Lust for the New

[philipofmacedon]

I found this article insightful. Perhaps a love of retrogaming can help combat the corrosive effects of a rampant materialism?

http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2008/06/the ... he_new.php

[xraydash]

I'd argue it's worse for retrogamers because you can buy a pile of quality, old games for the same price as a new release!

[ott0bot]

This is assuming you care about the new games that are coming out. Go back to Deus Ex....like thats really old! I'm still trying to fill in my Genesis and SNES collections. Go waaay back and appriciate the real art in video games. The 16-bit era. They weren't trying to emulate life they were creating new worlds....just like the novel does. Some interesing ideas but defiantely told from a "modern" gamers perspective.

[jackspicer]

This guy makes it sound like most gamers are just a bunch of flakes, but i do agree that alot of people dont know about older good games because journalists choke them with previews and spoilers of the newest ones

[Curlypaul]

I'm really trying hard lately not to buy too mnay games and to finish the ones that are in my play list. Its hard though and I'm not doing very well, although I have slowed down a bit. I agree that its just too much and even when I finish a game I still dont get the time to actually master it and learn it inside out.

[pompeyparsons]

Thanks for linking to this article I enjoyed reading it and gave me some food for thought.

One point I completely disagree with the author on is this:

"Great novels live forever. Great games live only until the next great game."

I think often time in our society we tend to generalize the buying public as complete morons. Never once have I forgotten about the great games of yesteryear just because a new game is coming out. I'm always going to go back to the classics whether it be FFII, FFIII, Super Mario Bros, Excitebike, Worms etc just because something is new and supposedly better does not mean I lust for it. Much like a married man I'm content with the games I currently own and carefully research each new title I purchase. I think it's time people begin to give consumers a little more credit.

Despite the advertising that blasts us from all angles it has never made me go out and purchase something. I've always gone and done my research. Surely I can't be alone in this, people are more informed than ever and in my opinion are much more discerning consumers who are not so easily wooed by marketing.

[lordofduct]

Thanks for linking to this article I enjoyed reading it and gave me some food for thought.

One point I completely disagree with the author on is this:

"Great novels live forever. Great games live only until the next great game."

I think often time in our society we tend to generalize the buying public as complete morons. Never once have I forgotten about the great games of yesteryear just because a new game is coming out. I'm always going to go back to the classics whether it be FFII, FFIII, Super Mario Bros, Excitebike, Worms etc just because something is new and supposedly better does not mean I lust for it. Much like a married man I'm content with the games I currently own and carefully research each new title I purchase. I think it's time people begin to give consumers a little more credit.

Despite the advertising that blasts us from all angles it has never made me go out and purchase something. I've always gone and done my research. Surely I can't be alone in this, people are more informed than ever and in my opinion are much more discerning consumers who are not so easily wooed by marketing.

True you might, but that isn't the point the writer is trying to make.

First off you're a retrogamer, you hang out at racketboy, proof of this. But with games flying off the shelves with every new release every week, who is in fact playing these titles? There is a limit on the time and that is kinda what the author is pointing out. With the little time to get to the next title due next week, you hardly have the time to go back several years. Which can be quickly observed in the common phrases of "that game is old", "look at the graphics, so clunky", and the sort.

Of course as a retro gamer we probably don't find ourselves saying this very much. But also as retro gamers a lot of use here aren't out buying all the new titles when they release.

Also taking back and looking at it another way. Take the regular gamer and consider the retro titles they do play. The classics are revisited, but the classics hardly tell what was offered at the time. People say to me "Oh you're a retro gamer! I have an NES too, I love Super Mario Brothers and Zelda!" But you kinda sit back and wonder, well there are over a thousand titles available for that little box, yet they all happen to play the same handful of "classics" over and over, and primarily put their time toward the new GTA4 or Metal Gear Solid coming around the bend.



I have to agree with the author on that statement. A lot of older games are played by the general populous as a form of nostalgia... but who picks of Jane Austin for nostalgia? "Pride and Prejudice" isn't read for the memories it induces, because a) you weren't alive in the time period, and b) it's your first time reading it. You read it for its artistic value and character. The revolutionary view points of feminism brought up by a female author in a time period where it was unheard of. Picking up "The man and the sea" for the very first time is a grand new experience. Though it is a great view at the birth of post-modern literature, it usually isn't your reason for reading it.

