HOW MUCH WEIGHT DO PEOPLE REALLY GIVE TO NOSTALGIA?

Posts

Pages: 1
"The games you liked as a kid really aren't that great, its mostly your nostalgia, bro."

It's a very, very common statement in video game conversations and debate all over. A lot of people argue if there is a noticiable difference in quality between older games and newer games, with proponents of the older generation stating that with many newer games, something has been lost. People on the other side of the debate usually state that older games aren't that great, and nostalgia fogs objectivity.

But personally, it never really applied to me. You see, when I was a kid/preteen (in the early-mid 90s) most of the video games that people were enjoying, I never played. I grew up poor as dirt, so my idea of fun was 'eating dinner today' and I spent most days playing outside with my brothers.

As I got older and my fortunes improved, my first real foray into video games was actually Playstation 2 and Xbox. Sure, the titles released on those consoles were and are great, but as I got older I started to explore backwards, and I got into many classic titles from the 16 bit era that are acclaimed, and even having never played them as a kid, I still found them super fun. Most of the classic games for SNES/Genesis I've played by now, but most of them I first started playing as a late teen or an adult. I have no nostalgia goggles for this sort of thing. Sure, new games are great, and video games have come REALLY far in the past decade. But I've had a total blast with older games as well.

So how much does nostalgia actually objectively factor into the quality of the games we've played? What are the differences between the new and the old?

EDIT: Yikes, can someone move this into the Videogames forum?
Well people do tend to remember things better than they actually were but that doesn't mean that old games aren't good. In fact its unfair to say that old 2d games are worse than 3d games or vice versa they are just different kinds of experiences and everyone is going to have there own opinion on whats better.

Is a first person shooter better than an old top down shooter? No they are just different experiences that can both be fun in there own way.

Is Final Fantasy 5's job classes better than Final Fantasy 10's sphere grid? Some will like one more than the other regardless. They are just different and thats a good thing.

Final Fantasy IV is my favorite in the series. Do I think it's the best? Eh probably not but whatever. So for me nostalgia definitely is a factor but thats certainly not the whole story. I could certainly give non nostalgic reasons for FF IV's greatness for example it has a more epic scope than any other Final Fantasy because it's the only one where you leave earth and go to the moon.

Well I think I started rambling but anyway hope that helps.
Nostalgia most definitely plays a role in our perspectives with older games versus the newer generation, but then again that's true of anything lol. No entertainment exists in a vacuum.

I think that because the video game industry was (comparably) much more of a "niche" scene, developers had a bit more freedom and creativity with what they were producing. (This isn't true of everything--there was plenty of crap back then, too--but I think on the whole it is.) The video game industry sadly exists much like Hollywood now... millions of dollars poured into "AAA" titles designed solely to make enormous profits. The games have less "soul", if you will.

Then again, it's also about exposure. I showed my younger brother (who is about 13 now) every generation of games I had played, from SNES to Gamecube, around the time he was born. He genuinely has a much deeper appreciation of the classic franchises and continues to love them, whereas most of his friends couldn't care less. It shocks me to think there are kids who have never played or heard of FFVII or Ocarina of Time, Mario World, etc...
I could go on about this all day so I'll try (and probably fail) to be concise.
Also, my opinions are mostly based around action titles and not RPGs.

author=Feldschlacht IV
So how much does nostalgia actually objectively factor into the quality of the games we've played?
This question is phrased rather oddly. It suggests that nostalgia is a measurable quality present in the games themselves rather than the player, so I'm going to assume what you're really asking is how much does nostalgia affect people's enjoyment of a game and their assessment of the game's quality.

I can't speak for most people, but since they often don't provide any reasoning beyond "its a classic, bro" and such, I'm going to guess probably a lot. As for myself, I've been playing a lot of old games lately that I hadn't heard of until a few years ago, and the new games that I've been enjoying the most (Akai Katana, AsteBreed, Noitu Love 2: Degeneration and such) are more-or-less designed like old games. However, a lot of games that I played when I was a kid I no longer like.

