Classic Games You Should Have to Play to Call Yourself a Gamer

[TheSummoner]

The title really says it all. This thread is for discussing classic games that you absolutly MUST play (and preferrably beat) to have any right to call yourself a gamer.

By classic, I mean 8-bit and maybe 16-bit, but nothing any later than that.

I've noticed a rather disturbing trend in younger people calling themselves gamers despite never picking up a system older than the PS2. Hopefully we can reccomend some great games to the ones who truely want to experience the classics. If not, we can atleast ridicule those who have no right to call themselves gamers while honoring some of the best games ever made.

Super Mario Brothers - NES - 1985
The original that started it all. Theres a reason Mario became Nintendo's mascot and its because Super Mario Brothers was so damn good. Sure, the premise of an Italian plumber running around, eating mushrooms and spitting fireballs while fighting turtles and trying to rescue a princess is ridiculous... but it works. While not as mind-destroying, controller smashing difficult as some of the others, its still a must play.

The Legend of Zelda - NES - 1986
The original Legend of Zelda was one of the first non-linear games. Although the first 8 dungeons of the game became progressively more difficult, they could be completed in any order. Good luck getting to the end without using any sort of guide... Some of the later secrets are hidden in such a way that you either have to already know where they are or bomb and burn every single bit of the rock and shrub to find them.

Metroid - NES - 1986
Though its now common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about Metroid, the fact that Samus Aran is a woman was a huge surprise back in the '80s. Maybe its because there were so few female protagonists back then... more likely its because the game is a gigantic maze and you've got a pretty good chance of getting hopelessly lost before beating it.

Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! - NES - 1987
Say what you will about Mike Tyson as a person, the fact remains that he was one of the best boxers of all time. Who wouldn't want to punch out the champ? Good luck, he can take you from full health to dead in a single punch. Yes, this game was ball-bustingly difficult, but it was fun. The key to victory is watching your opponent carefully and striking at the right moment.

Mega Man - NES - 1987
Theres a good reason why so few people could beat the original Mega Man. This game contained one of the hardes 8-bit bosses of all time, the Yellow Devil. Despite having an incredibly easy pattern, the Yellow Devil's attacks were difficult to avoid and damaging it was a just as hard. If you can legitimately beat this thing, Dr. Wily should be a piece of cake for you. If not, well you can always abuse the glitch that lets you kill it with a single shot.

Final Fantasy - NES - 1987
Long before the overly complicated plotlines and androgynes protagonists was a simple RPG with a (comparitively) simple plot. Your characters are the four fabled Light Warriors. Go stop the four elemental fiends from destroying the world. After that, kill the demon Chaos who is actually the very first boss of the game in a time loop. It was named Final Fantasy because Square was convinced it would be their last game... Gallows humor at it's finest. I'm not a huge fan of the Final Fantasy series, but this is one of my favorite classic games.

Please discuss these and add your own.

[chiasaur11]

I'm sorry.

Any criteria for classics that excludes Deus Ex?

Wrong.

Also, I've played Mario, Zelda, and Metroid.

They're still good games, but a lot hasn't aged well. At all.

[TheSummoner]

Hmm... so anything that happened more than 20 years ago isn't important because it hasn't aged well. So long The Wheel. Goodbye Fire.

[Mando Knight]

Mario 3: If you don't know the awesome of the P'nuki, Hammer, or Frog suits, play that game now.
Super Metroid: Even more so than the original Metroid. Super includes several modifications to the game engine that make it a lot more playable. By which I mean "has an in-game map," "can shoot at enemies at Samus's feet," and "doesn't start out with 30 energy regardless of how many E-Tanks you've got."
Super Mario World: It's Mario 3's 16-bit little brother.
Final Fantasy IV: Cecil, Kain, Rosa, Rydia, Edge. If you don't know that party, then go play the game now, you spoony bard.

[Zarah]

Admittedly, I have only played 2 of the games you listed, but I have a decent excuse. My family only got into the whole video game thing when the Nintendo was on its way out. I especially didn't get into them until the Super Nintendo.

