don't even like Lost that much compared to other stuff out there.  But I'm open-minded enough to understand that it still represents a trend of much greater characterization in narratives and it says a lot that this finally reached, mainstream, network TV.

Whatever.  We disagree.  Not really a surprise.  I'm not sure why I expected someone to try and have a greater perspective on their SMB3 fanboyism.

As for Science Fiction, well fuck your Science Fiction of 30+ years ago.  I can't stand any of it.  Why, again, am I supposed to think that yet another book about blowing up aliens or robots is interesting?  If you want to talk old-school, concept/idea-based Sci-Fi then I'm sorry but I still really don't think that any of the old guys hold a candle to guys like Greg Egan, David Brin or Vernor Vinge.  After reading George RR Martin, Steven Erikson or even Terry Pratchett there is very little fantasy older than about 15 years old that I can get through the first chapter of.  Fuck your effeminate elves, your grizzled but jolly dwarves and your annoying little hobbits.  And that isn't even to mention all the fantastic character-based Sci Fi that started hitting the scenes 20 years ago and actually is the norm these days.  Neil Stephenson, Neil Gaiman, Greg Bear, just the first 3 names I hit on my book shelf....

[WindupAtheist]

Prediction.

Schild:  Nintendo, you are dead to me motherfucker!

Nintendo:  Announcing new lime green scratch-and-sniff Nintendo DS!

Schild:  Ooooo shiny!

[Trippy]

Prediction.

Schild:  Nintendo, you are dead to me motherfucker!

Nintendo:  Announcing new lime green scratch-and-sniff Nintendo DS!

Schild:  Ooooo shiny!

He's not boycotting hardware, though, only software, and only Nintendo in-house software that he doesn't like.

[Jain Zar]

As for Science Fiction, well fuck your Science Fiction of 30+ years ago.  I can't stand any of it.  Why, again, am I supposed to think that yet another book about blowing up aliens or robots is interesting?  If you want to talk old-school, concept/idea-based Sci-Fi then I'm sorry but I still really don't think that any of the old guys hold a candle to guys like Greg Egan, David Brin or Vernor Vinge.  After reading George RR Martin, Steven Erikson or even Terry Pratchett there is very little fantasy older than about 15 years old that I can get through the first chapter of.  Fuck your effeminate elves, your grizzled but jolly dwarves and your annoying little hobbits.  And that isn't even to mention all the fantastic character-based Sci Fi that started hitting the scenes 20 years ago and actually is the norm these days.  Neil Stephenson, Neil Gaiman, Greg Bear, just the first 3 names I hit on my book shelf....

If you are meaning to tell me the novel Starship Troopers sucks I WILL SKULLFUCK YOU WITH YOUR OWN DICK.
Are you also trying to say Dune, The Forever War, Dracula, Frankenstein, and the works of Jules Verne are shit or at least inferior to modern novels?
Are you trying to say HP Lovecraft, Tolkien, Bloch, and Moorcock are lame?
Is the Illuminatus! Trilogy shit because other folks have written mad conspiracy novels since then?

I say no.
Well, that and you are a fucking MORON StGabe.

Even many creators made their older stuff better.  Old Anne Rice beats her new pretensious quasi porn.  Master of Puppets Metallica still rips the shit out of anything they have done post Black Album.  Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns beats anything he has attempted to do with Batman since.

[Riggswolfe]

Here is a question for you: why isn't someone making a SMB3 game? At least for the DS? New Super Mario brothers is not even close to SMB3. Why isn't someone making a better Aliens? A better Casablanca?

Did you really just put SMB3 in the same paragraph with Aliens and Casablanca? BTW, citing movies that were amazing in their genres doesn't support your theory that nothing good is done today, it only points out a couple of bright spots.

Edit: You've consistently demonstrated that you can't distinguish between art and craft. Your world-view simply does not fit with the actual world around us. The best science-fiction is not being written today. The best comics are not being written today. The best movies are not being filmed today. The best paintings are not being painted today. The theory you've espoused is that all these mediums should be at their ever-increasing peak in the present, because technology and techniques evolve and people learn over time. The best architecture is right now? The best sculpture is right now? The best playwrights are writing right now, as we speak?

