Choose: Only play games you've played, or only play new games, forever.

[AirVillain | 490]

 

On 10/30/2023 at 12:41 PM, Reed Rothchild said:

Nope, it's science.  Every year at least 10-20 titles are released that are superior to Double Dragon.  It cannot hope to compete with the Silksongs of the world. And I say that as a pretty big fan of DD too:

Hmmm... the "science" seems a bit dubious.

Also, to be clear.... I'd like to use Double Dragon 2 as the example here. DD isn't that great of a game.


 

On 10/30/2023 at 12:53 PM, Link said:

….

 

It was Brickman, quoted here:

On 10/17/2023 at 2:19 PM, Brickman said:

It’s not like I lose those memories. I will still remember the first time playing SMB3. And just checking you know that you can play old games right? You don’t lose the ability to play old games. I’ve personally never played MM besides 2 so I’ll still get to enjoy all those games on the NES and SNES.

Also, this will probably make you pass out but Battletoads, Double Dragon2 and TMNT aren’t that great. I’d much rather play Celeste, cuphead or darkest dungeon.

 

 

On 10/30/2023 at 3:23 PM, Brickman said:

Oooo Blasphemy is a great game. Thanks for reminding me of another great modern game that’s better than DD 

DD and Battletoads are good games but that’s about it, good. There’s so many better games that have come out since then. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over not playing them.

I’m the type of person who likes to try new things and experience new art. If I had to lock myself in a bubble of playing the same games I’d probably end up hating the hobby because it would be so boring. Same goes for watching the same movies or reading the same books.

Experiencing new things helps me learn and evolve my opinions on subjects. Stagnation is boring to me and makes me think of people sitting in a nursing home waiting to die 

It also seems like I’ve played less games than you so I still have a lot of 8-16bit games I could play.

I'm not going to lose sleep over not playing DD2 or Battletoads, but knowing I'll never play them again would be big shoes to fill for new games.

Yeah, I get it. I mean.... experiencing new things IS important. But we're talking about video games here. Are playing new games helping you evolve your character on important subjects of the world? Probably not...

I get what you're saying.... although I haven't played THAT many NES/SNES games (average I thought?) so for me it's more about the unknown.

If you choose the "new games" option, then you have NO IDEA what you're getting yourself into and could very well not enjoy some of the games. Whereas, with the "games you've played" option, you at least know that you'll be able to go back to the "classics" that you know and love.

So... one option you KNOW you will love, and the other option is a "maybe". So I would 100% pick the guaranteed win.... especially when SMB3 is part of the equation.
 

On 10/31/2023 at 4:38 PM, Link said:

Airvillain posturing notwithstanding, those are the key words

Posturing...? Me?

Like... trying to make something more important that it actually is?

Isn't that EVERYTHING we do here?

[Brickman | 4,002]

19 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

Yeah, I get it. I mean.... experiencing new things IS important. But we're talking about video games here. Are playing new games helping you evolve your character on important subjects of the world? Probably not...

I get what you're saying.... although I haven't played THAT many NES/SNES games (average I thought?) so for me it's more about the unknown.

If you choose the "new games" option, then you have NO IDEA what you're getting yourself into and could very well not enjoy some of the games. Whereas, with the "games you've played" option, you at least know that you'll be able to go back to the "classics" that you know and love.

Of course not, I don’t play video games to learn important historical facts or world politics, that’s why I read books (never re read a book either  ). But it does give you a more rounded experience and knowledge of video games and how they have progressed and what games are good and bad. Sure you could read about it but nothing beats actually experiencing it.

Imagine if Reed made a top 100 games list but had only played the NES. Not exactly a balanced list. Or what if I want to discuss the best JRPGs of all time but only had played a couple NES RPGs? Well that would make me look uninformed and a one track opinion.

Also the option isn’t new games only it is games I haven’t played. Like I said, I haven’t played many MM games but there are countless videos and game reviews so it’s pretty safe to say I am not taking much of a gamble giving them a go.