And while I've never actually played the original Zelda (or the first sequel, for that matter), I have played and beaten A Link To The Past, which I think redeems me a bit. Also, I have played the original Metroid, but having played it after Super Metroid spoiled me, and I really can't get comfortable playing the original. I've never played the original Final Fantasy either, though like with Zelda, I've played several of the future games, including IV/II which is enough of a classic to count.

Punch Out is a write-off for me though, since I can honestly say I've never once had any interest in that game. :smalltongue:

[Terraoblivion]

I honestly find such a thing foolish. Especially since that what you posit is the equivalent of making a list of silent movies that people have to see in order to claim to like movies. These games are ancient from when gaming was a medium was technologically immature. They are simply not good games by today's standards. Yes, they hold great historical significance but apart from Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World none of these games have aged at all well. The clunky controls, arbitrary limitations leading to much of the difficulty and the graphics that generally don't even make use of what the technology of their systems could do make them something that there is no point in playing today. And no, i am not some kid who got into gaming with the PS2. The first video game i played was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on my father's Mac when it was released back when i was 3. I just see no point in making a list of classics and feeling snobby towards people who weren't gaming in the 80s.

[toddex]

The title really says it all. This thread is for discussing classic games that you absolutly MUST play (and preferrably beat) to have any right to call yourself a gamer.

By classic, I mean 8-bit and maybe 16-bit, but nothing any later than that.

I've noticed a rather disturbing trend in younger people calling themselves gamers despite never picking up a system older than the PS2. Hopefully we can reccomend some great games to the ones who truely want to experience the classics. If not, we can atleast ridicule those who have no right to call themselves gamers while honoring some of the best games ever made.

Super Mario Brothers - NES - 1985
The original that started it all. Theres a reason Mario became Nintendo's mascot and its because Super Mario Brothers was so damn good. Sure, the premise of an Italian plumber running around, eating mushrooms and spitting fireballs while fighting turtles and trying to rescue a princess is ridiculous... but it works. While not as mind-destroying, controller smashing difficult as some of the others, its still a must play.

The Legend of Zelda - NES - 1986
The original Legend of Zelda was one of the first non-linear games. Although the first 8 dungeons of the game became progressively more difficult, they could be completed in any order. Good luck getting to the end without using any sort of guide... Some of the later secrets are hidden in such a way that you either have to already know where they are or bomb and burn every single bit of the rock and shrub to find them.

Metroid - NES - 1986
Though its now common knowledge to anyone who knows anything about Metroid, the fact that Samus Aran is a woman was a huge surprise back in the '80s. Maybe its because there were so few female protagonists back then... more likely its because the game is a gigantic maze and you've got a pretty good chance of getting hopelessly lost before beating it.

Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! - NES - 1987
Say what you will about Mike Tyson as a person, the fact remains that he was one of the best boxers of all time. Who wouldn't want to punch out the champ? Good luck, he can take you from full health to dead in a single punch. Yes, this game was ball-bustingly difficult, but it was fun. The key to victory is watching your opponent carefully and striking at the right moment.

Mega Man - NES - 1987
Theres a good reason why so few people could beat the original Mega Man. This game contained one of the hardes 8-bit bosses of all time, the Yellow Devil. Despite having an incredibly easy pattern, the Yellow Devil's attacks were difficult to avoid and damaging it was a just as hard. If you can legitimately beat this thing, Dr. Wily should be a piece of cake for you. If not, well you can always abuse the glitch that lets you kill it with a single shot.

Final Fantasy - NES - 1987
Long before the overly complicated plotlines and androgynes protagonists was a simple RPG with a (comparitively) simple plot. Your characters are the four fabled Light Warriors. Go stop the four elemental fiends from destroying the world. After that, kill the demon Chaos who is actually the very first boss of the game in a time loop. It was named Final Fantasy because Square was convinced it would be their last game... Gallows humor at it's finest. I'm not a huge fan of the Final Fantasy series, but this is one of my favorite classic games.