You realize that almost every argument you have made here is nothing more than your opinion stated as fact don't you? Frankly, some of the older science fiction was pretty good, especially Aasimov and Heinlein, but the vast majority of it was crap, much like today. And like those days, you can find good science fiction if you sift through the crap.

Some comics of today, have had runs that were better than the so-called Golden Age and Silver Age. Again, gems in a sea of crap.

The best movies have come and gone huh? Did you even see the LOTR trilogy? There is some good shit out there. Yes, it too is in a sea of crap, but that's just like the old days. Guess what? The year Casablanca was released? A whole lot of shit that really sucked got released too. But all you know about is Casablanca so you put on these rose-colored glasses and pine for the good old days of film making.

Etc, etc with the rest of your rant. You keep cherry picking good stuff from the past, and drawing the conclusion from that, that it was all good stuff. SMB3 may have been a good game, but there were just as many shitty games around then as there are today.

Are you getting the point yet?

[Riggswolfe]

Are you also trying to say Dune, The Forever War, Dracula, Frankenstein, and the works of Jules Verne are shit or at least inferior to modern novels?
Are you trying to say HP Lovecraft, Tolkien, Bloch, and Moorcock are lame?
Is the Illuminatus! Trilogy shit because other folks have written mad conspiracy novels since then?

Dune was pretty good. Each book in the series got progressively worse as Frank Herbert gradually lost his mind. I never read the Forever War. Dracula and Frankenstein were decent, but not worth reading more than once. They were too much a product of their times and very simplistic in many ways compared to modern novels. Especially Dracula. Frankenstein has IMO aged much better because Mary Shelley was better able to see the world in shades of grays rather than the simplistic black and white of Dracula. Jules Verne was imaginative as hell, however, his books are very difficult to read these days due to being fairly dry. Good, but in a more intellectual sense, than in a "god I love this and can't put it down" sense.

Out of the fantasy authors I only read Tolkien. His books were good, but they had flaws. The man couldn't write action scenes to save his life and sometimes got bogged down in a bit too much description and prose. What saved the LOTR trilogy, was his strong characterization, and world-building skills.

Even many creators made their older stuff better.  Old Anne Rice beats her new pretensious quasi porn.  Master of Puppets Metallica still rips the shit out of anything they have done post Black Album.  Frank Miller's Dark Knight Returns beats anything he has attempted to do with Batman since.

Ummm..Anne Rice's novels have always been pretentious quasi porn. Usually pretentious bisexual quasi porn. No comment on Metallica as I only ever liked one album of theres. (The one with Of Wolf and Man I think the song is called.) No comment on Frank Miller's Batman other than to say Batman Year One seems to be pretty good.

[Yegolev]

The DS is actually a nice piece of equipment.

[Margalis]

Watch that scene.  Watch the director's commentary to see all the crazy shit he did.  And tell me it wouldn't have been a "holy shit" scene 20 years ago. 

Aren't you supposed to be arguing at some point that Amelie was actually a good movie?

You are like the EQ2 guys who rave about their graphics tech then put out crappy graphics. Despite all the tech we have today the overall quality of movies isn't improving. In fact due to a cash grab at certain demographics it is likely regressing. What happened in Amelie may have been technically impressive but that is as far as it goes.

That's all nostalgia is.  Something blew your fucking mind 20 years ago and you still remember that feeling.  Nowadays it's easy to reproduce that and in fact it's even boring to reproduce that level of quality but you still have that feeling from when it was new. 

I have pointed out 50 fucking times that people can enjoy old games they have never played before. You fail. You also still refuse to distinguish between art and craft. Craft can be reproduced, art not so much.

I'm going to ask again, what have you made that is SMB3 quality? I'm guessing nothing. It should be easy to reproduce right? But I would bet anything you could never reproduce it. Note I'm not saying make game that is "the SMB3 of today." I mean make a game that is the SMB3 of back then.