[Curlypaul]

And here we come back to are games art, or are they just bubble gum entertainment. Will games be remembered for being great experiences in their own right or will just enjoy playing the ones that remind us of periods gone by? I for one will be playing them for their own merits thats for sure. When I first started collecting the retro stuff I went for the games that I used to own but I found that nostalgia wasnt enough to keep my interest in a game that I finished already. Now I find myself looking for unique games and franchises that I never played before to experience them for myself, to sample my favourite genres in their various states of development and the merits and pitfalls that these stages hold.

I've been thinking about this article over the last couple of days and I dont think that hardcore games and gamers will ever die out, great books are still being written, compelling films are still made and inspiring music is still being written despite all of these art forms being flooded with people and companies who are churning out whatevers popular just to make a few quid. There will always be people like Suda51 who have something to express and I think technology latley is getting to the point where its no longer limiting the designers creativity and I think thats exciting. The interactive nature of games puts them way up there with literature when it comes to the effect it can have on you.

You can probably tell that I'm a games are art fag.

[RadarScope1]

I have to agree with the author on that statement. A lot of older games are played by the general populous as a form of nostalgia... but who picks of Jane Austin for nostalgia? "Pride and Prejudice" isn't read for the memories it induces, because a) you weren't alive in the time period, and b) it's your first time reading it. You read it for its artistic value and character. The revolutionary view points of feminism brought up by a female author in a time period where it was unheard of. Picking up "The man and the sea" for the very first time is a grand new experience. Though it is a great view at the birth of post-modern literature, it usually isn't your reason for reading it.

That is a great point.

I agree with the article in general. It's too damn hard to keep up! But I do try. I'm a pretty big music fan and this article highlights something i think is interesting when comparing hardcore music people to hardcore gaming people. It's actually fairly possible to "know" and actually be really familiar with most of the games that have been released in the last 30 years if you're of a certain age, say 25 or older. But even the most hardcore music fan hasn't heard it all. That's because you've got a century's worth of recorded music floating around out there with more and more added all the time.

As someone pointed out in the comments section, at some point we'll get to where there are more and more gaming snobs who know what's "good" and what they like while the masses play lots of other stuff they wouldn't touch.

[pompeyparsons]

True you might, but that isn't the point the writer is trying to make.

First off you're a retrogamer, you hang out at racketboy, proof of this. But with games flying off the shelves with every new release every week, who is in fact playing these titles? There is a limit on the time and that is kinda what the author is pointing out. With the little time to get to the next title due next week, you hardly have the time to go back several years. Which can be quickly observed in the common phrases of "that game is old", "look at the graphics, so clunky", and the sort.

Of course as a retro gamer we probably don't find ourselves saying this very much. But also as retro gamers a lot of use here aren't out buying all the new titles when they release.

Also taking back and looking at it another way. Take the regular gamer and consider the retro titles they do play. The classics are revisited, but the classics hardly tell what was offered at the time. People say to me "Oh you're a retro gamer! I have an NES too, I love Super Mario Brothers and Zelda!" But you kinda sit back and wonder, well there are over a thousand titles available for that little box, yet they all happen to play the same handful of "classics" over and over, and primarily put their time toward the new GTA4 or Metal Gear Solid coming around the bend.

I have to agree with the author on that statement. A lot of older games are played by the general populous as a form of nostalgia... but who picks of Jane Austin for nostalgia? "Pride and Prejudice" isn't read for the memories it induces, because a) you weren't alive in the time period, and b) it's your first time reading it. You read it for its artistic value and character. The revolutionary view points of feminism brought up by a female author in a time period where it was unheard of. Picking up "The man and the sea" for the very first time is a grand new experience. Though it is a great view at the birth of post-modern literature, it usually isn't your reason for reading it.

You make some very good points I will give you that, especially as far as nostalgia goes there are many that simply return to the games that knew and loved as a child. This past week a friend of mine came over and became immersed once more in Excitebike because he loved it as a child. I let him borrow one of my Nintendo's and he spent the better part of the week designing courses.

As far as your example about people picking up Pride and Prejudice because it's a great book not because of nostalgia can be argued either way. Many games are played because of their artistic value and character. Final Fantasy III sticks out in my mind as one of these games. This game was revolutionary in the way that it showed the relationship between characters. There was friendship, betrayal, love, a search for a higher meaning to life.

The game showed the human condition and left you feeling for each of the characters much the way a great novel would. That is why in my opinion the game has endured for so long. The carefully drawn sprites that formed both the characters and the towns were beautiful, not to mention the character development through out the game. I can see 15, 30, 45 years from now people still going back and playing this game not for nostalgia purposes but for the fact that it was a great game. Much the way people return to the so called great books.