Please discuss these and add your own.

Only console games? This is serious?

[chiasaur11]

Hmm... so anything that happened more than 20 years ago isn't important because it hasn't aged well. So long The Wheel. Goodbye Fire.

Mario, I'll give you.

Zelda? Somewhat. I mean, sometimes the blundering around works. Other times, it get irritating.

Metroid?

Look. I love Metroid. Metroid Prime? All over 'em. Super Metroid? I need that. The GBA ones? Beat them all more than once.

But the first Metroid? It's INCREDIBLY clunky. No maps, samey levels, no way to know you're screwing yourself over if you stick with the wavebeam. And, worst, whenever you reload, you need to spend an hour gathering health before you go anywhere.

That ain't not wanting fire. That's not wanting to start fire by waiting for a lightning strike.

(And Final Fantasy goes on the same "Need a modern version if you're sane list. As for Megaman? Play Megaman 2 instead.)

[Mushroom Ninja]

Oregon Trail and Ski Free are classic. It's hard to have basic cultural literacy without them.

[Rutskarn]

I've noticed a rather disturbing trend in younger people calling themselves gamers despite never picking up a system older than the PS2. Hopefully we can reccomend some great games to the ones who truely want to experience the classics. If not, we can atleast ridicule those who have no right to call themselves gamers while honoring some of the best games ever made.


I dunno, a gamer is somebody who enjoys playing video games. That doesn't mean you have to be have played any of this stuff, any more than someone who calls themselves a music lover should have to have listened to medieval music.

I have played none of these games. None of these games are to my taste, frankly--that doesn't mean I think they're bad, or unworthy of respect, but that doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to play them. I didn't play them when I was a kid because I had a PC, and because even then I wasn't much for platforming and endless mazes. RTS, FPS, Western RPG--this was my bailiwick.

I cut my teeth on games like Doom II, Quake, Diablo, and Age of Empires. I spend countless hours fragging my relatives in the arena of Unreal Tournament. I spent weeks banging my head against the wall trying to take down Daveorn in Baldur's Gate, and when I finally vanquished him one morning, my screams of triumph awoke my sister. I ran like hell from headcrabs, constructed additional pylons, trekked the endless wastes of Vvardenfel, brought the roof crashing down onto Dasaan, and didn't give even a tiny s*** about Duke Nukem Forever for 12 full years. I have finished more games than most people have ever heard of, and have done so for the past thirteen years of my life.

I'm a gamer. This is fact.

[TheSummoner]

They are simply not good games by today's standards.

Objection! Many modern games are so pathetic easy that its impossible for me to really enjoy them. Yes, sometimes the difficulty of older games could be attributed to bad controls, but you really can't claim that for a turn-based one like Final Fantasy I for example. I've never had any problems with the controls for any of the six that I listed.


I just see no point in making a list of classics and feeling snobby towards people who weren't gaming in the 80s.

I wasn't even alive in the 80's. That doesn't mean I haven't played or don't appreciate the classics. Theres far too much of an emphasis on graphics nowadays. People need to be able to appreciate a game for it's content... how fun and challenging the game is... Things abundant in the classic games.

[Zarah]

I cut my teeth on games like Doom II, Quake, Diablo, and Age of Empires. I spend countless hours fragging my relatives in the arena of Unreal Tournament. I spent weeks banging my head against the wall trying to take down Daveorn in Baldur's Gate, and when I finally vanquished him one morning, my screams of triumph awoke my sister. I ran like hell from headcrabs, constructed additional pylons, trekked the endless wastes of Vvardenfel, brought the roof crashing down onto Dasaan, and didn't give even a tiny s*** about Duke Nukem Forever for 12 full years. I have finished more games than most people have ever heard of, and have done so for the past thirteen years of my life.

I almost expected you to end that speech with "All these moments, gone like tears in rain. Time to die." :smalltongue:

[chiasaur11]

I dunno, a gamer is somebody who enjoys playing video games. That doesn't mean you have to be have played any of this stuff, any more than someone who calls themselves a music lover should have to have listened to medieval music.

