Flip/Side 02: When Was The Golden Age of Gaming?

Flip/Side 02: When Was The Golden Age of Gaming?

This week’s Flip/Side article focuses on the New School versus the Old School in gaming. Guest author Rusty Bickel chimes in on why he thinks technological advancements have helped the genre

atrc-spacer2

FLPSD-GamingCON_MF

By Rusty Bickel

Everyone remembers that first Christmas or birthday when they got their first gaming system. They remember the first time that they set up that NES, Sega or in my case SNES and popped in their first video game. These are memories that every true gamer remembers. It seemed like as soon as Super Mario Bros. was released people started arguing which was better – the newest games to the market, or the classics from which they came from. The whole new school, old school argument in video games is, in my opinion, a very highly regarded topic with proponents on both sides making valid points and neither side budging. It is my opinion though that ALMOST NO GAMES (some classics are classics and there isn’t any arguing that) from the last ten years or even last year can hold up to the latest and greatest that is offered today.

Everyone remembers their first game just as everyone remembers the first game they played on Playstation, playstation 2, playstation 3. The first time that they dinged 60 or the first time they got that all amazing invisibility cloak. It is just another point on a gamers timeline. People defending the old school front often preach on how much filler has been added to games just to make them “look pretty”, how much of the “true” gaming experence has been lost because of publishers trying to make one topic appeal to everyone. This is actually true in the purest sense but thats nothing to blame current games on.

Publishers make games that will sell (wether or not thats a good thing is an entirely different argument) but they know that a game will sell because YOU, the end user, showed them a trend in video games. As a whole though this entire argument can be summed up into one most important statement: If Nintendo had the technology to make the game look like Halo ODST when designing the original Super Mario Brothers, do you still think they would have made a side scrolling 8-bit platformer…?

Hell no. The problem is not that old school games are more pure, its that they HAD to make the story and game-play mechanics good because they wouldn’t sell otherwise. Nowadays people can buy a game that may not have the best idea but still come away satisfied because of the overall experience that they got from that game. This includes cut scenes and Wii-mote flailing mini-games, and you know what – that’s okay! People play video games for the experience. And it has been proven time and time again that you don’t need to have a graphics rich game in order for it to be amazing. However at the same time the games like this always offer up something new and innovative that make the game great without spending millions on a thirty second FMV.

This is becoming increasingly harder to do as more and more games come out. So of course old school games were viewed as amazing at the time because there was nothing that they could be compared to. Having said all this I want everyone to know that there are games that I don’t think can ever be replaced. Final Fantasy 7, for example. But that’s not 100% because the game was the most amazing thing ever. It’s because to me that game is about going to my aunt’s house and playing it on her Playstation. It’s about for the first time in my life crying at a video game because I had become SO attached to a character. That game is a part of my childhood and will never be replaced. not because of how it affected the video game industry but rather how it affected my life. And it was all because how the new, wicked graphics of that era made me connect with the experience.

And that’s all that matters.

atrc-spacer2
atrc-spacer2

Did you enjoy this post?

If so, would you please consider sharing it with the world

User Responses

4 Responses and Counting...

  1. Nick

    November 11, 2009

    You both touch on an issue that is central to this whole debate. The gameplay is core to ALL video games(even the non-game ones like Brain Age). But the gameplay is completely different for games from the 70′s to 80′s to 90′s to 00′s and beyond. In a way, you both made valid points and I still find myself disagreeing with both of you about which era is better.
    SMB is a classic because no game before it and not many since(and most of those are Mario games) did platforming as well. Look at what Nintendo did with NSMB. Updated the graphics to a more modern look, but the gameplay is essentially unchanged because it is damn near perfect as is.

    Starcraft helped put RTS’s on the map in the 90′s. Koreans still die playing the game(they have entire TV networks devoted to gaming, mostly Starcraft). They still play it, because the balance and gameplay are unmatched by any game before or since. When SC came out, the graphics kinda sucked, but it didn’t matter the game was like crack to play and still is. I still go to sleep playing out new map strategies in my dreams.

    The same can be said for more modern games. Doom and Wolfenstein may be remembered fondly by many an old school gamer, but they don’t hold a candle to current FPS in terms of graphics and more importantly GAMEPLAY. COD:MW isn’t a classic because of it’s graphics(hell there are plenty of games that look better) but the gameplay is top notch.

    Games like so many forms of entertainment and technology grow from previous work. This doesn’t make Uncharted 2 any more elevated a game than Pac Man anymore than District 9 versus The Day The Earth Stood Still. A classic is a classic, and just because I like the games I play now doesn’t take anything away from my favorite games of years past.

    Having said all that, my favorite games tend to be old school in play and age. Homeworld, Starcraft, Mario(2D not 3D), Advance Wars(modern game with old school feel), Chrono Trigger(was this Squeenix’s pinnacle?), River City Ransom, MechWarrior 2, … I could go on but I think I made my point.

  2. Tom Nix

    November 11, 2009

    That’s some good stuff, Nick. I hope these things aren’t coming across as “one is right and one is wrong.” They’re just ostensibly different takes on one thing. There’s some freaking awesome current video games that accomplish things that the games of yesteryear could never attain. I guess, really, its all still just an opinion. But I’d much rather break out A Link To The Past than Resistance 2.

    But, Nick: River City Ransom? Why? How was that any different than any other faux 3D brawler?

  3. Nick

    November 11, 2009

    I wasn’t really thinking that was the way you guys were going. But to me, there is no point in saying old games are better or vice versa, because we usually end up judging different game types or experiences against each other. It doesn’t really work for movies and it definitely doesn’t work for games. Like I said, I too tend to fall on the old games side when it comes down to what I WANT to play, but I like good games no matter when they came out.

    As the kid who was more likely to lose his lunch money, some how beating up bullies and stealing their money was unbelievably awesome. I even own this on Wii Virtual Console. Plus, back in the day, it featured some of the funnest co-op play I had the joy of experiencing. RCR is great.

  4. Nick

    November 11, 2009

    NSMB Wii looks fucking awesome! Maybe it can keep me pre-occupied while I wait for SC2.

Leave a Reply

Default User

Your Name

November 11, 2009

* Name, Email, and Comment are Required

TRC Archives