Whatever.  We disagree.  Not really a surprise.  I'm not sure why I expected someone to try and have a greater perspective on their SMB3 fanboyism.

And I don't know why I expected reading comprehension from an internet troll. Let's go over this one more time:

If you can play an old game now, for the first time, and like it, that is not nostalgia. It just isn't. You can't grasp that at all can you? This is 3rd grade logic.

After reading George RR Martin, Steven Erikson or even Terry Pratchett there is very little fantasy older than about 15 years old that I can get through the first chapter of.  Fuck your effeminate elves, your grizzled but jolly dwarves and your annoying little hobbits.

You are basically a know-nothing. Do you realize that elves, dwarves and hobbits are fairly modern? Apparently not. I hate that shit too, but guess what - the whoring out of elves and dwarves is a modern phenomenon.

if you read things by Robert Howard, L. Sprague De Camp (and pals, that entire circle of guys), Lovecraft, Philip Jose Farmer, etc etc, you aren't going to see any Dwarves. It is hilarious to see you raging against that old-timey garbage when in fact that garbage is recent! You aren't going to see any elves in To Your Scattered Bodies Go. (Although you will see a caveman)

And that isn't even to mention all the fantastic character-based Sci Fi that started hitting the scenes 20 years ago and actually is the norm these days.  Neil Stephenson, Neil Gaiman, Greg Bear, just the first 3 names I hit on my book shelf....

Greg Bear is hard science fiction. I don't think you even get the terminology you are using. I was actually going to mention Bear earlier as a counter-example. Bear is one of the main drivers of the moves towards hard science. To characterize Bear as character-driven sci-fi is absurd.

I think you have a very shallow understanding of the history of various mediums. Clearly you don't know much about science fiction or fantasy. You knowledge of movies seems to be what your friends have told you. "Modern directors have a lot more tricks up their sleeves!" "Film scoring has come a long way!!" (Who scored Titanic? The same guy who did Aliens...you've yet to say what about film scoring today is better...)

It is easy to wave your hands and say that old sci-fi is about fighting robots and aliens and old fantasy is about Elves and Dwarves, but neither of those is at all accurate. Sure, stuff like the E. E. Doc Smith's "Lensman" series is classic alien fightin' sci-fi, and those books are nearly unreadable today except for a laugh. (Spoiler: The ultimate enemy is - a giant brain!!) Old science-fiction has a lot of that, especially in the 50s. (?) But that is hardly all old science-fiction. If you pick up a couple of "Fantasy and Science Fiction" monthlies from the 60s and 70s you see a huge range of topics and writing styles. The diversity of voices is really incredible.

You sound like a guy who read Dragonlance books in the 80s and that's your exposure to "older" fiction. I feel sorry for you because you are missing out on a lot of good stuff.

[Margalis]

Did you really just put SMB3 in the same paragraph with Aliens and Casablanca? BTW, citing movies that were amazing in their genres doesn't support your theory that nothing good is done today, it only points out a couple of bright spots.

But that isn't my point! Plenty of good things are done today. My point is only that plenty of good things were done yesterday as well. That's it.

I'm not raving that the golden age of everything was years ago and mumbling about "kids today..." Plenty of great stuff comes out today. George R. R. Martin is great. Silent Hill is great. (The game, not the movie)

Over the life of a medium quality can wax and wane, it doesn't just increase upwards. And there are always gems from the past, that stand up not because of nostalgia but because of quality. To me it seems crazy that anyone could think otherwise.

Frankly, some of the older science fiction was pretty good, especially Aasimov and Heinlein, but the vast majority of it was crap, much like today. And like those days, you can find good science fiction if you sift through the crap.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? Again, my argument is not 'older = better.' My argument is just that newer isn't always better, just because it is newer. In something like computers that is true because computers are almost purely technology driven, and technology does increase upwards pretty steadily. (At least in the short term ignoring say the middle ages...) Artistic mediums don't follow Moore's Law. The technology behind the art may increase but that doesn't make the art itself automatically better.

Walk around Cornell campus and compare the old buildings to the new ones. There is no contest, the older buildings are *far* more impressive.