I have played none of these games. None of these games are to my taste, frankly--that doesn't mean I think they're bad, or unworthy of respect, but that doesn't mean I have to go out of my way to play them. I didn't play them when I was a kid because I had a PC, and because even then I wasn't much for platforming and endless mazes. RTS, FPS, Western RPG--this was my bailiwick.

I cut my teeth on games like Doom II, Quake, Diablo, and Age of Empires. I spend countless hours fragging my relatives in the arena of Unreal Tournament. I spent weeks banging my head against the wall trying to take down Daveorn in Baldur's Gate, and when I finally vanquished him one morning, my screams of triumph awoke my sister. I ran like hell from headcrabs, constructed additional pylons, trekked the endless wastes of Vvardenfel, brought the roof crashing down onto Dasaan, and didn't give even a tiny s*** about Duke Nukem Forever for 12 full years. I have finished more games than most people have ever heard of, and have done so for the past thirteen years of my life.

I'm a gamer. This is fact.

Yeah, Ruts has a point.

Happens fairly often, come to think.

[Rutskarn]

I almost expected you to end that speech with "All these moments, gone like tears in rain. Time to die." :smalltongue:

Not gonna lie, I considered it.

[Terraoblivion]

And somehow you know the one true recipe for fun which is steep challenge also apparently challenge rooted in the old school way, which really mostly is poor controls, poor directions and the game arbitrarily screwing you over. Of the games you mentioned the only one i haven't played is Punch-Out and the difficulty of the rest really does come down to at least one of the above. Also plenty of extremely difficult games are made these days, especially if you are willing to go into playing freeware. What those games have in common is that they have smooth controls and are generally fair about the difficulty. With fair i mean that it doesn't hinge on invisible blocks, not telling you were to go and then making the game unwinnable if you go the wrong place or arbitrarily remove needed upgrades every time you load. A game can definitely be difficult without those aspects and frankly i see no reason to praise games whose difficulty hinges in screwing the player over.

Also fun does not equate to challenge. Yes, for some people the enjoyment of games hinges on overcoming challenge, but that is by no means the case for all. So to make an absolute statement about fun you also need to go on the basis that some forms of fun are more worthy than other. Are people who play games to relax or people who play for the immersion and story somehow inferior beings to competitive people who want to overcome the greatest challenges they can find?

And Rutskarn's point is indeed the one i want to make from a different angle. That there are many ways of being a gamer and that you should not arrogantly make a list of ancient, outdated games to hold up as somehow being the mark of the good ones. There is not and should not be a nobility of gaming, it is about enjoyment and nothing else.

[Serenity]

For me, difficulty has a tenuous relationship with enhancing fun, at best, if it doesn't actually detract from my enjoyment. I love watching the hatefulness of level design in Megaman 9 and 10 when my friends play it. But I personally would never attempt to play those games--let alone old Bullet Hell or Beat 'Em Ups--without access to save states. I'd much rather see the whole game than start the whole game over a million times.

[blueblade]

TC, I like where you're going. But I disagree that you can label it with just a few iconic games. I think each generation had a set of "important" games, and all should be included. What I propose instead is a long-list of games, and you should have played at least half of them to really call yourself a versatile "true" gamer.

Did a quick brain dump and came up with the below 40. Should probably be beefed up to 50, and experience with at least 25 being the goal. Yes, I have a bias, and it shows (but I tried not to, FWIW):


Super Mario Bros
Legend of Zelda
Final Fantasy 1
Final Fantasy 4
Final Fantasy 6
Final Fantasy 7
Final Fantasy X
Dragon Quest/Warrior 1, 6, 8
Tetris
Pokemon Yellow/Red/Blue/Any
Golden Eye
Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Mario Kart (any)
Metal Gear Solid
Baldurs Gate
Baldurs Gate 2
Shadow of the Colossus
Ico
Deus Ex
System Shock 2
Half-Life
Half-Life 2
Klonoa 2
Psychonauts
Space/Kings Quest Any
Day of the tentacle
Star Wars:Jedi Outcast
Star Wars:Dark Forces 2
Doom
Wolfenstein 3D
Unreal Tournament
Warcraft 2
Warcraft 3
Starcraft
World of Warcraft
Prince of Persia 1/2 (originals)
Civilisation
Civilisation 2
Total War games (any)
Age of Empires (any)

