Do you think that it's valid to criticize old games with our "new" perspective?

[Lotus Victoria]

Let's say: criticizing a game for a mechanic that was well implemented when the game came out, but aged poorly after all these years.

[OrcsRLame]

In most cases yes. When it's a case of bad technology, I don't think it's really fair. Example: I don't think RPGs had the technology to differentiate between "scenes" and gameplay back in the days of the original Final Fantasy, so I don't think it's fair to fault it for not having a cutscene skip button to skip over long dialogue sections.

When it's a case of poor decisions or poor implementation that could have been fixed with the technology of the time, I think it's absolutely fair to criticize.

[Cosmic Janitor]

I wouldn't change review scores on them but I think when talking about them and comparing them to new games you should obviously use the current perspective and take off the nostalgia glasses.

[Arrashi]

Nope. Many games were massive breakthroughs in time of their release, and thats how they should be judged as a game.

Judging if game aged gracefully or not is completely separate thing. Tho ironically, many old games still hold their ground, even after 20 years, while many new ones fall into obscurity in first 6 months.

[SirBeef]

In most cases yes. When it's a case of bad technology, I don't think it's really fair. Example: I don't think RPGs had the technology to differentiate between "scenes" and gameplay back in the days of the original Final Fantasy, so I don't think it's fair to fault it for not having a cutscene skip button to skip over long dialogue sections.

When it's a case of poor decisions or poor implementation that could have been fixed with the technology of the time, I think it's absolutely fair to criticize.

Right, but the OP said something that was implemented well. So that would leave out poor implementation that could have been fixed with the technology of the time.

I would have to say no to the OP's argument. It is not fair to criticize things that were done well back then that doesn't fit in well with today's standards. AS for your stance, it is definitely OK to criticize bad design that could have been implemented better back then.

[Sigxy]

I would say so, given limitations. There are really old games that have aged well - and there are games that have aged bad.

[Gracin]

Nope. Many games were massive breakthroughs in time of their release, and thats how they should be judged as a game.

Judging if game aged gracefully or not is completely separate thing. Tho ironically, many old games still hold their ground, even after 20 years, while many new ones fall into obscurity in first 6 months.

Well that partially is because there is a massive difference in the amount of games released today compared to 20 years ago. Now you have something like 8 different current platforms for games to be developed for, compared to 1997 when there were what 3? Also, even considering the staggering difference in the number of games produced now compared to then, I think you are looking over the fact that, as an example, the N64 had 296 released games. But how many of them can you recall actually being good games that as you said "still hold their ground"? I can think of 30 pretty good games from the n64, but not many of those I would consider hold their round now.

[Deleted]

If you lived through those times and played the games when they actually came out, then you understand how good they were at that time. If you're going to downvote and criticize them today for being old, and having old mechanics, and not living up to today's standards, then feel free to downvote every single "amazing game" of today, because that will most likely be just as bad in a couple decades.

[OrcsRLame]

Right, but the OP said something that was implemented well. So that would leave out poor implementation that could have been fixed with the technology of the time.

I would have to say no to the OP's argument. It is not fair to criticize things that were done well back then that doesn't fit in well with today's standards. AS for your stance, it is definitely OK to criticize bad design that could have been implemented better back then.

You've totally misunderstood my argument.

I am not talking about mechanics that were implemented well by the standards of the time. I am talking about mechanics that were implemented well by today's standards.

For example, Everquest had shit boss design compared to WoW: Legion. I don't care that it was considered revolutionary for its time, there's no reason bosses couldn't have had more complexity. So I will absolutely say Legion has better raiding than Everquest, and I give Everquest zero points for its age.

I don't think it's valid to criticize Everquest for not having Cross Realm Zones, because that technology didn't exist back then.

[Blueobelisk]

Oh yeah that's a perfectly valid criticism of older games. I also laugh at the printing press for being old. I mean, look how much a modern computer can do. The printing press is definitely a piece of shit because of what my pro gaming rig can do.

[zealo]

Yes.

