Lets walk this thread through shall we? We have a thread title - "Timeless games that still hold up today?" followed by a comment by the OP stating the exact same thing.
People then follow with responses like Galaga, Tetris and Breakout which are, IMO, legitimate answers.
OP then says "Thinking something more modernish. Some games just get so boring while others just don't."
My first reponse was, in part - "Lots of the 2600 library is still eminently playable today. Games don't have to be "modernish" to hold up well. A good game is a good game from any period. " - my thought reading through the thread was (1) the thread never mentioned that games needed to be post-NES to qualify as timeless and (2) there are plenty of timeless games on the 2600 and those early systems. Remember, I said "lots" of the 2600 library, not all. Of course it's full of shovelware, no one is saying it isn't. There are still dozens of 'timeless' games from that era like Donkey Kong, Asteroids, Pacman, Robotron, Defender, etc. Even if you want to dismiss the 2600, those original arcade games ARE timeless and those who originally mentioned galaga, tetris and breakout never even mentioned the 2600. YOU were the first one to bring up the 2600. I assumed they were talking about the arcade versions anyway. Another poster then goes on to talk about Galaga and you continue to bring up the 2600. Galaga isn't even on the 2600!
At this point you move from the argument of what constitutes "timeless" to accusing me of letting my nostalgia cloud my judgement and that people who talk retro don't even think atari and that atari has "aged terribly" and is worthless besides a handful of games. A blanket statement which is blatantly false. I countered that Atari is not only still a popular retro system that has a thriving community and active homebrew scene which makes it far from "worthless" but that nostalgia isn't the driving force. If it was, homebrews wouldn't be as popular as they are. It's the arcade style of game that still holds up - hence games like Galaga, Tetris, and Breakout are still eminently playable today
Then you go on a rant which began with a completely false statement about those who grew up in those "short Atari years". Seriously? One of the longest running systems EVER which had a shelf life from 1977 - 1992? Other than maybe the PS2 it's the longest running console. I could tell from that first sentence I was dealing with someone who doesn't know their video game history. Follow that with wild assumptions that no one actually plays the 2600, we just let them collect dust. Not true, see Atariage again, which I doubt you will. You continue with something that, again, everyone knows and is not the argument at hand - Atari made massive mistakes and made a ton of shovelware. Again, that doesn't mean there are no "timeless" games from that era. Remember, the topic YOU started?
Then you make some pretty bizarre statements - "Why does it even need a homebrew scene every few months, or even matter if the games were timeless? People wouldn't need to try and remember. It's irrelevant, if it was timeless it wouldn't need life support to try and stay relevant today. It's nothing but a show piece, and people showing there programing skills for a high price."
Homebrew scene every few months? What does that even mean? Why does it matter if the games were timeless? Seriously? That's what we're talking about!!
People wouldn't need to try to remember? They don't need to. The 2600 is still in the collective conscience of the modern world. Everyone remembers it who was around then. If it was timeless it wouldn't need life support? Like the NES which is still being sold in stores today? Or the Genesis? Or any other now discontinued video game system?
It's obvious you have a deep bias for anything before the NES which in and of itself is fine but don't pretend that some of those games still don't hold up well today. That's my problem with your stance from the beginning.
First off it doesnt have to "post-NES" I said I would prefer it to make the disccusion more interesting I didn't say it's FORBIDDEN
as you're just stating the obvious cult titles everyone on the planet has heard already. Why do you think i'm saying old games
are all bad? I never said that.I don't even own any modern games? where are you getting this from?
You do know not a single one of those games your mentioned is exclusive or even best version? Why would anyone logically speaking want to play pac man on the atari 2600 than the NES, or any other version that outclasses it in every way possible from playablity, graphics, and sound? Other than just giving it the sentiment ,or show piece. Yes bravo programing it for the
the atari but a timeless version no ,or your just running on nostalgia if you won't even listen to reason how crappy these ports actually were in the run of things. They're not "timeless" you can try and fog this point if you want but just having a monologue i've already given the definition so we have something to go off.
Next your gripe over me saying I Would prefer more modernish titles of 1985+ and that somehow equals I hate retro games?
I don't even own any modern games! I'm not sure the point your making with this i've already given
you examples and facts why the atari is less timeless than say the NES. You can try and blur, and fog the this point with a liberal stance if you want but it's false dichotomy, again has nothing to do with the discussion. I've already said I like atari, and activision games on atari were gold standard. But the argument has been made. Saying "SOME PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH YOU
I KNOW SOMEONE WHO LIKES ATARI YOU'RE JUST A HATER THE HOMBREW SCENE IS HUGE THESE ARE TIMELESS GAMES" again not an argument, and you didn't reason it all the points made because it's totally avoiding the meat of the discussion asked if your not capable of looking at it empirical stand point in the run of things. I'm well aware of how ground breaking these ports were at the time but what does it matter if it's on the NES a year later and improved 10x? It's not timeless.
"A blanket statement which is blatantly false."
Again this isn't an argument the games are worthless because they're indeed worthless you can buy 10 atari games for a few dollars today but that's nothing in retro pricing atari is close to the bottom. Hence worthless. (Btw Yes I know there's a few extremely rare atari games around the crash but there few and far between. Anyway it's not what the disccusion was
about.) While the NES, sega, and others enjoy much higher values. Yes this is open to debate why. But my guess i'm going to say they were fun, and set a quality standard never seen before the crash not always perfect but it was
a hell lot better than the atari generation had. From level design bright colours, music, playablity.. The list goes on There's plenty people on here who can explain to you why this is, far better than me. If you bothered to read what's already been said. But there seems to be in an agreeance, if you disagree you can make the argument why but you
haven't done that yet. But there seems to be in an agreeance, if you disagree you can make the argument why but you
haven't done that yet.
Your argument was when I said i'm looking for timeless games I think it's been made pretty clear that means playability included, and most atari games don't hold up to this besides the obvious cult classics not to mention most had superior ports on NES,
reasons been already stated why on the thread you jump to "BUT ATARI HAS A HUGE HOMEBREW SCENE AND A WEBSITE NOT BAD FOR SOMETHING YOU CONSIDER ""WORTHLESS"" YOU JUST HATE ATARI PETULANT CHILD!!" Again you can reason if you want but not sure what this has to do with if double dragon , pac man, donkey kong, zaxxon, burgertime, or rampage is more timeless port than just about everything that came after it. But it's not timeless games they have aged terribly you're just ignoring the reality.
Yes obviously it had late releases so what? The dreamcast had offical games coming out in 06-07 hell it still has games coming out today but it was game over in 2001, and the atari was game over when the NES came as far as relevance goes no one cared about double dragon, or an array of other crappy ports on atari 2600, and most of there exclusives were ported to
intellivison, and NES. The point being they weren't timeless.
"Atari made massive mistakes and made a ton of shovelware. Again, that doesn't mean there are no "timeless" games from
that era. Remember, the topic YOU started?"
Erm.. are you capable of telling difference between "most", and "all" I never said that. Again I said i'm looking for something more modernish ports like double dragon on atari are of no importance to this discussion. The NES version is superior so it's automatically more timeless than the atari version.
You're the only one with bias you can't put down the fact that atari holds no wieght today only those who grew up with atari mention it. Yes alright I know a tall chinese person as well. But we are speaking in statistics here. If you think they hold up better
make the argument you haven't done that. This was about what games were timeless, repetitiveness isn't a characteristic.