[Rutskarn]

Super Mario Bros
Legend of Zelda
Final Fantasy 1
Final Fantasy 4
Final Fantasy 6
Final Fantasy 7
Final Fantasy X
Dragon Quest/Warrior 1, 6, 8
Tetris
Pokemon Yellow/Red/Blue/Any
Golden Eye
Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Mario Kart (any)
Metal Gear Solid
Baldurs Gate
Baldurs Gate 2
Shadow of the Colossus
Ico
Deus Ex
System Shock 2
Half-Life
Half-Life 2
Klonoa 2
Psychonauts
Space/Kings Quest Any
Day of the tentacle
Star Wars:Jedi Outcast
Star Wars:Dark Forces 2
Doom
Wolfenstein 3D
Unreal Tournament
Warcraft 2
Warcraft 3
Starcraft
World of Warcraft
Prince of Persia 1/2 (originals)
Civilisation
Civilisation 2
Total War games (any)
Age of Empires (any)


To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, the bolded items are ones I've played.

[Cogwheel]

I'm going to avoid the argument here and just recommend a couple games. Like old games? Well, on the SNES, I can recommend any Kirby game, FF6, Terranigma (more for story than gameplay), Super Metroid, Treasure of the Rudras and quite a few I can't recall at the moment. I'd recommend some PS1/N64/PC games too, but those weren't allowed.

So instead, I'm going to recommend a few games that are both new and difficult, since you seem to like that. I Wanna Be The Guy is a classic example, with the added bonus of lots of references to exactly the sort of games you mentioned. Nethack/Dungeon Crawl/ADOM/Angband/any similar game is also high on the difficulty, and the same is true for the bullet hell game of your choice. Eversion is a bit difficult too (same sort of level as old Mario games), but that game's a bit... special. I'm going to recommend Dwarf Fortress too, for the simple reason that I can't help it.

Anyway, there's a little list to get you started. Hope it helps :smallsmile:


Edit: Rutskarn, I suggest you play System Shock 2 if you enjoy the horror or FPS genre at all. It's very good at both, and quite possibly the scariest game I've ever played. Quite the gem, and has the added bonus of looking rather nice for its time.

[Zevox]

People need to be able to appreciate a game for it's content... how fun and challenging the game is... Things abundant in the classic games.
In some of them. Remember that the classics you remember are just the best of them, the ones you really liked. There were plenty of games from the same era that sucked, hard (if you don't mind gratuitous swearing, check out the Angry Video Game Nerd's videos - some of those are worse than anything we've seen since Superman 64). Just as today there are games that suck, and games that are great. In ten years we'll be looking back on games like Mass Effect 2 or Mario Galaxy as classic greats, while stinkers and disappointments like Too Human, Sonic 360, or the shovelfuls of minigame collections on the Wii are forgotten.

Frankly, if games today didn't have good content that I found fun, I wouldn't play them. Yes, some modern games are lacking in the challenge department, that much is true, but not all. To use a couple of Wii examples, while I found Zelda: Twilight Princess disappointing in terms of its difficulty (and pretty much only in that), there is also Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, whose difficulty pleased me greatly, and which was quite challenging on its hardest mode.

In short, though:

I dunno, a gamer is somebody who enjoys playing video games.
This.

Zevox

[TheSummoner]

Also plenty of extremely difficult games are made these days, especially if you are willing to go into playing freeware. What those games have in common is that they have smooth controls and are generally fair about the difficulty.

I dressed as The Doctor from Cave Story for a Halloween Party in '08. Yes, I play freeware games.