But I also love the thrill of discovering new games. To me that is an exciting part of the hobby, playing a game I know very little about and finding out if it’s great or a total dud is fun. It also means I could share that with other gamers if they ever ask for recommendations. You on the other hand will be telling everyone about DD and Battletoads for the rest of your life 

P.S really loving the discussion here  

[Reed Rothchild | 9,561]

39 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

Hmmm... the "science" seems a bit dubious.

Nope, it's crystal clear.  Did movies stagnate after the early days of silent pictures?  Hell to the fucking no.  Shit spent the next 100 years bringing it strong to the basket 

[Link | 2,715]

5 hours ago, AirVillain said:

So... one option you KNOW you will love, and the other option is a "maybe".

This is basically my line of thinking. However: 

5 hours ago, AirVillain said:

If you choose the "new games" option, then you have NO IDEA what you're getting yourself into and could very well not enjoy some of the games.

while this is true, the pool of “new games” is effectively infinite. “Some of the games” is also true of those you have already played. Very small problem to base an argument on.

5 hours ago, AirVillain said:

Posturing...? Me?

How far back do I need to go to see what this is regarding from over a week ago?

[AirVillain | 490]

On 11/8/2023 at 8:39 PM, Brickman said:

You on the other hand will be telling everyone about DD and Battletoads for the rest of your life 

P.S really loving the discussion here  

All true. I can admit, though. I don't care to be a "rounded" gamer. There are some genres I hate and don't bother playing at all, haha. I get it, though.

I mean, I like discovering new games too, of course. Like when I saw Gloves play Adventures of Dino Riki and I thought to myself "Why in the hell haven't I played this game??" Does that count?

Haha... I lol'd thinking about the old man yelling at clouds.

 

 

On 11/8/2023 at 8:48 PM, Reed Rothchild said:

Nope, it's crystal clear.  Did movies stagnate after the early days of silent pictures?  Hell to the fucking no.  Shit spent the next 100 years bringing it strong to the basket 

Okay, so if you want to use the film analogy and go all the way to silent films, then yeah.... it's impossible to say movies haven't gotten "better". But I'd argue that's strictly from a technical perspective, and doesn't account for the "heart" or quality of the film.

Because you can't fault those filmmakers for the technical limitations they faced because there just simply wasn't any technology to make the films any differently at the time.

Sure, the technical abilities were very limited, so it's a stretch, but if you use the examples of films that were at least able to use some editing and music and they are still considered great films. Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz....

So if you take a recent film like Space Jam: a New Legacy and compare it to Wizard of Oz... sure, Space Jam is technically "better" but because it's newer does that make it a BETTER film? I think not.

So when you bring that to video games, I'd say that some of the games on NES are the "greatest" because of the quality of the game itself, not necessarily its technical capacities. The stories told given the limited capacity and game design for SOME games (I can fully admit about 80% of the NES library is trash) is basically PERFECT.

The tightness of controls in Contra, DD2, or SMB3 for example. I find "new" games especially platformers and beat 'em ups, lose some of that quality of control.

Is it because of the joystick, the more complicated graphics/game coding, the wireless controller, my own personal biases, etc??? I don't know.... but new games never "feel" as good. Also, I will readily admit that the NES controller is my favourite of all time, and I dislike other controllers because they don't "feel" as comfortable.

I guess what I'm saying is.... I refuse to move on from what's comfortable in my life and in no way does that reflect any subconscious need for comfort at all.

 

On 11/9/2023 at 1:28 AM, Link said:

This is basically my line of thinking. However: 

while this is true, the pool of “new games” is effectively infinite. “Some of the games” is also true of those you have already played. Very small problem to base an argument on.

How far back do I need to go to see what this is regarding from over a week ago?

I hear ya... there are infinite new games, while some we know are limited.... it's not the entire base, it's just part of it. The "unknown" is something is typically something I'd want to avoid when dealing with frog dong making Wizards, that's all.

