Click to enlarge the pictures. They do matter and serve as a counter-point to my arguments.

You know, after writing a topic on demakes yesterday and watching the latest ZP video, it got me thinking about nostalgia:
“Were those old games really any good? Am I remembering them incorrectly? How do they compare to today’s games?”
For example, Yahtzee said that Twilight Princess is better than Ocarina of Time and that Mario Sunshine is a better game than Mario 64. According to him, he suggests that TP is better than OoT because it contains refined game mechanics and better graphics. In short, if you play the newer one before the older one, you’ll like the newer one and feel that the older one is a step back.
Well, actually I agree with that. But is Mario Sunshine better than Mario 64 for the same reasons? Not a chance in Hell, and I’m calling you out Ben. But why do I disagree? Have I fallen prey to nostalgia?
Nostalgia is what sells Bionic Commando: Rearmed. It’s the force that has sold more than 100,000 copies of Megaman 9. Appealing to our childhood is a good way to make a sale (Tigsource’s compo is certainly better for it.) But does nostalgia make bad games seem better than they are?
Yes. I don’t think there’s any way to argue that it doesn’t. Let’s face it, Croshaw is occasionally right and he nailed us on this one. Twilight Princess was everything Ocarina wasn’t. Go back and play Goldeneye and then YOU tell me that it’s a great shooter. Go try platforming in the old Prince of Persia after playing Assassin’s Creed. There are a lot of old games we like that, when examined as if for the first time, they aren’t the gems that we remember. What does that say about you? How did this happen!? MY CHILDHOOD IS RUINED.
Now, don’t panic. There are good reasons these mediocre games are fondly remembered. For example, in Goldeneye’s case, it was the only multiplayer shooter on the N64 for a long time. So it’s what you played. Over and over again. Maybe it was the only game you owned and you played it on boring afternoons, in-between rare trips to the rental store. Don’t worry, a lot of us fell into this trap.

Now it’s ten years later and you’re looking back at all your old games. But, of course, you look at them with the simple eyes of that child you were so many lifetimes ago. You love those games! And you’ll be damned if you’ll let a fool like me persuade you otherwise!
But has the crutch of nostalgia fooled you? It’s tough to separate our youth from our adult decision-making process. Let’s take a look at a concrete example: Sunshine. Mario Sunshine has better graphics! It has nifty water mechanics and reflections! Those secret levels are fun! It’s not on a crappy N64 controller! Yes, this is all true.
But I have a lot of rational gripes that good graphics simply can’t hide. I hate hunting for blue coins. Every time the princess speaks, I want to punch her face. The new boat physics simply don’t work. The ‘washing everything’ becomes really tiresome. And the level design (outside the secret stuff) is repetitive and boring.
You’ll notice that all of my problems with Sunshine stem from badly implemented ideas and tired level design. Super Mario Galaxy, on the other hand? That is a phenomenal game and clearly better than Mario 64. First off, the levels are great. The gameplay is smoother and has some nifty ideas. The story is better, even if it’s becoming tired by this point. And Rosalina is smoking hot.
So how do graphics matter? How does gameplay matter?
Sure graphics matter. But not every game needs super-awesome reflections or swaying grass or other nifty new tricks. I simply ask that a game maintains a distinct visual style. Some games can work in 2D just fine, they don’t need to be in 3D. And some old 2D games still look pretty okay even on older systems (like old Mario or Megaman games), because the artists have adhered to the technical limitations and worked hard to make it look good by any standard. Could they look better with newer technology? Sure, but they’re still pretty in their own way.

It’s not necessarily the level of detail that’s important, but how graphics can contribute to the overall ’style’ of the game’s presentation. We have to face it: art styles for games will end up as diverse as art styles for paintings or animation. There’s nothing wrong with black and white manga, even if 3D CG is technically more impressive.
This is not always the case. Some games just fail when it comes to the graphics. The truth is, OoT needed a lot more graphics punch to really pull it all off. Grand Theft Auto 4 won’t age well by these standards either. It reached for the stars, hoping to present an awesomely immersive environment. Instead we got pop-in, bad framerate, and other crappy issues.
You see, for games like this, the style isn’t an issue. They are simply borrowing from our reality. These games need all the technical tricks they can get. In other words, Oblivion looks nicer than Morrowind. Why? Because the technical level of the graphics makes the reality more immersive, since it’s emulating real life. But when you consider the visual style of World of Warcraft, it’s more appealing in some ways than Oblivion. Funny that.
The only other big factor for filtering nostalgia is considering the game mechanics. Is Megaman 9 a good game? It uses only two buttons and the idea is as old as mud. But I think it’s awesome. Why is that?
Well, when it comes to gameplay, I think about what the game is trying to accomplish and what it wants to offer me. I then measure it by it’s own standards instead of mine. For a game like Megaman 9 or Braid, 2 or 3 buttons is more than enough. But there are older games that simply don’t do right what their developers wanted. Either the camera was bad, the controller wasn’t complex enough or too big, or the ideas for handling the play control were immature. Once Z-Targeting was introduced, every game started working with it. Once move-able analog camera angles were introduced, everyone started working with it. You move with the left stick and aim with the right; this is a system we’ve all agreed upon.

So when I see a game upset or fail the status quo, (ie. no Strafing in RE4, switching look/move sticks, or using triangle to jump) I get pretty pissy. If the game offers nothing but confusion and frustration with this bizarre or old control scheme, then it’s hard to forgive. Well, guess what? Nostalgia is a huge culprit under these circumstances. Goldeneye had terrible controls by today’s standards. Two buttons doesn’t feel nearly enough for Street Fighter 2010. Some old games WERE simply limited by the standards of their time.
But I think there are simple game mechanics that work well and are still relative to us today. And I think describing simple control schemes as outdated is just false. The fact is, an idea like Megaman 9 doesn’t need more buttons. I think the presentation is great and even better than Megaman 8. I don’t care about all the fancy 3D possibilities, super Redbook audio, or anything else. Megaman 9 doesn’t need it to be good.
Ah, screw it. Forget my lengthy technical analysis of gameplay and graphics. You know what? The truth is simple. You can play an old game for the first time and still think it’s fun. This happens in my store every day. I get young kids coming into my store and playing my copy of Super Mario Bros. 3 with no idea what they’re doing. And they think it’s great.
mario, megaman, nostalgia, yahtzee, zelda, zero punctuation
