The big thing I like about old games is the breakneck pacing. These guys had memory limits, small teams, and not a whole lot of time to work on things, so the copy-paste filler that bloats most modern games just isn't there most of the time. Since sprite animators have a tough job, they usually won't give something more frames than it needs to, so your actions are often nigh-instantaneous in response. Also, you don't have forced tutorials or constant unskippable cutscenes telling you that a door opened, or an enemy spawned, or that a switch did something, or that your exposition fairy wanted to point out the exceedingly obvious etc.

I also actually like the infrequency of saving/checkpoints/etc (though I prefer 1HP+Instant-Respawn like Contra as opposed to Gradius or Megaman). My favorite games are action titles that you can beat in one sitting, without the (excessive) aid of continues or save-states. It makes you try to really appreciate a game's design (and really hate it when it sucks) and develop actual, consistent tactics, rather than just relying on "law of averages", auto-saving, then never looking back. Of course, I realize this is basically "masochism" as far as most people are concerned, and of course is largely impractical in long games.

Another thing, which I have a hard time really explaining, is that I feel like most older games have a kind of haphazardness to their design. To me, its often like they just throw things at you (usually without going overboard), just assuming that their system will allow you to handle whatever comes your way. They leave you to your own devices a lot of the time (they might have a plan for you, but you can often subvert it freely). A lot of newer games (barring sandbox/open-world stuff) feel like there's this line drawn out for you by the designers, and doing anything other than what they planned is a waste of time. Not in the strict or difficult since, but in the sense that the player is being directed, like an actor playing out a movie, or, at worst, like a puppet who's just pressing buttons for the designer's sake and not because they think its a good idea at the time, with the QTE being the most extreme example of this.

So, I guess that's what I feel has been lost over the years. Hopefully that all made sense.

edit: lol as usual I think my post is going to be the longest. I really need to learn when to shut the hell up...
There definitely is a fine line, but that doesn't mean one outweighs the other.

I grew up with all the classics. To this day, I can pick up a game like Generica and Dragon Fantasy and Hero's Realm and drool all over it because it reminds me of what rpg's used to be about, a good blend between story, combat, and game play. There is a reason people still claw after the resources in DQ IV (NES). For its time, it really pushed the limitations of the NES.

But there are other games I remember having fun with that I can't stomach today, such as the first DQ game. I recently played through a rom hack of the game (called Dragoon X) that changed the story, battlers, names, and palette of the original Dragon Quest and it did bring some enjoyment, but it also quickly tanked for me when I realized just how tedious the grinding and save mechanics really were.

Games like Super Mario Bros (especially SMB 3) age well. In fact, SMB 3 has such a great palette going on for it for its cycle in the NES, and it's still quite fun. Sure, there are some games that suck by today's standards (even if we remember having fun with them at one point) but that's not true for every game we grew up with.

Let's go even further back. Atari 2600... Phoenix, Vanguard, Moon Patrol, Berzerk. These are classic games that are still fun to play in this day and age.
Classic arcade games like asteroids and Ping Pong are still popular today.
Some newer games I play because they're good.
Some I don't anymore because I've had better.

Some old games I play because they're good.
Some I don't anymore because I've had better.

New and old players still play Chess and Kick the Can.
That nostalgia is the main reason someone else would enjoy an old game always sounded like a hater's poor argument to me. Yet there is no debate to have here. Enjoy what you enjoy.
author=Avee
Some newer games I play because they're good.
Some I don't anymore because I've had better.

Some old games I play because they're good.
Some I don't anymore because I've had better.

Exactly this.
I'm replaying Majoras Mask on my N64, and it's still as good as it were. Sure, it's replaying, and didn't look as grand as it did before, but there is much to take from there on a symbolic level as well, so it definitely deserves it!

But other games are just good in nostalgia. Like Pokémon (for me. you may like it just fine)
Seriously, it's pure nostalgia. And while the newer ones aren't significantly better (well, I did like Ruby's addition, I'd replay that one if anything, if my brother didn't sold it on me), but I wouldn't like it nearly as much as I did as a kid. Sure, Red had a fucked up boxing system, but I had Pokemon Stadium.
Pure nostalgic feelings are better left for your memories. You'll be disappointed otherwise.
I'm one of the guys who tend to say stuff like "it's just nostalgia bro". But it's often in a more general sense. When people start to claim stuff like "games/movies/music were better back then".