Some comics of today, have had runs that were better than the so-called Golden Age and Silver Age. Again, gems in a sea of crap.

I find Golden Age comics unreadable.

I don't think you are disagreeing with me. Perhaps in my fervor my argument is a bit obscured. Again, I don't think older things are better, I don't think newer things are better. It depends on the medium, the genre, etc. And of course there are good things from most time periods. Of course I do think that some old things stand up favorably to modern ones and that to dismiss that as nostalgia is silly.

[Margalis]

Dune was pretty good. Each book in the series got progressively worse as Frank Herbert gradually lost his mind.

I agree, although I did like God Emperor of Dune. Heretics of Dune hurt my brain.

Jules Verne was imaginative as hell, however, his books are very difficult to read these days due to being fairly dry. Good, but in a more intellectual sense, than in a "god I love this and can't put it down" sense.

His short stories (I think I am not mis-remembering here) are quite good and very readable.

No comment on Frank Miller's Batman other than to say Batman Year One seems to be pretty good.

Year One came out before DKR I think, or at the latest a couple of years after. I actually prefer Year One to DKR.

I like the Metallica example. If you look at the history of metal it is quite clear that much of the great stuff was done long ago, and that the current metal scene somewhat pales in comparison. Of course there are good bands today but scene was a lot more vibrant and original years ago. You have bands like Iron Maiden leading the NWOBHM, American speed metal from Metallica (I think they are classified as speed metal, I forget), Thrash/Speed from Napalm Death and Slayer, European Power Metal from Helloween followed by a huge host of guys like Gamma Ray, Blind Guardian, etc. You have classic metal from Deep Purple, Raindbow, etc, original Doom-rockers Sabbath. In the mid-90s you get more Doom, Black and Death Metal. (Corrosion of Conformity, Cradle of Filth, Emperor, Opeth, Cathedral, etc - I could be a bit wrong here, not my thing) and also industrial with KMFDM, Fear Factory, FLA, etc.

For the past few years we've been in sort of a "what next?" mode full of knockoffs and hybrds. I would fully expect a list of the best metal bands, songs and performers to be heavily in favor of older things, not because of nostalgia but because those older things just plain kicked ass.

I don't know nearly as much about other forms of music but it sounds at least reasonable to me that The Smiths could be considered the premier, um, emo band even today. (I have no idea what The Smiths are classified as) Or that the best Southern Rock was made 20 years ago.

[stray]

Some people would classify the Smiths as shoegazers, but.....They didn't really shoegaze. Morrisey acknowledged his audience. Heh.

It's just good guitar driven Britpop to me. Johnny Marr is the shit.

[schild]

Prediction.

Schild: Nintendo, you are dead to me motherfucker!

Nintendo: Announcing new lime green scratch-and-sniff Nintendo DS!

Schild: Ooooo shiny!

He's not boycotting hardware, though, only software, and only Nintendo in-house software that he doesn't like.

Once again, not "what I don't like" - ALL Nintendo 1st Party console titles. I said it last generation, they need to stop making a third console and stick to portables and be a 3rd party software dev for Sony and MS.

[stray]

Except that their console has been kicking ass so far. At the rate they're going, they might surpass the 360's numbers soon enough, and that's with Microsoft's head start. I see no reason for Nintendo to turn into Sony's buttboy just yet.

I do agree with you on some things though.

[schild]

The Gamecube burst out of the gates also. Nintendo consoles always do.

[Jain Zar]

The Wii is NOTHING like the Gamecube.  It did nicely out of the gate.  The Wii is a frigging grandslam out the gate.
It also has the benefit of the DS which started slow yet still frequently sells out in Japan.  (And if it hadn't already won that nation, the Dragon Quest 9 announcement just made it the machine everybody in Japan gets after they pick up their xth generation cellphone.)

Its got the price, its not the same old shit Microsoft and Sony are pushing, its cheaper to develop for, and it even has the retro audience locked up.  The press loves it.  Nearly everyone except the Sony fanboys loves it. 

You don't need to sell 500K copies of a Wii game to cut a profit.  Its easy to develop for basically being an upmoded Gamecube with a new controller. 
Software drives hardware and price drives them both.

