Hardcore today, arcade tomorrow

by Vladimir Cole { Dec 5th 2005 at 6:30PM }

NES RetroPad No, that headline is not a prescription for your weekend in Las Vegas. It's what happens to video games over time. There was once a time when you could not get any more hardcore than a game of Pac Man. And then Ms. Pac Man came along and amped the whole Pac Man formula up to 11. It was insane! It was fast! More than a few gamers gladly blew their salaries supporting a debilitating Power Pellet addiction. It was about as hardcore as hardcore gets.

Pac Man today has been tossed into the "Retro" bin and is avoided by teens who think it lame, slow, boring and ugly. May as well call Akira Kurosawa's Ran crap because it's 20 years old, or write off all black-and-white movies because they lack "realistic" coloration, right?

There's still hope.

Most of us who grew up with classic arcade titles are now in our 30s and are—despite the best advice of those who know better—having children. We owe it to our kids to make sure that they do not evaluate games in a vacuum, to educate them on why the classics are classics so that they don't arrive at Joystiq 10 years from now send us hate mail like this: "for JS to say [Geometry Wars] is their fav is a slap in the face to 360 buyers. Pd0 is 100 times better playing online then this silly game. And so is just about every other 360 launch title."

I forgive the kid, because today's teens grew up in a cultural vacuum. Their parents are generally too old to have grown up with Atari and Nintendo and therefore failed to pass on any understanding of what makes a good game a good game. These kids have failed to inherit cultural or critical literacy. Just as school children must read Dickens, Hemingway and Salinger as part of a proper education, so too should a proper diet of game classics be required playing. During summer breaks and by force, if necessary.

Related From Joystiq

Good Old Games offering early beta access
1 day ago
Joystiq E3 hands-on: Mega Man 9
1 day ago
Study: Playing puzzle games will make you better at puzzle solving
8 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Zaius @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

amen, brother.

Imp @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Dude, points for Kurosawa

kekleon64 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

THANK YOU!!!

Sorry, thats what I've thought for a while. Most kids my age like X-Box or Sony. I stick to Nintendo though, they have always had the better games. While there are a FEW good games for the other consoles, they cant compete with Nintendo. Most kids today care too much about graphics and not enough about actual gameplay.

Obvious @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

I agree with #1.

Back_lit @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

What the crap? You have to know your gaming roots. Purely for that reason I am trying to get a hold of an NES and some games. If I can't manage it at least I will have a Revolution to show my kids what gaming was sort of like back in the day...pity they won't ever know the joy of blowing out carts.

That being said...I'm going to get that DreamCast for $25 w/ 4 controllers and 5 games. I must be the collector that I am ;)

OpnickC @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Amen to that! I heard recently that someone carved pumpkins to look like mario and bowser, and the people who recognized them were the parents, not the kids. There should be some sort of essential game list that people need to complete in order to be considered true gamers. Classics like PacMan and Super Mario Brothers and even more recent titles like LOZ:OOT and FF7 (I know I am missing many others) are essential to gaming history.

IMO, Nintendo is the only company which has stayed true to the roots of gaming while also greatly innovating the medium. That's why I'll be picking up a shiny white revo this summer :)

Doug teh H-Nut @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

I came into the gaming scene with the N64 and _regret_ missing out on older games. However, there's remedy for that. Namco repackages Pac-Man every Friday and there are Mega Man and Sonic collections. (I'd suggest that anyone ignore Sonic Gems, though. Ugh. Mega Collection is so much more fun.) Mega Man 2 is one of my favorite games right now.

After playing the debacle that was Shadow the Hedgehog, I went right to Mega Collection and played Sonic 1 and 2 a bunch.

People need to advertise older games on their foreheads. They're so much harder and way more fun than _most_ new games. I still love Katamari, of course, which is why I emphasised "most".

Chessasaur @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Gotta disagree with ya, dude. When it comes to videogames, older isn't classic - it's just old. Videogames are different from traditional "arts" in that they are constrained by the technology that existed at the time of their creation. I'm mid-40's now and when I try to go back to the old arcade games of my youth, I'm struck by how shallow they are compared to the immersive environments newer games can provide. I say go for the best you can get your hands on! Unless there is another game-crash, designers of software and hardware will keep pushing until we have movie quality characters and scenes. I loved Bezerk, but I'd rather play Call of Duty 2.

