Less Glamour, Longer Lastability.

[Pingfa]

The other day I engaged in another futile discussion about why retro games still hold up today with a person that continually derides them.

He mentioned how 'cool' this and that looked and how it couldn't be done on retro consoles, etc. So, being late at night, I began incoherently trying to explain something I had only a vague concept of in my head. The idea of it was that certain things that make you say, 'oh wow, how awesome was that??' are great the first time you see them, but get their appeal from shock value. After having seen it, the shock value wears off and it can quickly get less appealing.
Now, in many retro games, where there isn't much to look at, has nothing that 'blows you away', little to no shock value, the game is made to be played and played again. Now because there is nothing there to make you say, 'wow! Holy Mother of Jerusalem!', quite simply, the fun lasts longer. Less impact, more substance.

So eventually, after rambling on for a short while inarticulately, I finally touched on it and managed to sum it up with four words:

"Less Glamour, Longer Lastability."

At that point I got a blank stare for a few seconds as the truth slapped him in the face, before eventually I got a reply:

"What!? That's just stupid!"

... but that's irrelevant.

Anyhow, I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter and wether you agree with me or not.

[Pulsar_t]

I can relate to that statement, but how do you define "Retro"? Is it just old 2D games, or do 3D titles count too? Say we're in 2012 and the PS2 is two generations old. Would that qualify MGS3, a game closely resembling its sequel even technically, as a retro title? For me it depends on the definition.

[lordofduct]

Personally I find the "visual glamour" of older titles to be very wowing still today. It's one reason I love retro games, one of many.

As a personal taste I love art that is created when the artist has a limited set of tools at their hands. Limitations cause the artist to become more creative so as to make a more lasting image.

For instance, a pop art style that became real big in the 90's. The photo mosaic... I'm not a fan of the photo mosaic, but the creativity exhibited by the artists to create something with the limited palette of only photos instead of paints or something else.


Glamour can also come in more then just a visual spat though. Personally I find the AI systems of some games very wowing. Or the depth of a puzzle. "Intelligent Qube" hasn't visually stood up through time, but the puzzle solving of the game still stands out as a strong and complex system. Which I say wow too.

Your friend merely has a personal taste in his wow factor. You aren't going to be able to change that about him, he's going to have to make the conclusion on his own, and the worst thing is you probably won't like or understand his conclusion. Kind of like how he doesn't understand how you can like older games.

[Pingfa]

I can relate to that statement, but how do you define "Retro"? Is it just old 2D games, or do 3D titles count too? Say we're in 2012 and the PS2 is two generations old. Would that qualify MGS3, a game closely resembling its sequel even technically, as a retro title? For me it depends on the definition.

Good point. Generally, so-called gamers refer to "retro" games as any 2D game, so for the most part, whenever I say 'retro' I refer to 2D games, but I can refer to anything from a console that is no longer around.

Personally I find the "visual glamour" of older titles to be very wowing still today. It's one reason I love retro games, one of many.

Ditto. This is one point I always like to bring up. One thing of note, is that realistic looking and good looking aren't the same thing. One game that looks like puke painted with doo-doo could look more realistic than a not-so-realistic game that looks stunning.
I for one, have never thought of Killer Instinct as eyecandy. It looked awful for its time. However, it was arguably the most realistic looking game on any home console at the time.

In this case, the wow factor isn't just visual factor. So they aren't necessarily "visual spats", but a variety of spats. However, the wow factor spawns from the unexpected, when expected it turns to awe, but it loses its shock value, as I call it.
Particularly, I talk of parts of the games where you have no control over what's going on around you. In which case, after having lost its shock value, it becomes less of a 'oh wow, how cool was that!?' and more of a '...'
In other words, because of the shock value, it's something you don't want to see over and over again, as it loses its appeal quickly.

On a side note, to be honest, I'm sure at this point he does understand why I still play certain games, and I'm sure he is able to get plenty of enjoyment from some of them (even if he doesn't admit it), but it's a pride thing more than anything. He's a 'once you've made a decision, you stick to it - even if I think I was wrong' kinda' guy.