Wii would have to seriously fuck up.

[Sairon]

So how easy is it? Have you developed for it? afaik a very small fraction of the overall budget is spent on hardware related programming anyway, most is spent on generating actual content for the game.

[Trippy]

He's not boycotting hardware, though, only software, and only Nintendo in-house software that he doesn't like.

Once again, not "what I don't like" - ALL Nintendo 1st Party console titles.

Yes you said that about EA as well but then you carved out a bunch of exception for yourself -- i.e. you are boycotting all EA games except for the ones you really really want.

[schild]

Yes, it pains me to say I have purchased one EA game in the last...forever. Sims 2. It pains me that EA has one decent dev house under it's hood and there's only one way to support them. Even then. I'm voting with my wallet... properly.

[Roac]

I said it last generation, they need to stop making a third console and stick to portables and be a 3rd party software dev for Sony and MS.

Good thing for them that they didn't listen to you.

[Nonentity]

Yes, it pains me to say I have purchased one EA game in the last...forever. Sims 2. It pains me that EA has one decent dev house under it's hood and there's only one way to support them. Even then. I'm voting with my wallet... properly.

I'm the same way - DICE is the only company I'd want to throw money at, and even now with Battlefield 2142, I don't want my dollars anywhere near that voluntary spyware box.

[Velorath]

Once again, not "what I don't like" - ALL Nintendo 1st Party console titles. I said it last generation, they need to stop making a third console and stick to portables and be a 3rd party software dev for Sony and MS.

And yet by buying the Wii but boycotting their console software, aren't you sending them the exact opposite message?

[schild]

I said it last generation, they need to stop making a third console and stick to portables and be a 3rd party software dev for Sony and MS.

Good thing for them that they didn't listen to you.

Yea I know, or else they might've saved up the money from portables to do some actual R&D.

Once again, not "what I don't like" - ALL Nintendo 1st Party console titles. I said it last generation, they need to stop making a third console and stick to portables and be a 3rd party software dev for Sony and MS.

And yet by buying the Wii but boycotting their console software, aren't you sending them the exact opposite message?

The Wii/new Zelda is what drove me to the xxxtreme.

[StGabe]

My argument is just that newer isn't always better, just because it is newer.

And you have consistently failed to realize (even when I tried to specifically point it out) that I was never saying anything that contradicted this point.  Only that the general level of craft has increased and that a lot of love for past games/movies/literature comes from nostalgia (but not all).

My point about Amelie is not that it's an amazing movie (although it's #35 on the IMDB list of best movies of all time, but hey who's counting) but that there is great cinematography and craft (not just technology) in there that you would have thought was fucking amazing 20 years ago but that you take for granted nowadays and even sneer at.  Because you can.  Because that's how far the state of the craft has advanced.  That was the same point I was making with Lost but you just went into "oh my gosh I'm way too much of a snob to listen to anyone who would cite Lost" mode.  You can't compare Lost to your favorite cult classic, niche hits of the 80's.  You have to compare it to the mainstream hit TV shows of that time.  And if you do you'll see that we now take for granted a whole lot that would have been amazing back then.  Lost may not be a masterpiece or even something that you would watch today but if you compare it to well, all of the pre-1990 hit dramas well, it's obvious that there has been a significant improvement in the ability to create real, lasting stories.  The notion of a drama that dedicated entire episodes to one characters back story, or had series spanning narratives, didn't exist back then in any mainstream format and now it is, "duh, obvious".

You're just pointing out that yes, some good qualilty cult classics exist that managed to deviate from overall trends of the time .  That and you're sniping: I may have been right about 9 out of 10 of the authors I cite but, because I accidentally quoted Greg Bear in the wrong part of a hastily written rant post, I must be 100% wrong.  I agree he's hard sci-fi and I just misedited that section.  Oh noes,  you win 8 points.  Of course if you were trying to listen to anything I was saying you might have gotten past that but no -- you'd rather completely ignore a paragraph because you find one part you disagree with. 

