Timeless games that still hold up today?

General and Gaming > Classic Video Games

<< < (12/20) > >>

evilnick:

--- Quote from: dreama1 on October 09, 2014, 07:21:57 pm ---
Most of them in there 30s, and 40s demographic most likely who grew up in those short atari years. How many of them actually sit down and play the atari rather than just let it collect dust is questionable. Yes you're right the homebrew scene is reasonablly big but I would hardly say the homebrew scene is for timeless playability rather than a collectors show piece for bragging rights. Seriously how long is someone going to sit down and play halo atari for presuming that don't have epilepsy yet. I'm guessing to make an educated guess not very long, or any atari game outside activisions quality standard, and some of the atari in house games. Why exactly do you think atari crashed and burned? Because the games were terribly repetitive even then and had no lasting appeal as a whole even worse so than the NES relying on nothing but pac man, space invader clones, and brand name to sell. Christ even the atari top CEO at the time a little time towards there demise said quote We could put shit inside a cartridge and it would sell a million copies" If you want my opinion the intellivision held up far better than atari ever had, in just about every way possible except for controls, and they were just getting started.

--- End quote ---

Your argument may be flawed from the start by stating "short Atari years." Atari dominated the gaming scene for the first two generations, and the 2600 ran successfully from 1977 to 1983, and even had a lingering life after that until the 90's. I grew up in the Atari and NES days, but I have a friend ten years younger than me that also grew up with the Atari 2600. That is hardly a system that had a short lifespan.

Atari didn't fail because they didn't have or make some great games or true classics. They failed because they couldn't change with the times properly, and they clung to hard to too many of their older franchises and ideals rather than changing, growing, or adapting them an era re-created in large part by Nintendo, but also by Sega. The other problem with Atari was that it had become further disconnected from the gaming industry by corporate sales and decisions. The 7800 was originally scrapped with the belief that the gaming industry was a dead fad until Nintendo revived it. The 7800 then became an after-thought still based on obsolete design concepts.

While Atari attempted to modernize with the Jaguar, there is ample evidence that the designers were still unable to properly change with the times and as the Jaguar was the last console released that still had a ridiculous and dated numeric pad on the controller which relied on overlays, rather than the modern controller set forth, again, by Nintendo.

People can be nostalgic for all kinds of things, good or bad. Nostalgia cannot be controlled or directed. It just happens.

desocietas:

--- Quote from: dashv on October 10, 2014, 02:38:09 am ---I agree with whoever said E.T.

While it's in my collection, I certainly have no time for that game. :)

--- End quote ---

lol, I see what you did there.

this is quite a popular thread you started ;D

It reminds me of another question I got the other day - if you could had only one game to play for the rest of your life, what would it be? Could potentially be tied to the same thing as what someone would consider "timeless" but also possibly not. Considering "timeless" doesn't necessarily mean that you'd want to play it over and over and over again.

I admit Tetris (my original answer) is simple, but it's definitely timeless to me, even with all the variations it's seen over time. Finding a more modern game that fits the bill is a little tougher as we get used to what graphics accompany a certain era or the limitations of the systems at that time. My friend and I popped open Geometry Wars 2 the other night and decided to look at Geometry Wars right afterwards and boy, did that game look outdated in comparison.

It's much harder for me to think of something that's more modern and still timeless, but I think a game like the original Katamari Damacy might fit the bill.

dreama1:

--- Quote from: atarileaf on October 10, 2014, 06:56:41 am ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.

davifus:
Wow, this thread went really sour... really fast.
E.T for the win.

maximo310:

--- Quote from: davifus on October 10, 2014, 04:39:14 pm ---Wow, this thread went really sour... really fast.
E.T for the win.

--- End quote ---
Speaking of E.T..

Navigation

 Message Index

Go to full version