It's just untrue. I mean I greatly enjoy certain old games and some of them hold up very well (which is the reason they get re-releases and is kept in the public consciousness). But when people just straight up claim that games today are shit and that things were so much better back then I just want to tear my hair out. Because there's all the shit, the tons and tons of shit that came out back in those days. All that stuff that very few people remember. And the people who do remember it does so with fondness, not because the game was good. But because it was one of three games they owned because they couldn't afford more and HAD to like it even if it was the shittiest shitty game in the world.

That's where the nostalgia goggles come on. "Oh, *insert game based on popular movie in the 90s* wasn't that bad. I played that game a lot." No that game was pure shite.

Another case of nostalgia-ic goggles is in groundbreaking titles that spawned genres or was generally "the first". These games have value. But they were not better than what came after. We can take, for example the NES jrpgs (Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest) these are important games because they paved the way to what came after. But playing them today they are terribly outdated and the formula wasn't "perfected" until the SNES games. You could also take the first FPSes. They had their charms, but I would argue that FPSes didn't really shine until they became 3d.

Nothing wrong with playing and enjoying these first classics but just remember that they probably aren't that great and definitely should not be someone's introduction to the genre or gaming. This is the stuff you try out of curiosity about history when you're deep in the well. Not something you suggest for someone "just starting out."

Yeah I guess I became long-winded. But I'm a guy who is heavily nostalgic, but I also slap myself because I know that games today are so much better. Or at least there's more good games and there's also more variety. (if only because it's a bigger industry with room for more good games and more variety)
Err, where should I start.

I think statements like "You just think they were better because your memory of them is clouded" are wrong.
It's NOT the case of remembering the games wrongly. Because I replay the games I grew up with frequently every 2 years and I still enjoy them as much, some even more than I used to as a child.

I can say that for me the games I grew up with simply were the best.
I realize this might be very subjective, but no matter how much I analyze games, I always come to this conclusion, I can even list reasons why they were much better than any modern game.
This would be too much to do now. Just explaining why 2D graphics are more beautiful and more suitable for games than 3D graphics would be a whole essay.

My theory is that ones taste in games is determined by which games you play in your childhood and that taste can no longer change once you grew up.
Of course if you haven't played games as a child at all, this doesn't apply to you (@Feldschlacht IV: I assume this is why the rule doesn't apply to you, at which age did you start playing video games if I may ask?).
In psychology (and also business if you studied that), you learn that the basic core personality of a human is created at age 0-6 and then it's further fleshed out at age of 6-12, but after that it's pretty much fixed and unchangable (of course opinions still can change all the time). So I assume if someone starts playing games after he turned 12, he probably will be immune to this nostalgia rule.

Nostalgia is real. For me it becomes very obvious if I compare those that owned a Mega Drive (Genesis) to those that owned a SNES (not both until after childhood). Those that grew up with a Mega Drive, still think Mega Drive games are better than SNES games and vice versa.

Still of course there are plenty of newer games I like. And I think there is actually a rule to that which is hard to explain. I know it's silly, but it's like games have a... spirit. If you play a game you can feel that spirit. And if the spirit is similar to the spirit of the games you grew up with, the chances are high that you will like this game.
The "spirit" IS noticable, because if you give someone a game that was made by the same developer of whose games he grew up with even if that someone isn't aware of that, he will like the game.
It happened to me too. The probably most defining game in my life is Shining Force 1. The first RPG (technically SRPG) I've played, the game for which I learned English language. The game I watched my father play and played myself. Years and years later, I suddenly got this RPG called Golden Sun knowing nothing about it other than it's an RPG. And man... I loved it SO much. It simply felt like everything was right with it. This menu browsing was just perfect! But wait a minute, that menu's suspiciously similar to Shining Force. And the battles? Totally feels like Shining Force too! Yeah you could select commands unlike in Shining Force, but it still totally felt the same. Only then I started investigating and even learned about how that Sega team had a fight with Sega and made their own company named Camelot that's actually still making games. The years after up until today, I slowly got all of their games I missed and I must say I like all of them.