My own snipe: Farmer came way after Tolkien.  He's also the only sci-fi author you mention that is the least bit interesting for me to read these days.  The other guys, and yes I've read at least some of most of those guys, had great historical impact but are just pulp fiction compared to Erikson or Martin.  99.5% of the sci-fi 30 years ago was about blowing up robots and aliens.  And 99.9% of the fantasy has had completely flat characters.  But hey, whatever.  You're a snob.  I mean that's really what all your posts are about -- snobbery.  To you that cult classic is the only thing that matters about 30 years ago and any overall trends in the mainstream are inconsequential.  And so you're completely talking past what I'm saying.  Stuff today is way too damn mainstream to be of interest to a snob.  Amelie, oh my gosh, how could I even go there.  Don't I know that it was loved by millions of people still young and trying to be cool today and therefore is way too mainstream to even be mentioned by any true snob?

[stray]

Amelie is cool, but it isn't because of mass increase in craft, or because of it's "rock skipping" effects. He could have done the same movie with Tautou, but with the technology and budget of Delicatessen, and it would have still been equal the film. The quality the of film isn't summed by those superficial things.

[geldonyetich]

I got Twilight Princess for the Gamecube for Christmas and am enjoying it so far.  After having played some of Wind Waker and the Ocarina of Time, the controls were pretty much instinctive.  My only real complaint about the interface is that I can't have ready more than two items at a time.  It's not really that important I converse with Minda that she should take up my whole Z-button.

I resisted the urge to name Epona after overly bitter F13 posters.

[Sky]

You're a snob.  I mean that's really what all your posts are about -- snobbery.

[StGabe]

Amelie is cool, but it isn't because of mass increase in craft, or because of it's "rock skipping" effects. He could have done the same movie with Tautou, but with the technology and budget of Delicatessen, and it would have still been equal the film. The quality the of film isn't summed by those superficial things.

I'm not referring to the effects but the scene itself.

edit: which as I recall, and maybe I have my scenes confused, has this amazing camera swoop, combined with a lot of color manipulation combined with yes, some digital effects, to make a great movie moment out of what was really just Audrey Tautou and someone else from the crew throwing rocks into water.

[Margalis]

I'd rather be a snob than a know-nothing. Being called a snob actually makes me smile, if being a snob means knowing something and having an appreciation for a wide variety of things instead of "LOL Britney's music is the bestest evar!"

This is what you said originally, response to people talking about SNES and Genesis games:

Anyway, I think most of this is just nostalgia run rampant and an inability to adapt.  SNES?  Great at the time.  Sure.  I'm with you there.  Now?  There are only a few games from that era that I could still seriously play for very long.

This is what you are saying now:

Only that the general level of craft has increased and that a lot of love for past games/movies/literature comes from nostalgia (but not all).

Yes, the general level of craft has increased. Yes, some love for things in the past is nostalgia. No shit. Also, the sky is blue. You've made your argument much more benign. Originally people were saying "man, SNES and Genesis were great" and you came and in and essentially said "you guys are wrong, you are just looking through rose-colored glasses."

"Man, I like SNES games."
"No. You don't. Or if you do you have an 'inability to adapt.'"

It seems to blow your mind that people can like things that didn't come out yesterday.

[StGabe]

I'd rather be a snob than a know-nothing.

I'm a "know nothing" because I mistyped one author's name in a paragraph?  Or because I use mainstream entities as examples?  Or just because my taste is different than yours?  Elucidate, please.

SNES?  Great at the time.  Sure.  I'm with you there.  Now?  There are only a few games from that era that I could still seriously play for very long.

That's entirely true.  There are very few SNES games that I can play for very long right now.  Some of those games I *can* play for a long time which, you know, means that I'm allowing that yes you can cherrypick some examples of specific games that still hold up just fine.  Not sure what isn't clear about that except that you want to pick a fight with the "know nothing" who dares to state that maybe, leaving nostalgia aside, we have actually moved forward quite a bit.