Slashbunny @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Robotron > Call of Duty 2

Observer @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

"Videogames are different from traditional "arts" in that they are constrained by the technology that existed at the time of their creation....I say go for the best you can get your hands on! Unless there is another game-crash, designers of software and hardware will keep pushing until we have movie quality characters and scenes."

At which point, EA is still gonna be wondering why MS Solitaire is the most played game on the market.
Entertainment is entertainment is entertainment.

Toast @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

C'mon grandpa, everything that is older is not necessarily better. The video game industry is where it is because of the large fan base of young people craving extreme amounts of stimulation. To someone on a nostalgia trip, 'classic' games may be where it's at. To new gamers it's just like playing that one game with a ball attached by a string to a cup instead of say.... anything else that is actually fun.

When phrases tantamount to "back in my day" start circulating around here, we know we're in trouble. I'd most likely say because it's a lack of innovation, but whatever the case is, any classical game released today (no history/nostalgia attached) would do an immediate belly-flop. I guess the exception is this Geometry Wars game which I have not played, but from what I read, I do not understand the attraction. I don't think it will out muscle PD0 for clock time on most gamers XBox360 though

syco @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Agreed. Kids these days need to take come classes or something...

Moon Patrol 101
Advanced Paddle Applications
Combat! and it's affect on western society

DocBadwrench @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

I'll be the first one to agree with the sentiment that *just* because a game is old does not mean that it's superior. To state that is (I believe) to miss the point.

Classic games often defy the tightly-constrained genres in place today. Often times, a shooter is a shooter is a shooter, and all the reflective bump-mapping in the world can't save that. The point being made is that gaming has roots like any other art form. It grows, it expands, and it's rocked by changes like any other art form.

I have a great deal of fun playing many old MAME games because the gameplay is so solid, despite any graphical limitations. I've often said that if you can't play a game in a simple filled-polygon mode and find it appealing, then don't bother adding any additional art. It's gotta be compelling *regardless* of the cool new whiz-bang effects.

gameclu @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

#6 wrote: "Videogames are different from traditional "arts" in that they are constrained by the technology that existed at the time of their creation."

I disagree. Traditional "arts" were also at one point technologically constrained. Let's take music. Doesn't matter if we're talking motion pictures, photography, music, painting or architecure, etc.

jason w @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

My first system was the 2600 so I guess Im a old school gammer. At 30 im still into the new games. Hell ive spent 700 bucks on a 360 and 5 games in the last month, but there are some great retro games. Pac man is a classic just like Modby Dick. Sure its dated but get past the old school bs and its still a hell of a ride.

gmrc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Toast,

Why would you even make that assumption? You admitted you never played Geometry Wars. Have you even play PDZ? Why would you assume that Geometry Wars has no appeal compared to PDZ?

Old crappy stuff is old and crappy - classic awesome stuff remains classic and awesome.

A photo of a beautiful woman is always beautiful. It doesn't matter if the photo is a classic 50's pin-up or a sexy, slutty 2000's 'ho'. When something is great it remains great. (YMMV when it comes to the pin-up and ho stuff .... I'm a ho man myself ;-) )

Look at classic movies and classic coke as further examples of how classic doesn't always die or deserve to die.

And for the record ... geometry wars is killer.

Cyberclaws @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

I don't think this is a nostalgia trip that some of you perceive it is. It's more about learning the roots of the industry and to truly understand its evolution to what we have today. I think that if everyone of all ages knew this, they would appreciate what they have now and understand what the 'old' gamers are talking about when they mention the ideology of 'gameplay' value. This wasn't really meant to be a slap in the face to any gamer at all. People should lighten up a little bit and try to really understand the true point to this blog entry was.

Thank you, have a nice day!

Stakker @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Just remember that just like today's games, most old games were crap. Actually, there used to be even more crappy games than there are now, because of the lack of quality control :-) I do love the pioneering spirit as much as the next guy, but you gotta admit it mostly leads to massive failures. The beauty was that back then you could afford it.

But then there are the rare diamonds too of course. And I'm surely going to pass them on if I get a chance. Just leave the nostalgy behind, all right? Nobody likes that :-)

gmrc @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

This is NOT about the crap that came out 20 years ago .... this is about the KILLER AWESOME GAMES that came out 20 years ago.

Of course there was lots of junk back in the day.