With fair i mean that it doesn't hinge on invisible blocks, not telling you were to go and then making the game unwinnable if you go the wrong place or arbitrarily remove needed upgrades every time you load. A game can definitely be difficult without those aspects and frankly i see no reason to praise games whose difficulty hinges in screwing the player over.

Hinging on invisible blocks? Explain where this happened in any of them I mentioned. I'm not talking about some crappy kaizo romhack, I'm talking about GOOD CLASSIC games.
Not telling you where to go? Want the game to hold your hand and beat the bosses for you too?
Making the game unwinnable if you go to the wrong place? Possibly in Metroid... I've only beaten the original once. Mario and Punch-Out were both Linear. I don't recall ever coming across this in Zelda, Megaman, or Final Fantasy.
Yes, some of the old games lacked save functions. I'll give you that one.


Also fun does not equate to challenge. Yes, for some people the enjoyment of games hinges on overcoming challenge, but that is by no means the case for all. So to make an absolute statement about fun you also need to go on the basis that some forms of fun are more worthy than other. Are people who play games to relax or people who play for the immersion and story somehow inferior beings to competitive people who want to overcome the greatest challenges they can find?

I could get into a whole tangent about plot and immersion (which would likely branch off into my hatred for the achievement system), but it really has nothing to do with why I started this thread. The fact is that there are many great games out there that often go underappreciated because they were made in a time with less technological capability. As a result of these technical restrictions, they had inferior graphics and telling an epic story was much more difficult. The focus was purely on the gameplay. These are games that I believe need to be experienced before you have any right to call yourself a gamer. The kind of games that prove that a game can be great without having graphics that make you eye-gasm.

You can't disgard the classics because they were inferior from a technical standpoint. I'd rather play any of the 8-bit Megaman games than Halo any day. I'd sooner pick up Final Fantasy 1 or 6 than any other in the series. As far as I'm concerned, games are a perfectly valid form of art, but theres no way they can be recognized as such if people are willing to ignore the classics.

Edit:


In some of them. Remember that the classics you remember are just the best of them, the ones you really liked. There were plenty of games from the same era that sucked, hard (if you don't mind swearing, check out the Angry Video Game Nerd's videos - some of those are worse than anything we've seen since Superman 64).

Well of course. I never said that ALL old games were good. Merely that the ones that ARE should be played even today. 8-bit graphics and all.

Hell, if its old but it sucks, its no classic. Just a dried up pile of crap.

[chiasaur11]

Oh, and on another note.

Mario started it all?

The terms ZX spectrum and Commodore 64 ring a bell? Or, well, Donkey Kong?

(You want to get all old schooler than thou? I got my first kicks on Atari 26. Guess what? I'd trade the every game on the thing for Deus Ex in a heartbeat.)

[blueblade]

Rutskarn, I'd welcome you to the gamer club. I could probably mention most major games in development and you have more than a passing interest in them. You have fairly diverse tastes, but might not feel an urge to go back and play older games (sure you've tried a few).

Just read your post, and it reminded me that the Elder Scrolls series (any), Fallout 1-2 and arguably Fallout 3 (as a seperate entry) should be on there.

[TheSummoner]

Oh, and on another note.

Mario started it all?

The terms ZX spectrum and Commodore 64 ring a bell? Or, well, Donkey Kong?

(You want to get all old schooler than thou? I got my first kicks on Atari 26. Guess what? I'd trade the every game on the thing for Deus Ex in a heartbeat.)

Super Mario Bros started the Mario series... Obviously there were games before that but I'm not about to go on about how great Pong is.

Ok, if you wanted to get annoyingly specific, we could talk about arcade Donkey Kong or Mario Brothers, but I don't consider those as noteworthy as Super Mario Brothers.

[Rutskarn]

Got a good standing with those. I've played Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion, F1, and F3. I've finished all of those except Daggerfall.