So yes, several times I've allowed that some games from that era are still good.  And yet I still think that most of them (95%+) don't stand up to today's standards and are glorified exactly because they were mind-blowing way back when.  I cited specific examples and the response to that was pretty much just, "dude, FF6 had some sorta dark themes in it" (and I said I didn't remember it well enough and maybe it did).  That doesn't mean those games aren't good games or playable today.  It means that largely what makes them good and playable is taken for granted today.  It's the baseline now instead of being an elusive goal.

But just saying: "yeah, those games did a lot for gaming today, I have great memories of them and you know, some of them are still pretty fun, but gaming has gotten better overall" isn't very sexy.  It isn't very snobby.  It isn't righteously indignant nor does it hearken to the golden days of yore.  It makes me an unwashed heathen.  Yes, it's boring and pragmatic.  But I think it's also true. 

I can look at a list of just the most recent games I've purchased:

Gears of War
Trauma Center: Second Opinion
Elebits
Final Fantasy XII
Viva Pinata
Guitar Hero 2
Bully
God of War

And I know that, as great as the NES or SNES was at the time, that I still have far better overall gaming available to me with whatever recent releases are available now.  Except for God of War, all those games I mentioned are releases in the past few months and they are all fantastic games doing stuff that we could only dream of on the SNES.  Not just technically but gameplaywise.

[stray]

Some of those are good examples of new forms of gameplay (much like Katamari which I mentioned earlier). I wouldn't argue with them. Others I'm not so sure of.

Still though, and here's the main point: They are original for underlying concepts. Gameplay in the abstract sense --- And the abstract is the same reason why someone can appreciate an older game, without getting distracted by the lack of present day technical features or modern sensibilities. It's the same reason why people still play Chess, Checkers, Poker, Tetris, Battleship, or Simon. The fundamental ideas behind those games aren't outshined by the mere passage of time. Games do not work that way.

[Margalis]

I cited specific examples and the response to that was pretty much just, "dude, FF6 had some sorta dark themes in it" (and I said I didn't remember it well enough and maybe it did).

No, that isn't what happened at all. Revisionist historize much?

You said the FF games had childish plots. When people pointed out you were wrong you said you didn't remember. LOL. That's why I call you a know-nothing. If you didn't remember why did you make your claim in the first place? Just throw some shit at a wall and see what sticks. You cited Oblivian as some new awesome game when it is clearly the same basic game Bethesda has been making for years and years. You said that scoring in movies and cinematic techniques have come a long way because your friends told you so, and the only example you've been able to come up with is totally inconsequential rock-skipping. As far as I can tell your cinema-scoring argument comes down to "rock music FTW!" You claim that "old" fantasy (which you refuse to qualify with any time period) is all Dwarves and Elves and that "old" sci-fi (again without any qualification) is all about aliens and robots (99.5% - very scientific there!) - then cite BSG as an awesome new direction. You know, because it doesn't have any robots. Whereas Ubik is all about robots. Good call. The TV version of The Canterbury Tales is apparently new to you. I call you a know-nothing because you don't seem to know much about anything.

99.5% of the sci-fi 30 years ago was about blowing up robots and aliens.  And 99.9% of the fantasy has had completely flat characters.

LOL. That's all I can say. You are right, characterization was just invented two years ago.

---

Aren't your "specific examples" just my "cherry-picking"? You've yet to explain why all my examples are the latter and yours are all the former. I think the unspoken rule here is that Gabe gives examples, Margalis picks cherries - by definition. You give a list of games you like and that is valid evidence but my list is cherry-picking. Very convenient.

[Jain Zar]

So what have we learned in this thread?  Well besides that Gabe and Schild don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Nintendo is awesome.  Old stuff is awesome.

Buying Nintendo systems but not buying Nintendo games to play on it is fucking stupid.

Old stuff has more heart and soul to it.

And the newest bit of info:

I'm so addicted to Ultima games I just bought a 200 dollar Palm PDA just to play Ultima remakes on it.  (And maybe use its actual PDA functions to enhance my tabletop RPG and miniatures stuff.)

But, its all nostalgia right?  Gears of War is just SOOOO much better than anything made before it only nostalgia freaks could dare play an older game..