Citizen Kane is remembered today, not the other 15 junky movies that came out that same month.

come on now ... we're talking about AWESOME RETRO GAMES, not just some average 20 year old crap.

It's important to know about ALL the great videogames out there - new or old, any system.

Matt @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

My Mom is a rare breed. She played all the classic arcade games and the 2600 back in the day, she also played the NES before I was born and she and my Dad gave me one of my own when I was 5. Now almost 15 years later I still have my NES hooked up to my TV and if I didn't start off playing on an NES I don't think I would know what true games are on the inside and to truly enjoy the classics and the history of gaming.

Eric B @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Any teenager that hates pac-man needs to be shot.

(JD)XeqtioneR @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

It's soo funny that this is all being talked about. I was just telling my dad about how cool my 360 is, I'm 27 y/o, and my dad, 58 y/o, told me.. "Hey son, remember that game on the Nintendo we would always play when you were younger, ummm... 1942!" My jaw dropped! He actually remembered that top-scrolling plane/fighter game.

Even my old dad remembers some roots! that's some shit right there.

Alot of younger kids nowadays are just brought up on the latest and greatest, as far as they know the PS1 was the first console out there, LoL. And sure, they've had PS2's and Xboxs' and now a 360, does that make them "Hardcore Gamerz".. Nope. You have to embrace what once was, and still is. The classics.

And personally, I think it's awesome that small pieces from the past are being made available to play on the 360, in all it's next-gen console glory, LoL.

Toast @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

gmrc,
True I haven't played either, but I have played games akin to both. So I can take a guess. Maybe Geometry Wars redefines and innovates whatever it is that it does and maybe thats why its successful, or maybe its just a nostalgia trip, but all the same, the dynamics of the video game market have changed drastically since 'back in the day'. Whereas there is always room for another great american novel, I don't think there is a market for another Great American Tetris game. The rapid change in technology in the video gmae industry has made them obsolete. Thus the comparison to literature really isn't apt. The only innovation in print has been the printing press, and all that did was make the process faster.
An attractive woman is attractive in any era, a good drink is a good drink in any era, but none of these things have such a dramatic evolution in the area of technology. Silent films seem like a better comparison. If I had to sit through silent films I would probably just fall asleep. I don't feel like going out and conducting the study, but I think that most moviegoers have little knowledge of silent films, but are still enjoying cinema none the less. I bet even our lovely joystiq editors don't spend their movie nights sans volume

Martez @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Dude, whatever- the ball and cup game is awesome.

jopojelly @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Well, thats probly why MS is offering those old games off of the Xbox 360 arcade, and Nintendo will do it too, but to a larger extent. Too bad for sony, they wont have any classic nostolgic games to entertain people who arent in the mood for a massive game experience. I think its cool.
When I go to college next year my 2 friends and I might get together and play Seiken Detsuku 3 (I suck at spelling) every thursday on our Revolutions while in different states, now thats awesome. Or we could get down for some intense matches of Super Smash. Imagine the possibilities... Oh yeah, anyone who says old games suck doesnt know what their talking about. Period. heheh

Osiris @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Geometry wars isnt a nostalgia trip.
It is addiction in its purest form.
What makes it fun is the simplicity and challenge , but then also its overall great presentation (amazing graphics effects, very fitting music etc)

I find it hard to judge games such as geometry wars and pd0, they are both too different.

I say let people be into what they want, so long as retro games arent forgotten. At this rate, with things like XB live arcade and revolution's backward compatibility features, they wont be forgotten too quickly.

Ryuukuro @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Well put (And extra kudos for the Kurosawa reference.)

While lots of old games are just old games, there are lots of games like Pac-Man and Super Mario Bros that still prove fun and challenging. Some kids get this but a few others can't be bothered. And, yes, these are likely the same people who won't watch a old or foreign movies and can't be bothered to read a book unless it's on the New York Times Bestseller's list--if at all.

They're a loss. Let them be lost. But if you can get the itty bitties to appreciate all kings of games on their own individual terms then they'll be better for it. And I imagine this will carry on to other artistic mediums as well.

KilgoreTrout XL @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

We need a video game museum or something. Charge admission, some rich guy collects every game on every system ever made.

Yeah, that includes the vectex, which I always thought was pretty cool.

And can we get a little missle command please?