[Zevox]

Well of course. I never said that ALL old games were good. Merely that the ones that ARE should be played even today.
Sure - if people want to. Just as with all other games. Just to reference your original list, I have played all of two games from it - Mario and Mega Man. Of the others on it, the only one I may one day try to get ahold of and play is Final Fantasy. The rest do not interest me. Not even Zelda, even though it and Zelda II are the only two of the series that I have not played (I find that I do not like the 2D Zelda games as much as the 3D ones). And I'm not someone young who started gaming on a 3D system - my first video game was Pitfall on my parents' Atari 2600 in the early 90s, and I had an NES and Sega Genesis back in the day as well.

Basically, I, like most of the others in this thread it seems, object to your statement that there are any games "you should have to play to call yourself a gamer." It's a ridiculous one. There's nothing wrong with recommending good old games to those interested, but you're doing a little more than that here.

Zevox

[RS14]

Basically, I, like most of the others in this thread it seems, object to your statement that there are any games "you should have to play to call yourself a gamer." It's a ridiculous one. There's nothing wrong with recommending good old games to those interested, but you're doing a little more than that here.

I thought that, then realized that it didn't bother me.

Everyone knows that all real gamers play NetHack. :smallamused:

[Terraoblivion]

Invisible blocks is a mainstay of Megaman, you know. It is one of the things the entire series is famous for in fact. I might misremember and it was introduced in one of the later games in the series, though. It does happen a lot in the game that was originally meant to be Mario 2, but was never released outside Japan because Nintendo realized it was too hard.

As for screwing the game up and making it unwinnable if you go the wrong place that can happen in the original Zelda. Also there is a difference between being told "go here" and being told how to get there. The first Zelda had you wandering aimlessly until you happened to stumble upon the dungeon you were supposed to go to. Being told where to go is just giving you a sense of direction and of what you are supposed to do, it doesn't make the game easier, it just prevents a lot of pointless meandering. I mean surely you cannot argue that being lost and not knowing what to do is more fun? And lacking save function is not a problem, but having it and screwing the player over for using it like Metroid? That just isn't nice.

And these games are not underappreciated, they are hugely loved, marked as classics and praised whenever the history of gaming is being told. But they are not being played a lot, which makes sense. They are archaic, limited games from a time before gaming was at all a developed art from. Complaining about people not playing them is like complaining about people not reading enough Greek tragedies and classic Chinese poems. Or that they don't watch enough 10-minute shorts that needed a man with a piano in the theater to provide the soundtrack. These games come from the childhood of gaming, they come from before gaming had the capabilities to be at all complex or deep.

And saying that people has to play them does implicitly mean that plot and immersion, as well as stunning audiovisuals, are somehow inferior to gameplay to you. And not just that, but inferior to your preferences in gameplay. Why are people who don't care about the challenge, but want to have an easy time playing something while being stunned by the graphics wrong? Why are people who want to pay attention to the plot rather than try over and over again until the events become meaningless not entitled to that view? Yes, these old games are still playable, but that does not mean that they will be entertaining to more than a handful of people today. And you know what, that is fine. This drive for something new and better is a large part of what makes society work, the desire for the new great thing is what gave us games in the first place.

[Zevox]

Invisible blocks is a mainstay of Megaman, you know. It is one of the things the entire series is famous for in fact. I might misremember and it was introduced in one of the later games in the series, though.
I think you might be mixing up the concept of invisible blocks with appearing and vanishing blocks. Classic Mega Man games often feature the latter, but never to my recollection the former.

Zevox

[chiasaur11]

Sure - if people want to. Just as with all other games. Just to reference your original list, I have played all of two games from it - Mario and Mega Man. Of the others on it, the only one I may one day try to get ahold of and play is Final Fantasy. The rest do not interest me. Not even Zelda, even though it and Zelda II are the only two of the series that I have not played (I find that I do not like the 2D Zelda games as much as the 3D ones). And I'm not someone young who started gaming on a 3D system - my first video game was Pitfall on my parents' Atari 2600 in the early 90s, and I had an NES and Sega Genesis back in the day as well.

Basically, I, like most of the others in this thread it seems, object to your statement that there are any games "you should have to play to call yourself a gamer." It's a ridiculous one. There's nothing wrong with recommending good old games to those interested, but you're doing a little more than that here.

