Game Debate #193: Pitfall

[Reed Rothchild | 9,545]

Disagree.

All of gaming is one giant family to me.  I'll play whatever is good, regardless of console or generation.  But if you want my time in 2024, you have the bring something to the table, because it's an ever-increasingly crowded scene.  What are you doing for me lately game?  Because if you need special treatment and can't handle being compared to your successors, you're probably just not that good.

[guitarzombie | 924]

39 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

Disagree.

All of gaming is one giant family to me.  I'll play whatever is good, regardless of console or generation.  But if you want my time in 2024, you have the bring something to the table, because it's an ever-increasingly crowded scene.  What are you doing for me lately game?  Because if you need special treatment and can't handle being compared to your successors, you're probably just not that good.

I understand that these polls are based on "Your experience" and not "historical significance" but saying a game from 40 years ago has to bring something to the table that games 40 years after, that were built off of those ideas and technology that didn't exist back then, is a silly way to look at things because perspective is INCREDIBLY important.

That would be saying any piece of art today has a significant advantage over anything in the past because of modern innovations that didn't exist then.  Why watch Nosferatu?  It has no sound or color, but "The Room" does, so it must be better.  Or that literally every single metal musician is a better guitar player than Jimi Hendrix.  Except Kirk Hammett.

[DefaultGen | 5,410]

1 hour ago, guitarzombie said:

Same.  Its stupid for people to give it a low score for comparing it to any other later alternatives.  For what it was at the time, Id argue its the best Atari 2600 game period.

Don’t blame me, blame Reed’s evil rules.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,545]

3 minutes ago, DefaultGen said:

Don’t blame me, blame Reed’s evil rules.

 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,545]

1 hour ago, guitarzombie said:

I understand that these polls are based on "Your experience" and not "historical significance" but saying a game from 40 years ago has to bring something to the table that games 40 years after, that were built off of those ideas and technology that didn't exist back then, is a silly way to look at things because perspective is INCREDIBLY important.

That would be saying any piece of art today has a significant advantage over anything in the past because of modern innovations that didn't exist then.  Why watch Nosferatu?  It has no sound or color, but "The Room" does, so it must be better.  Or that literally every single metal musician is a better guitar player than Jimi Hendrix.  Except Kirk Hammett.

I'd say it's more like comparing cave art to a piece of art.  The former may be important, but it's still stick figures.

[Tulpa | 3,510]

15 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

I'd say it's more like comparing cave art to a piece of art.  The former may be important, but it's still stick figures.

I don't know about that. I literally just finished playing a simple browser game where you and the computer had stick figure archers shooting at each other, and had a blast for several minutes. 

Was it a game I would play for hours and hours? No. But it was fun for what it was. 

[DefaultGen | 5,410]

Being old doesn’t necessarily equate to cave drawings. Robotron came out the same year and is still a lot more crazy and fun than many twin stick shooters. I don’t think Pitfall is one of the ones that compares favorably to even most games that came out just 2 years afterwards though.

[Reed Rothchild | 9,545]

52 minutes ago, DefaultGen said:

Being old doesn’t necessarily equate to cave drawings. Robotron came out the same year and is still a lot more crazy and fun than many twin stick shooters. I don’t think Pitfall is one of the ones that compares favorably to even most games that came out just 2 years afterwards though.

I think in the case of the Atari 2600 it does about 90%+ of the time.  Every now and then an Easter Island or Stonehenge slips through.

The NES was the Italian renaissance.

[wongojack | 215]

9 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

I think in the case of the Atari 2600 it does about 90%+ of the time.  Every now and then an Easter Island or Stonehenge slips through.

The NES was the Italian renaissance.

But the problem with this view is that someone younger can just come along and give you the same argument for a NES game that you think is a 10 out of 10 and eternal.

I've found that if I am going to play a game that is "before my time" that I should adjust my perspective to properly enjoy it.

I also agree that Pitfall! does not fare particularly well even with a generous amount of perspective.

Edited March 2 by wongojack

[Reed Rothchild | 9,545]

3 minutes ago, wongojack said:

But the problem with this view is that someone younger can just come along and give you the same argument for a NES game that you think is a 10 out of 10 and eternal.

I've found that if I am going to play a game that is "before my time" that I should adjust my perspective to properly enjoy it.

If that's their prerogative, they absolutely should do that.  I would hope their score reflects how they truly feel about playing the game.  Not some phony-baloney "I don't have a ton of fun playing this, but I need to temper those expectations because of the era this was released."

In fact, I think we did see that quite a bit with some of the NES threads like the original Legend of Zelda.  Which is good.  If everyone just gave it a "10 out of 10 because it's an important game" it wouldn't be much of a debate.

[wongojack | 215]

Just now, Reed Rothchild said:

If that's their prerogative, they absolutely should do that.  I would hope their score reflects how they truly feel about playing the game.  Not some phony-baloney "I don't have a ton of fun playing this, but I need to temper those expectations because of the era this was released."

I would probably discourage someone from grading a game higher just because they think they should.  Instead, I would encourage them to take a little more time and try to experience what other people enjoy about a specific game.  I can imagine that if someone was dismissive of one of your favorite NES games, you could give them some pointers to help them enjoy it from your perspective.

[Gloves | 11,790]

20 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

If that's their prerogative, they absolutely should do that.  I would hope their score reflects how they truly feel about playing the game.  Not some phony-baloney "I don't have a ton of fun playing this, but I need to temper those expectations because of the era this was released."

In fact, I think we did see that quite a bit with some of the NES threads like the original Legend of Zelda.  Which is good.  If everyone just gave it a "10 out of 10 because it's an important game" it wouldn't be much of a debate.

WAIT ARE THESE DEBATES!?!?

Fuck!

[Renmauzo | 1,201]

Pitfall! was the first game I played on the 2600 and I hated it. My play time with the game was full of "But I got the vine!!!" energy and drove me nuts. I went with a 3 here

[wongojack | 215]

42 minutes ago, Renmauzo said:

Pitfall! was the first game I played on the 2600 and I hated it. My play time with the game was full of "But I got the vine!!!" energy and drove me nuts. I went with a 3 here

Of course, vote what you think the game deserves. 

 

For me, I would personally hold my vote if I was basing it on a 40-year-old memory, and I do that all the time on these polls.  I don't really trust my memories or my opinions from that long ago.

[T-Pac | 7,560]

As much as I like to profess that all experiences are influenced by countless external factors, I'm with @Reed Rothchild that a game can be good or bad regardless of when it was released or how the medium evolved after it.

For me, primitive graphics and simple gameplay are way more appealing than crazy immersive, high-res, massive experiences. And as far as my preferences go - stuff like Barnstorming stacks-up to Mega Man X and Super Mario Galaxy and whatever the newest Zelda or Halo game is, WITHOUT any platform or era qualifiers.

I understand that's difficult to accept if you're personal preference is for more depth in games, but to me a good game is a good game no matter when it came out or what its technical limitations are.

[T-Pac]

[CMR | 520]

I think this is a nice debate about grading games objectively or subjectively.  Just to be clear about my own point of view, I do think Pitfall is a fun game.  There are plenty of games the world loves, however, that I don't.  I'm not a big fan of Pac-Man for instance.  I probably wouldn't give any traditional Pac-Man game a score above 6. 

[G-type | 2,482]

On 2/29/2024 at 2:43 PM, Reed Rothchild said:

 

Some Atari games for Survivor were okay.  But I don't think I'd ever play any of them outside of that.

I feel the same way about N64

[asmikace | 68]

Quote

 

I gave it a 7 for personal tastes and good platformer. It walked so Pitfall 2 can run.