VerboseCommaAndParantheticalLovingGameJunky @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Geometry Wars seems to have designed a very decent design of a game and managed to dress it up with great visuals. I own the higher-rated launch titles for the 360, and can honestly say I've spent as much time on Geometry Wars as I have with any other launch title. And unfortunately I do a lot of both, so the rest of my life is suffering (*sigh*).

The difficulty with saying that the older games are 'better' is that I suspect we are getting confused in how we are analyzing what makes a good game. Douglas Church wrote a great article about some ways to abstract various layers of a game for analysis in his article on Formal Abstract Design Tools (gamasutra.com, free registration). The behavior of Geometry Wars' bad guys, with the various goals (as enumerated on the Achievements list), lead to a great design. In math and science circles, it may be considered 'elegant', because the important elements are simple, while the implications, or strategies you create to reach the goals, are powerful. Geometry Wars also manages to stray from the typical 'old school' problem of monotony. It stays interesting and new as new enemies pop up with new behaviors, and different combinations of enemies force you to change your strategies, slightly (something games like Super Mario Bro's or Duck Hunt, for example, fail to do, IMHO). The fairly linear increase in difficulty is also nice, while being steep enough to keep the gameplay from dragging. So kudos to the Live Arcade (and how can I start developing for it?), but don't forget the other hand, the hand with more eye-candy-rich games like Mario 64 (see the Church article) or Halo (um. Play it?). Sometimes elegance can come in very pretty packages (Audrey Hepburn?). On the other other hand (I have many), sometimes we merely like games because they appeal to our interests (Doom 3? So pretty, so immersive, but so monotonous IMHO). So don't claim it to be a good game, but perhaps a good niche game (with a wide audience)?

I think we should still be pushing for realism in the gaming industry, because it's going to push hardware and software further, and it's going to come from the bigger game studios. There will come a point where the realism will top out, I suspect, but there will be plenty of room for good game design (provided EA and Microsoft don't suffocate good games in their corporate bloat [ Goldeneye, RIP ] ). I don't think we're giving up one for the other; especially if the game-reporting sites keep on top of games not always in the limelight.

As much as I agree that there is a great difference between good film and good video games (see Roger Ebert's article on Joystiq) due to the nature of interactivity to a story, there is a great similarity in the economics. In short, let the big studios make their Armageddon's, make lots of money, and fund the good films (the films that don't tend to make much money). Maybe Halo 3 can fund North by Northwest: The Game, or something (yikes).

Stakker @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

"An attractive woman is attractive in any era" --- I dunno, I'm not that much into those Renaissance chicks myself, but the paintings are still well drawn. (Notice the extremely deep and heavy parable.)

octorok @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Back in my day...

This is my day. Im 31, have owned nearly every home gaming machine since the Odyssey, and have spent a significant part of my life playing videogames.

An understanding of the classics will enhance one's experience with any artistic medium... Books, Film, Games, Paintings... Its all quite similar, no?

In fact, my original experiences with classics like Pac-man and Donkey Kong most certainly stand as a reference point when I make a value judgement on the merit of a game. There is a lot of mediocrity out there these days, just like their was back in 1985's arcades.

Like any other artistic medium, to be a truly "hardcore" gamer you need to experience the classics and feel those esential moments when the game disappears and the game-world becomes reality. Only then is appreciation of the conventional medium affirmed.

kgun @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

i think #3 and the rest of you more intelligent folk pretty much summed up all i need to say.

Denjinflash @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

yep!
my little bro gets to play all these classics thanks to me..he loves racing games like forza, but also mario kart and megadrivenes classics.
i think it's good for the young ones to atleast experience some megaman, sonic or old arcade hits. the good games from the past, anyway! there were a lot of good ones then, too, probably with a better crap to good ratio than today.

you really can't compare them to silent movies, too. unless things go virtual reality, you can't say games of tomorrow are going to make old hits from 80s or 90s seem like silent movies.
there is good sound, video, and above all, good fun in the old great games!

David @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

A lot of these old games are great because they were creating genres, not following formulas that supposedly gathered them success. Just think of pac-man.

"I think I'll have a circular head-thing run around eating unidentifiable yellow dots, chased by colored ghosts, which he must flee from while eating fruit. Eat all dots, and repeat again."