There's a difference between criticising a game in how it compares to what has been done after it, and pretending it's legacy doesn't exist. You can appreciate a game for what it were in it's prime, and at the same time think it doesn't hold up well after a decade or two.

[dope_danny]

Contextually yes, functionally? no thats the same kind of douchebag idea as folks that wont watch a film in black or white or with subtitles. Media doesnt comform to one archetype and cannot be treated as such.

[Pendulous]

It depends in what context. If you're recommending a game right now to someone, whether a friend or a review you've written, you have to look at it as what they're going to think of it, right now. There's nothing that can be done graphically, but everything else basically is up for grabs. I've written reviews of older games and criticized them for things that could have been done, no matter how well-received they were at the time (and that I enjoyed even).

[Cæli]

yes, valuable games are valuable for what they deliver, not for how good they were "at the time"

[Jastall]

It really depends on the feature. Let's take an example: the old Fallout games, 1 and 2. They couldn't have full voice over, and couldn't have you talk to everyone in first person because of technical limitations. So to get around that, they used clay models rendered in-game, so-called talking heads, with voice actors to simulate conversations with major NPCs. It was a really cool touch and praiseworthy for its time, no doubt about it.

On the other hand the UI design, especially for the purpose of trading items, is godawful in that game. And I can say that easily because similar games (such as Baldur's Gate 2) had better UIs so there's no excuse.

Similarly, it gets really hard to play old school tactics games (such as ye olde X-COMs or, well, Fallout Tactics) without some of the simple yet important improvements that came from other titles like XCOM 2, such as line of sight indicators and precise range indicators for explosives. It wasn't out of the question to implement these things in the original games, but they didn't and IMO suffer for it.

[Deleted]

If someone wants to sell me the game now like the Starcraft or Baldur's Gate remasters, of course I judge it in the current context. Otherwise equally obviously not. The devs didn't time travel when they coded in 1988 doesn't really sound like valid criticism.

[Deleted]

No. And it's still a bullshit reason not to remake Warcraft 1 and 2.

[Tackhisis]

still a bullshit reason not to remake Warcraft 1 and 2.

Those are too primitive to interest people today.

[Orby]

A lot of N64 and Playstation (1) games usually fall into this category. I been seeing a lot of rising criticisms of these console games due to the use of polygons and 3D that has now aged badly. Be it bad camera angles or graphics that look more dated than an NES game due to the comeback of 16 bit style indy games we see now. Showing that a 2D platformer can look far in date than a 3D polygon game like say Mario 64 or Spyro.

In my opinion, I do think there is room to criticize those games now. I mean sure some have aged horribly (like Turok: Dinosaur Hunter) but as someone who returned to his N64 games recently I still found Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie and Legend of Zelda: OoT/MM all have aged pretty well and all still look gorgeous to this day. But I hear a lot of people say Mario 64 or Legend of Zelda looks horrible now, but I cannot see that.

Even games with mad fog issues like Body Harvest or Starfox 64 all still have some merit. All of which still play smoothly and have a unique charm that is exclusive to it's time.

As someone who hasn't played a console since the Gamecube I did find first person shooters like Goldeneye and Perfect Dark really hard to play with a controller lol. The controls in general have me pulling my hair out and I kept asking myself how I found it so easy back then compared to now.

I think it's fair to criticise and to discuss older out of date games due to their style and mechanics, but also try and remember it's charm and what made it good in the first place. Thats the important thing. I do not think we should push aside those consoles or games just because they are bad now, but be remembered for why they were good to begin with

[Bigbazz]

Depends, racing games are really a genre that don't age well.. I mean I dont think I can criticise old racing games (like say Virtua Racing, one of the first console 3d racers) for being terrible by modern standards, but still they are pretty terrible. On the other hand, games like Final Fantasy 6 or Super Mario World, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 etc have all aged well, they are still fun to play. Super Mario 64 may be over over 20 years old but it still holds up gameplay wise.

But really what is the context when saying "new" perspective? Because that could mean a lot of things.