The same "spirit" is however not limited to being made by the same developer. For example if I play Suikoden it feels more like the Mega Drive "spirit" than it feels like the SNES "spirit". For me that's clearly noticable. And actually if I check with my friends that grew up with Mega Drive games: They all like Suikoden.

It can be completely different games and developers, if the spirit is the same as the one your grew up with, you will be influenced and end up liking the game.
Rave
Even newspapers have those nowadays.
290
Nope, nostalgia isn't really significant. I was born in '90 and yet I think NES games or games for older consoles like Atari are way better than whatever shit they put up now on the market.
Can't say that everyone will like what he grew up with .. I spent significantly more time at the PC than at consoles (later on, anyway), but I do prefer consoles overall.
I played all kind of crap, and although I absolutely loved the Legend of Zelda games I had, I also liked Donkey Kong or Super Mario as well as Mario Party and Kart. I spent significantly more time on those title.

And here I am, hating most Mario and Jump 'n' Run stuff, playing mainly RPGs. Adventures second.
Still, there is a particular charm about certain products. Great games do have "soul", something you can't quite put your finger on (which is something that any more recent FF game I played lacked, but that's just me)
This could be the reason why I keep saving Zelda over and over again :D

author=Rave
Nope, nostalgia isn't really significant. I was born in '90 and yet I think NES games or games for older consoles like Atari are way better than whatever shit they put up now on the market.

Rave I was born in the 90's too. Well, okay, the butt-end of the 90's. And I think the GBA era is the golden era of video gaming history.
I might be a bit biased here, though...

author=Kylaila
And here I am, hating most Mario and Jump 'n' Run stuff, playing mainly RPGs. Adventures second.

Aww come on... How can you hate these guys?
I don't hate them, well, except Peach and Daisy, but I don't particularily like the games. I completed Mario Galaxy and all, but it was a chore.
I've come to like the smash series a lot, though.
author=RyaReisender
My theory is that ones taste in games is determined by which games you play in your childhood and that taste can no longer change once you grew up.
Of course if you haven't played games as a child at all, this doesn't apply to you (@Feldschlacht IV: I assume this is why the rule doesn't apply to you, at which age did you start playing video games if I may ask?).
In psychology (and also business if you studied that), you learn that the basic core personality of a human is created at age 0-6 and then it's further fleshed out at age of 6-12, but after that it's pretty much fixed and unchangable (of course opinions still can change all the time)
.
Haha as hoaky as this all sounds, I agree 100%. That's what I was trying to get at in my post. Again, I think there are exceptions, but speaking from my own experience this explanation is pretty spot on. There are very few games I'm motivated to play/buy in the newer generation that do not in some way resemble older ones.

As for your "spirit" comment, that's what I was trying to get at in my post. I think that a lot of game productions have become so convoluted now with teams of 200+ artists, engineers, etc.. that the underlying essence is a bit lost in translation. Like Hollywood films, many of these games are based on formulas for financial success more than they are on genuine innovation. For people who grew up with this kind of experience, I suppose it's not a problem. But for people like myself (and I'm sure many here) who adored the periods when games had more character and simplicity, it's a bit disappointing. I think there's room for a happy medium.

author=Shinan
It's just untrue. I mean I greatly enjoy certain old games and some of them hold up very well (which is the reason they get re-releases and is kept in the public consciousness). But when people just straight up claim that games today are shit and that things were so much better back then I just want to tear my hair out.
The "classics" may not be the genre's magnum opus, but anyone interested in gaming should be familiar with where these conventions came from. Just as it is with music history, film, etc... Everything needs to be considered in context. (I'm not even going to debate the fact that film and music had more integrity in past decades, I think that's a given lol.) But maybe you're more well-versed in modern titles and would disagree.