Was it fun? Millions of quarters say yes. Could it ever be made now? I don't know, does it fall under the category of FPS / RTS / Platformer / Puzzle / RPG / or Sim? No? Then good luck getting anyone to even notice. Hollywood and video games have reached the point where costs force safe, easy bets with what they make. How can you guarantee a success? Take the last successful game, cram on a few extras, throw a number on the end, and market like mad.

Wonder if a brand new Pac-man with seven playable characters, 40 new levels, 9 new soundtracks, plus 5 new fruits, multicolored dots, revamped 3d engine, realistic collision, several types of ghosts with random A.I. patterns, and a library worth of unlockables would sell well. The previous was successful, why not?

It's just so sad when I hear people say the original Halo proved FPSs could be successful on consoles (Goldeneye had 8 million total sales to Halo's 5 million at release of Halo 2 *gasp*). There are games before this generation. There are games before THAT generation. Heck, there were games before Nintendo.

As my current shirt says "Know your roots."

exbzurg @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

o man its a ball in a cup! why playh with anything else when you can cathd a ball in a cup. And if you dont catch the ball, dont worry the ball is attached to the string which is attached to the cup! BAll in a cup! clean up is as easy as catching a ball in a cup!

that family guy episode was just awesome just for that part alone. o and the PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TIME!

Jeff @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

"I say go for the best you can get your hands on! Unless there is another game-crash, designers of software and hardware will keep pushing until we have movie quality characters and scenes."

Yeah, because there's nothing better than running around killing people in first-person for about the billionth time in a row. That's pretty much every game on the market right now. Oh, and Madden. I forgot about that.

I was right there with you up until about 1999. Then it all went south. Sega was sort of the last of the truly old-school arcade companies that were still actually making at least some effort at being original only with updated graphics, but once the Dreamcast died they pretty much decided to be just like everybody else and release a bunch of me-too sports games and first-person shooters. And honestly, I don't care how "good" a game like that is, it is still 90% exactly like every other sports game or first-person shooter out there. Oh, look! This first-person shooter has cardboard boxes that move realistically! Give me a break.

Then I hung my hat on Nintendo for a while but they've just shown me nothing lately. I give them props for at least trying stuff like Pikmin and Animal Crossing but that level of innovation has really been absent over the past few years.

Back in the 1980's, *every* game *had* to be 100% original or it would fail. End of story. What was like Pac-Man before Pac-Man? Nothing. What was like Space Invaders before Space Invaders? Nothing. What was like Sinistar before Sinistar? Nothing. What was like Defender before Defender? Nothing. What was like Lunar Lander before Lunar Lander? Nothing. Gamers wanted to see something new. Games that were old or that blatantly ripped off other games just would sit there idle. So pretty much every popular game was unique. And it was a good time for all.

It's a testament to how BAD games are now that we still celebrate the uniqueness of older games. The same people who would shun Pac-Man in 1984 now embrace it again, because nothing has impressed them since. Everything is the same, with a few exceptions (Katamari Damacy, Rez and the like... though games like that are very few and far between). Almost every game is a sequel, a "spiritual successor", or just a blatant ripoff. And when you're ripping off from games that were created 10 or more years ago or "updating" games that are even older... well, there is something wrong with this picture.

Ok, I'm done.

Jake @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Game play. For me its all that matters. Graphics are cool, music is fine, but when it's crunch time, I better enjoy my time sitting in front of the TV.

I have played a wide variety of games in my time, although I am only a tender 19. I started on NES when I was five and I have stuck with the industry ever since. I have been addicted to everything from Minesweeper to MegaMan to Starcraft to Halo to Counter-Strike, and the thing that keeps me playin is dynamic game play. And really interesting game play is hard to find in any era. My biggest beef is that the current trend is pushing towards games that are more and more repetitious and at the same time less challenging. Its obvious that I can be content with a repetitive game, hence my time of 173 on minesweeper. But if you are gonna make games that dont have an interesting story line at least make them challenging. Graphics arent that fun to watch. Now of course there is another extreme cause wow ninja gaiden. I think that if new age games want to really get back to the roots they should work harder to incorporate a better difficulty curve. It used to be that if you beat a game, it meant not only that you played it, but you played hard, invested some of yourself, and emerged victorious. These days if you have a game that you havent beaten its a sign that you wasted your money on it. Games are designed so that 75% of 12 year olds who pick up the game can beat it in 10-20 hours. And that doesnt keep me interested. So I guess what I am trying to say is that kids ought to go back and play "Z", use all the cheats, and still get their butts stomped on the last level. Maybe then they will realize that sometimes its not about winning, but how you play the game... cause man kids are whiny when they dont win.

