The games I love the most are 25 to 40 years old. I'm sure it's just curmudgeonly nostalgia, at least in part, but I also think there's something to be said for the storytelling creativity and innovation that a limited format (8 bit, 16 bit, etc) would encourage much more than a comprehensive format with amazing graphics.
I've more or less come to the opinion that the best games were made in the 90s. There have been great games since then, but I bounce off a lot of "Best Games" of the last 20 years.
I feel similarly, but I wonder if there's a chance we might be approaching (or who knows, even have arrived at!) a new golden age?
I feel like the 16- and early 32-bit era was the culmination point for 2D, sprite-based games. The industry was able to draw on decades' of experience and talent to create masterful works of art within the structures of that medium.
Everyone basically had to start over from scratch when games moved to 3D. Hopefully, I like to think we're reaching the point where the artists and artisans of the games industry have reached a collective comfort and knowledge with the new needs and expectations of 3D gaming to create experiences that FEEL good in the way those high-point 16-bit golden age games did.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and everything really was best when I was 10.
That's probably true but I think the issue there is that 3D requires way larger teams, so the team becomes heavily geared towards graphics. Which may have led to the industry becoming so graphics focused.
And because the teams were so person-heavy on graphics, it just made sense that the gameplay and story became smaller and smaller relative teams.
I don't think 3D is necessarily the issue. It's more that the technical specs of consoles keep growing. Hence, there is a need by game developers to take full advantage of them and so that translates to making 'better graphics' or 'higher resolution.'
And so the more technically advanced consoles become, the longer it takes to make games, the more people you need on a studio project, the more money is required to execute it, the more physical storage space they end up taking. And so gameplay sort of becomes diminished. The scope gets smaller.
The best years of the Playstation in my opinion were in the 2000s, as the PS2 allowed for more technically advanced titles than PS1 but without necessarily sacrificing great scope and gameplay. And really BIG games could be made in a short amount of time. Some of the best titles did not necessarily have the best graphics but the best gameplay Eg. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. The only equivalent to that I've seen in the PS4 era is RDR2 - and that took 8 years to make!
At the same time though, I love how we now have a robust indiegame market, where folks are able to return to pixelart and not worry about the technical specs or performance.
I would be had I not been playing tons of games from the 90s in the last three years!
There are things about these old games that don't age well, but I think the writing of stories is generally better and the gameplay is almost always better, excepting a few genres.
Like, shooters are unquestionably better since Halo. Racing games are also better now (though how much better are they than Mario Kart?) and fighting games are sort of a toss up, I think. Street Fighter II sort of hit a peak that I'm not sure new games have surpassed. Though the graphics sure are a sight to behold.
The games I love the most are 25 to 40 years old. I'm sure it's just curmudgeonly nostalgia, at least in part, but I also think there's something to be said for the storytelling creativity and innovation that a limited format (8 bit, 16 bit, etc) would encourage much more than a comprehensive format with amazing graphics.
Definitely agree. I wrote a bit about that last year in my Dragon Quest XI essay.
All those resources spent on graphics means resources not spent on gameplay/story.
I'll never not want to play Super Mario 1 and 2, Mike Tyson's Punch Out, and all those old games I played as a kid.
Also: Civ 2 (not video game per se, but brilliant).
Absolutely!
I've more or less come to the opinion that the best games were made in the 90s. There have been great games since then, but I bounce off a lot of "Best Games" of the last 20 years.
I feel similarly, but I wonder if there's a chance we might be approaching (or who knows, even have arrived at!) a new golden age?
I feel like the 16- and early 32-bit era was the culmination point for 2D, sprite-based games. The industry was able to draw on decades' of experience and talent to create masterful works of art within the structures of that medium.
Everyone basically had to start over from scratch when games moved to 3D. Hopefully, I like to think we're reaching the point where the artists and artisans of the games industry have reached a collective comfort and knowledge with the new needs and expectations of 3D gaming to create experiences that FEEL good in the way those high-point 16-bit golden age games did.
Or maybe I'm wrong, and everything really was best when I was 10.
That's probably true but I think the issue there is that 3D requires way larger teams, so the team becomes heavily geared towards graphics. Which may have led to the industry becoming so graphics focused.
And because the teams were so person-heavy on graphics, it just made sense that the gameplay and story became smaller and smaller relative teams.
I don't think 3D is necessarily the issue. It's more that the technical specs of consoles keep growing. Hence, there is a need by game developers to take full advantage of them and so that translates to making 'better graphics' or 'higher resolution.'
And so the more technically advanced consoles become, the longer it takes to make games, the more people you need on a studio project, the more money is required to execute it, the more physical storage space they end up taking. And so gameplay sort of becomes diminished. The scope gets smaller.
The best years of the Playstation in my opinion were in the 2000s, as the PS2 allowed for more technically advanced titles than PS1 but without necessarily sacrificing great scope and gameplay. And really BIG games could be made in a short amount of time. Some of the best titles did not necessarily have the best graphics but the best gameplay Eg. Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. The only equivalent to that I've seen in the PS4 era is RDR2 - and that took 8 years to make!
At the same time though, I love how we now have a robust indiegame market, where folks are able to return to pixelart and not worry about the technical specs or performance.
Are you worried that your judgment might be clouded by nostalgia? I sure am... but damned if I don't love those old games.
I would be had I not been playing tons of games from the 90s in the last three years!
There are things about these old games that don't age well, but I think the writing of stories is generally better and the gameplay is almost always better, excepting a few genres.
Like, shooters are unquestionably better since Halo. Racing games are also better now (though how much better are they than Mario Kart?) and fighting games are sort of a toss up, I think. Street Fighter II sort of hit a peak that I'm not sure new games have surpassed. Though the graphics sure are a sight to behold.
But I don't care much about graphics.
Agree completely about SFII, and I might include Mortal Kombat in the mix of very good fighting games. I think SF takes the cake for me.
Ever play Ivan Stewart's Off-Road? I used to love that racing game!
A classic game!!
OMG I loved this game! The absolute time suck in playing it, discovering all the secrets and on and on and on.....
Definitely one of the best of all time and worth all that exploring