Also, I don't know about the last part, you said it, haha.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,561]

3 hours ago, AirVillain said:

Okay, so if you want to use the film analogy and go all the way to silent films, then yeah.... it's impossible to say movies haven't gotten "better". But I'd argue that's strictly from a technical perspective, and doesn't account for the "heart" or quality of the film.

Because you can't fault those filmmakers for the technical limitations they faced because there just simply wasn't any technology to make the films any differently at the time.

Yes, I can and will.

Does Safety Last have more heart or quality than The Godfather or Shawshank Redemption?  Hell no.  They were still figuring shit out back then.  The craft had to be refined for a decade or ten.  More and better talent had to find its way into the artform.  Things like pacing, acting, blocking, cinematography, they were all in their infancy.

Did art plateau after cave drawings?  Did writing peak with papyrus scrolls?

[Rhuno | 109]

Easy: I'll take the games I know and love. They're still largely the games I play today anyway.

I can live without patches, microtransactions and online multiplayer.

[AirVillain | 490]

18 hours ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Did art plateau after cave drawings?  Did writing peak with papyrus scrolls?

No, but this does not categorically make any new art "better" than old art.

[Brickman | 4,002]

6 hours ago, AirVillain said:

No, but this does not categorically make any new art "better" than old art.

But that’s not the point of the argument. The point is that with history in other media we can draw the conclusion that we stand a very good chance that until we die there are going to be excellent games coming out worth playing that will be equally or even better than older games.

It doesn’t mean those older games won’t still be good, but we stand an excellent chance of playing something better than DD2 for example.

The Wizard of Oz will always be a great movie but then some new hot shot made movies like Psycho and Rear Window. Then another young gun came around and made Star Wars.

Unfortunately you’ll still be playing the equivalent of The Wizard of Oz while we’re off playing the equivalent of Psycho or Star Wars.

[Link | 2,715]

1 hour ago, Brickman said:

But that’s not the point of the argument. The point is that with history in other media we can draw the conclusion that we stand a very good chance that until we die there are going to be excellent games coming out worth playing that will be equally or even better than older games.

Well, that's your point. And it's a good one. But there are other points, and your portrayal of the "already" choice as just plain wrong isn't really fair. I mean, look at the poll results.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,561]

14 minutes ago, Link said:

Well, that's your point. And it's a good one. But there are other points, and your portrayal of the "already" choice as just plain wrong isn't really fair. I mean, look at the poll results

Depends on the crowd.  VGS by it's very nature is composed of nostalgists.  A Resetera poll would be opposite.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,561]

8 hours ago, AirVillain said:

No, but this does not categorically make any new art "better" than old art.

I'm going to say sheer volume ensures 500+ films better than Safety Last! have been released in the last 100 years.  It's a numbers game.

[Link | 2,715]

6 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Depends on the crowd. 

Of course it does. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. This is literally "would you rather". It's all just opinions. I have always hated this kind of question, because I don't like to make such choices. Thankfully it's all hypothetical and also honestly silly.

It's 51 vs 49 for me, don't tell me to open my eyes, y'know? It's also a financial/priorities question factoring into my consideration.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,561]

Just now, Link said:

Of course it does. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. This is literally "would you rather". It's all just opinions. I have always hated this kind of question, because I don't like to make such choices. Thankfully it's all hypothetical and also honestly silly.

It's 51 vs 49 for me, don't tell me to open my eyes, y'know? It's also a financial/priorities question factoring into my consideration.

I think it's just a debate, which is obviously my thing

[Link | 2,715]

49 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

I think it's just a debate, which is obviously my thing

Fair enough.

[Brickman | 4,002]

1 hour ago, Link said:

Of course it does. But that doesn't mean it's wrong. This is literally "would you rather". It's all just opinions. I have always hated this kind of question, because I don't like to make such choices. Thankfully it's all hypothetical and also honestly silly.

It's 51 vs 49 for me, don't tell me to open my eyes, y'know? It's also a financial/priorities question factoring into my consideration.

