15977
« on: December 30, 2009, 03:04:27 am »
I think its pretty simple. For a game to age well...
First, the game must do something you like.
Second, there must not exist(or you must not have played) a game that is clearly superior to it.
Most games I see mentioned in talks about old great games - FF6,FF7, Princess Maker, Fallout 1/2, X-Com, Alpha Centauri, Super Mario games, Zelda games, Metroid games, Chrono Trigger, Ur-Quan masters, etcetera, have both of those in spades.
Many reached the peak of what they were capable of in some way or another - its simply not possible to do much better in one or more areas. Others are simply part of an underrepresented subgenre full of poorer imitations.
Take, for example, pac-man : The game is to collect items in a map while being pursued. The graphics are simple and easy to follow. The controls are effective. The progression is clear and straightforward. In order to be clearly supplanted, a game has to do better in at least one front, and as good on the other fronts - and this is why Mrs. Pacman is often considered a better game by those who care.
But I have yet to actually play a game that does what Mrs.Pacman does, except better on all fronts. I thought the multiplayer on the newest pacman vs. was a great and awesome addition, but I found the graphics far more unpleasant than the original. While I would say Pacman Vs. was better, its was not better in all ways.
And there is really no comparable non-pac-man game of this type, of this genre, that is even as good, so its obvious why people still enjoy pacman, and tetris, etcetera.
for Tetris, the only new tetris games I really enjoyed where the tetrissphere games, which aren't superior in all ways to the original because its no longer the same game.
Shooters generally age poorly, because at their core most are fundamentally the same game, theres a lot in the genre, and there are games that are clearly superior in all ways to their predecessors.