SonicRift @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

I am SO damn tired of being told Ocarina was the "first Zelda game"!!!!!!!!

Todd @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

I think people that are saying classic games aren't worth a crap are missing a vital point. I believe the rom file for Ms. Pac-Man is around 20 to 25k. How'd you like to be that game designer? "Ok, we need you to make a game that will make us millions, but you've got to do it with this". There was very little room for eye candy, it had to be about addictive gameplay. Now you've got a huge amount of room to play with. So much so that some games don't even use up the available space. If you look at the Pac-Man design you'll see tons of copies, but none of them thrilled us like it did. Sure games today are beautiful, but do they give us any more pleasure? Do they get us any more excited? I still remember some specific games that I played & where I played them just because of the high score I got. I can't say that of too many games today. Sure, looking back on them and compairing them to games today make them look really old, but I think it's vital to everyone to see where we've come from and how far we've come.

Bryan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

It is my opinion that the constraints placed upon developers LED to some of the great gaming design we once saw. Mario, for example, is designed the way he is due to old technical limitations.

In the old days, every game was coded very much from scratch in assembly or another cpu-specific language, simply because a higher-level language required too much overhead. Now half the stuff we see on all systems borrows SOMETHING from Renderware.

Not that I'm trying to knock on programmers today... it's still a very hard job, certainly. But I think a lot of the joy in old games came from taming the beasts which ran them.

Conn @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

"That being said...I'm going to get that DreamCast for $25 w/ 4 controllers and 5 games. I must be the collector that I am ;)"

Whoa, WTF! I got a very similar deal (I only got 2 controllers, but got 7 demos and 2 more games).

But on subject.. you have to know your roots. You can't appreicate video games if you don't like classics such as Super Mario Bros., Duck Hunt, Pac Man, Space Invaders, Tetris, Asteriods, etc. Just like how you can't like music but hate older, classic rock bands like Queen, The Beatles, ACDC, Led Zepplin and the like.

Now I will admit I haven't played many NES games, any Atari, Coleco or Intellivision games, or any Super Nintendo or SEGA Genesis games. My first console was an N64. But since I had a GBC, which was loaded with sequels or ports to NES games, it was essentilly a portable NES. And thus, I love classic games. My favourite GBA game is Metroid Zero Mission, for example. I've played Fusion.. but it just just.. lacked something. I dunno what.

On the other side of the coin, however- I am tired of only seeing older games in 'Best Games Ever' lists. Nostalgia is the only reason that something like Pokemon Yellow (which I have nothing against, mind you) is ranked better than something like Tales of Symphonia.

Sense @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

I'm to lazy to read all the comments but I've gotten the gist and I will say this:

Older games can be surprisingly immersive. Even Pac-Man, though it's not one of my favorites. You'd be surprised how invested you can become during a sword fight in Zelda II. And Street Fighter remains one of the most well-balanced and well-made fighters ever created.

I don't think you need to force your kids to play them, just play them yourself. If it's a good game and your kid watches you play it, your kid will want to play it as well.

My advice, start with an old school co-op game, say, Contra or Gunstar Heroes. Let the old school gaming commence.

James @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

The classics are always worthy of a second look. The entertainment value is in the challenge and gameplay, not the polygon count. I would throw out a hundred new games before I would let Robotron or Defender/Stargate out of my clutches.

notrealdan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:06PM

Schools teach (or at least try to teach) children all about art, literature, and even some film. Consider that entertainment is such a large part of people's lifestyles these days, and games are being compared more and more to film and literature for thier immersion and story-telling ability. Maybe this is a crazy idea, but shouldn't schools be teaching kids about games? I would consider it completely relevant for kids to learn about how video games started back in the days of Pong, Atari, etc. all the way up to the current gen. The big problem I see here is that teachers and school administrators aren't exactly the types that know enough about games to teach about them. Then again, how many here have encountered teachers who didn't really understand the material they were covering?

This sort of thing is already around on a college level, but I'm thinking more of an elementary school level. I can't think of anything that would've gotten my attention better than a school text book titled "Mario to Master Chief: A History of Video Games."

I certainly would've had better grades...

BTW, bring on the "violence in video games in schools" flames.