Yeah at the end of the day we're just talking hypothetical here and hopefully having some fun seeing which side of the fence people are on. I've really enjoyed AirVillian's replies and hopefully he has felt similar with Reed and me.

As Reed said, I think the results are very skewed because of the demographic of the forum. Majority lean to not moving past a certain era of games and replaying them, but if you went somewhere else we'd definitely get different results. 

I don't think that the people who voted the other way are wrong, I just like to debate my side to see if it might change some people's minds  At the end of the day people have to live their own life and play the games how they see fit. I'm glad we have so far been able to have a civilised debate.

[Rhuno | 109]

4 hours ago, Brickman said:

Unfortunately you’ll still be playing the equivalent of The Wizard of Oz while we’re off playing the equivalent of Psycho or Star Wars.

Whether that's unfortunate or not depends on who you're asking. If you said we're watching a movie right now and my choices are Star Wars, Psycho or The Wizard of Oz, I'm taking The Wizard of Oz because it's a better movie.

[Brickman | 4,002]

23 minutes ago, Rhuno said:

Whether that's unfortunate or not depends on who you're asking. If you said we're watching a movie right now and my choices are Star Wars, Psycho or The Wizard of Oz, I'm taking The Wizard of Oz because it's a better movie.

Wow really? Even Empire Strikes Back?

[Rhuno | 109]

34 minutes ago, Brickman said:

Wow really? Even Empire Strikes Back?

Sure, but I'm not much of a Star Wars guy. I mean, if I'm watching Star Wars it's going to be the original trilogy, no doubt, but there are plenty of movies I'd rather watch.

I think everyone's in agreement that there's no right or wrong answer in this case. Neither the new or the old is objectively better, because ultimately, the enjoyment of the media is subjective to the individual.

[AirVillain | 490]

On 11/13/2023 at 2:21 PM, Brickman said:

But that’s not the point of the argument. The point is that with history in other media we can draw the conclusion that we stand a very good chance that until we die there are going to be excellent games coming out worth playing that will be equally or even better than older games.

It doesn’t mean those older games won’t still be good, but we stand an excellent chance of playing something better than DD2 for example.

The Wizard of Oz will always be a great movie but then some new hot shot made movies like Psycho and Rear Window. Then another young gun came around and made Star Wars.

Unfortunately you’ll still be playing the equivalent of The Wizard of Oz while we’re off playing the equivalent of Psycho or Star Wars.

But... that IS the point. Reed's saying that because a game/art is made later that it's "better", when that's not necessarily true.

This conclusion you are drawing is based on some pretty heavy assumptions.... I can agree that there will be excellent games that come out, but to so confidentially say they will be "equally or even better than older games." is the stretch... and a gamble I'm unwilling to take.

Please see below re: Wizard of Oz vs. Psycho...

 

On 11/13/2023 at 4:25 PM, Reed Rothchild said:

I'm going to say sheer volume ensures 500+ films better than Safety Last! have been released in the last 100 years.  It's a numbers game.

Okay, so this is , of course, technically true.

The same can be said for a host (all?) of games on the Atari.

BUT.... If we're talking about Wizard of Oz, or DD2/Contra/Battletoads then that's a fair comparison.

BECAUSE LISTEN TO THIS: No matter how "good" or "how much better" a new movie is, it will NEVER EVER be as good as The Wizard of Oz. Same can be said about DD2, Contra, or Battletoads.

No matter how "good" a new game is that comes out, it can NEVER be as good as DD2/Contra/BT because they were FIRST and they ARE the bar inwhich all other games will be judged.

We are not judging all future games off Atari or pong... no... we're judging them off the REAL OG's.

Since these games were the GOAT's first, this means they are CATEGORICALLY "better" than anything to come.

It's like comparing Lebron and Michael. You can't. Michael came first, he'll always be the GOAT.

And so, moving forward, you're going to be always chasing perfection.... which.... can never come.