The fact is, you simply can't directly compare a game from 1988 or 1992 to most of what's released nowadays, it's sort of an apples and oranges scenario. Sure, you can relate them in terms of your enjoyment, but everything goes out the window when you say "Wow, look how much better _____ looks/plays!" Being "better" is only as valid as your preferences are, which is where I think RyaReisender has a point. That's why reviews by critics of past decades, etc.. are very valuable. We're quick to forget how rapidly our criteria for "quality" changes.
pianotm
The TM is for Totally Magical.
32347
Pacman, Super Mario Brothers, Duck Hunt, Dragon Warrior, Space Invaders, Afterburner, The Legend of Zelda, Space Rogue, Hogan's Alley, Double Dragon, Mega Man, Sonic the Hedgehog, Metroid, Blaster Master, Galaga, Donkey Kong, Pitfall, Tron: Deadly Discs:

These games have always been and continue to be the shit, nostalgia or no nostalgia. Now, I'll admit, I have gone back to old games that I loved and upon playing them again, wondered "How did I ever like this crap," so certainly, nostalgia plays a role, but I think a site full of game developers will agree that it isn't the technology that makes a good game; it's the guy or gal working with the technology to make a good game, and there have been good games on all systems.

In response to RyaReisender's theory that a person's taste in games is determined by what he or she played in his youth, I don't know if that's true, but I agree based on my own personal experience. Though I started with Atari and Intellivision, it was NES's Dragon Warrior (Dragon Quest to many of you) that left it's strongest impression on me, which is why I sought out an "RPG MAKER" to help me make games along with my so-so C++ knowledge.
The "classics" may not be the genre's magnum opus, but anyone interested in gaming should be familiar with where these conventions came from. Just as it is with music history, film, etc... Everything needs to be considered in context. (I'm not even going to debate the fact that film and music had more integrity in past decades, I think that's a given lol.) But maybe you're more well-versed in modern titles and would disagree.

This is basically what I said except that I think that familiarity with the old works is enough. You don't actually have to play them unless you really, really want to. (You can play a modern reimplementation in the knowledge that it is a reimplementation) And these are definitely not things that you should cram down someone's throat as "necessary reading".

(And obviously I'm not one of those that think music and film had more integrity in the past)

The fact is, you simply can't directly compare a game from 1988 or 1992 to most of what's released nowadays, it's sort of an apples and oranges scenario. Sure, you can relate them in terms of your enjoyment, but everything goes out the window when you say "Wow, look how much better _____ looks/plays!" Being "better" is only as valid as your preferences are, which is where I think RyaReisender has a point. That's why reviews by critics of past decades, etc.. are very valuable. We're quick to forget how rapidly our criteria for "quality" changes.

I have in my bookshelf gaming magazines from the early nineties so I dug up one from 1994. In it they complain about all the Street Fighter 2 clones (and review three of them including Double Dragon 5, a game that I guess most people would like to forget) and the stream of license-based platformers (in it they have The Adventures of Mighty Max and The Flinstones the movie the game and also some mediocre Indiana Jones platformer).

Now these games are not good games. But they are also forgotten games. Which is the whole nostalgia goggles thing. You cherrypick the best bits of the past and compare it to all of the present and come to the conclusion that "yeah, things sure were better back then."


When it comes to the thing about childhood taste determining what I like I had to give that some thought. And it is probably true. Though I remember thinking that games should be able to do so much more than what they are doing. There are certain aspects of games that I was all about. Mostly it was bits of storytelling or number-based things (so when I got my first tabletop RPG at 11 that was what I wanted games to be). In a way I think games these days do many of the things I dreamed of. Procedurally generated worlds. Interesting storylines. Football Management.

But of course I also noticed now in the revival of sorts of the 2d platformer that that shit is in the backbones. I was enjoying Giana Sisters Twisted Dreams and it was just such an old-school experience that I hadn't had in a long time (because I didn't have a controller) but it was very much second nature and I got into it in a way that people who didn't grow up with those kinds of games don't. (I say it like this but I have a friend who explicitly did not play a lot of platformer games when he was younger and though the game was incredibly difficult)
Pages: 1