It's like people who get addicted to heroine/meth/Oxycontin... they are chasing the first/best high they got.

I don't ever want to search for a game as good as SMB3.... NOTHING can ever live up, it's literally impossible.

 

On 11/13/2023 at 6:19 PM, Brickman said:

Yeah at the end of the day we're just talking hypothetical here and hopefully having some fun seeing which side of the fence people are on. I've really enjoyed AirVillian's replies and hopefully he has felt similar with Reed and me.

As Reed said, I think the results are very skewed because of the demographic of the forum. Majority lean to not moving past a certain era of games and replaying them, but if you went somewhere else we'd definitely get different results. 

I don't think that the people who voted the other way are wrong, I just like to debate my side to see if it might change some people's minds  At the end of the day people have to live their own life and play the games how they see fit. I'm glad we have so far been able to have a civilised debate.

Fun...? Are we supposed to be having fun???



Haha, jokes... Yeah, it's all just fun for me.

Of course the results are skewed by the forum, haha.... But that's what makes it even more funny to me. Of course we don't want to give up SMB3, good God man!

I agree, though, in terms of the voting and the way someone else wants to enjoy their games, I don't think anyone is wrong. If someone wanted to take the frog dick life, then hey... you do you!

The issue is when people (*coughs @Reed Rothchild ) start throwing around the term "better". THAT'S where we have an issue. That's where someone can be "wrong".

Sometimes I WISH I liked some of the other games other people did (FPS', for example.... people are being paid to play that shit, and I'm just not interested) but at the end of the day there's just some games I just don't like.

I also appreciate the civilized debate.

And we get little nuggets like someone being surprised someone likes Wizard of Oz over a Star Wars movie. Brick... Not everyone likes sci-fi movies with cheesy dialogue and explosions.  Wait... WoO is kind of a sci-fi movie? And there are explosions?

[Reed Rothchild | 9,561]

12 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

The issue is when people (*coughs @Reed Rothchild ) start throwing around the term "better". THAT'S where we have an issue. That's where someone can be "wrong".

You literally have a thread screaming about how much "better" Mario 3 is than Mario World 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,561]

34 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

But... that IS the point. Reed's saying that because a game/art is made later that it's "better", when that's not necessarily true.

Nope, straw man.  My favorite game of all time is from 1991, and the rest of my top ten range from many different eras across the last 30+ years, so this is a blatantly false accusation.  Great games are great, regardless of the generation they are released as a part of.

I'm saying shutting yourself out of of the 50,000 games we'll see in the next 20 years because you're afraid none of them will be as good as Double Dragon II is... well, you are allowed to feel that way but the math and history ain't on your side.

[Link | 2,715]

27 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

, it can NEVER be as good as DD2/Contra/BT because they were FIRST

So, a sequel is a first?  

28 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

Wait... WoO is kind of a sci-fi movie?

It’s fantasy. But yes, there are reasons fantasy and SF are often paired. Nobody would call LoZ series science fiction but you see it in the electrical /robot /golem /glowing stuff. Or look at MotU.

On 11/13/2023 at 5:19 PM, Brickman said:

the results are very skewed because of the demographic of the forum. Majority lean to not moving past a certain era of games and replaying them, but if you went somewhere else we'd definitely get different results. 

Well. Yes. But half of that is people who don’t care about anything but the latest Madden or COD, (or whatever the current hot franchises are). 

[AirVillain | 490]

25 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Nope, straw man.  My favorite game of all time is from 1991, and the rest of my top ten range from many different eras across the last 30+ years, so this is a blatantly false accusation.  Great games are great, regardless of the generation they are released as a part of.

I'm saying shutting yourself out of of the 50,000 games we'll see in the next 20 years because you're afraid none of them will be as good as Double Dragon II is... well, you are allowed to feel that way but the math and history ain't on your side.

I'm not using any straw man arguments here... You've been saying this whole time that "art keeps getting better" and blah blah, blah... IMPLYING that anything older CAN'T be better, so to come in now to say something different is not a good representation of your previous arguments.

So now, yeah, of course you can come in with your condescending "Math and history ain't on your side" bullshit because you've changed what you're saying, haha.

So if your favourite game is from 1991, your math and history telling you there will FOR SURE be a "better" game, that you like more, come out before you die because "That'S hOw MAtH wOrKS"???

Okay, then... I guess that game from 1991 isn't that good.

 

30 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

You literally have a thread screaming about how much "better" Mario 3 is than Mario World 

Yeah, but that's a different situation entirely. It's a specific example of a comparison of two games. You are blanketing the ENTIRE VIDEO GAME/ART world with your comments. As stated: Your entire argument up until now has been "it's newer so it has to be better".

This is the truth right here: You're favourite game is from 1991. There is literally NO WAY to know with 100% certainty that a new game will come out in the future that you will like that much/better. It's impossoble for you to know that. IT. IS. IMPOSSIBLE. There is a 0% chance that you can know that.

But you know what IS possible? It IS possible that you already know what your favourite game is. You've already stated that it's the game from 1991. That you know with 100% certainty.

So you know from your history with this game, and are 100% certain right now that it is your favourite game.

So, I'll ask you... if you change that, and take the unknown that the future holds, why do you think math and history are on your side?

 

5 minutes ago, Link said:

So, a sequel is a first?  

It’s fantasy. But yes, there are reasons fantasy and SF are often paired. Nobody would call LoZ series science fiction but you see it in the electrical /robot /golem /glowing stuff. Or look at MotU.

Well. Yes. But half of that is people who don’t care about anything but the latest Madden or COD, (or whatever the current hot franchises are). 

Haha, yeah good point on the DD2. But my point still stands! The game is good enough to stand on its own.

Slightly irrelevant to my argument as well. They (DD or DD3) could be used in other people arguments interchangebly I'm sure.

Point is: The bar is high. And as just stated: We know with 100% certainty with one option, and the other we can't know. So, I'm going to take the one with certainty... again... especially when SMB3 is involved.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,561]

52 minutes ago, AirVillain said:

I'm not using any straw man arguments here... You've been saying this whole time that "art keeps getting better" and blah blah, blah... IMPLYING that anything older CAN'T be better, so to come in now to say something different is not a good representation of your previous arguments.

So now, yeah, of course you can come in with your condescending "Math and history ain't on your side" bullshit because you've changed what you're saying, haha.

So if your favourite game is from 1991, your math and history telling you there will FOR SURE be a "better" game, that you like more, come out before you die because "That'S hOw MAtH wOrKS"???

Okay, then... I guess that game from 1991 isn't that good.

Nope, I'm right on the money.  wRiTiNg liKe tHiS doesn't lend your post credence either, for the record 

The industry evolves and only gets bigger and more elaborate.  Games were great in the 80s, and the 90s, and the 2000s, and continue to be great today.  Great new things and ideas are always coming to the table.  Only now they came faster, and in greater numbers.  My favorite game came out in 1991.  Elden Ring is every bit as good, and came out in 2022.  They both get a place of honor in my gaming hall of fame.  That will only continue as amazing new games come out.

Battletoads is a great game.  Probably in my NES top 5.  Didn't stop playing til I got the 1CC.  But 20 Battletoads come out every year now.  There's too much talent out there, too much experience, and too many people who grew up with great games and are carrying the gaming torch by making great new ones.  Every year Battletoads slips lower and lower in my top 100 games of all time list because it's up against an ever-better field that's always increasing in size.  That's nothing against Battletoads.  It's just.... the numbers. 

It's a free country, and we're all old men.  No one would fault you for sticking to your childhood classics because keeping up with the constant flood of new content requires way too much time, energy, and money.  Because it does.  You want to stick to a 5 year period from gaming's early days?  Go for it.  Most people eventually do that as they get older.  But that doesn't mean all of those newer games that you haven't actually played aren't great