Zevox

Bingo.

Also, the heavily implied concept that the only games really worth playing were from '95 or earlier.

I mean, sure, pre 95 I could get by. Super Metroid, Tetris, Marathon 2: Durandal, X-Com, System Shock, River City Ransom (Now there's a must play), Sonic, Earthbound (Need to find a way to play that), A Mind Forever Voyaging (Again, need to find a way to play that)...

But, know what?

Ton of games just as worthy that'd be gone, games that scratch itches pre '95 games can hardly notice. Deus Ex. Half-Life 2. Fallout. Portal. Braid. Smash Bros. Metroid Prime. Mario Galaxy. Even Star Wars Republic Commando.

Saying group A is must play, and group B is inferior modern garbage just because it's too polite to kick you repeatedly in the nadgers every time you mess up seems short sighted.

[Mando Knight]

Only console games? This is serious?

Hm. You're right. Time to dig out...

COMMANDER KEEN!
Forget Duke Nukem Forever, I'm still waiting for Christmas of '92 to come around so I can play The Universe Is Toast! :smalltongue:

[Terraoblivion]

Hmmmm, maybe. I am pretty sure at least some of those only appear when you get close to them, which constitutes invisible as far as i am concerned.

[Rutskarn]

While we're talking classics, I'd like to bring up an excellent little game I picked up in the internet equivalent of a quaint corner store (http://www.gog.com/en/frontpage/). The game is Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura. If you're into the whole plot-and-dialogue-massive-character-freedom scene, this game is a friggin' steal at six dollars.

[chiasaur11]

While we're talking classics, I'd like to bring up an excellent little game I picked up in the internet equivalent of a quaint corner store (http://www.gog.com/en/frontpage/). The game is Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura. If you're into the whole plot-and-dialogue-massive-character-freedom scene, this game is a friggin' steal at six dollars.

And that's exactly the sort of thing that prevents a definitive list from existing.

On one hand? Buggy. Unbalanced. Interface is a nightmare.

On the other?

What Ruts said. Be a taciturn hard drinking gunslinger whose only friend is his dog. A gregarious wizard with contacts everywhere. Or the sparkiest mad scientist ever born.

And either liking it or not depends on how you value each factor.

[Rutskarn]

Interface is a nightmare.

I would have said that, too, before I played Fallout.

[TheSummoner]

Invisible blocks is a mainstay of Megaman, you know. It is one of the things the entire series is famous for in fact. I might misremember and it was introduced in one of the later games in the series, though. It does happen a lot in the game that was originally meant to be Mario 2, but was never released outside Japan because Nintendo realized it was too hard.

No, Disappearing blocks are a mainstay of Megaman. Blocks that you merely have to time your jumps to cross. In the first game, they only appeared in Iceman and Elecman's levels where falling was nonfatal (though it would set you back) and probably somewhere in Wily's castle where its suppose to be more difficult (been a while since I played).

Now, I've never played Megaman and Bass, and I refuse to play Megaman 8, but the only ridiculous segment of disappearing blocks in the entire series is in Heatman's level from Megaman 2. Easily bypassed using Item-2.


As for screwing the game up and making it unwinnable if you go the wrong place that can happen in the original Zelda. Also there is a difference between being told "go here" and being told how to get there. The first Zelda had you wandering aimlessly until you happened to stumble upon the dungeon you were supposed to go to. Being told where to go is just giving you a sense of direction and of what you are supposed to do, it doesn't make the game easier, it just prevents a lot of pointless meandering. I mean surely you cannot argue that being lost and not knowing what to do is more fun? And lacking save function is not a problem, but having it and screwing the player over for using it like Metroid? That just isn't nice.

Where could it happen in the original Zelda? I've never had it happen to me so please point out a place where its possible to make the game unwinnable.

Yes, Zelda drops you in the middle of nowhere in the beginning of the game. you're suppose to explore until you find one of the dungeons. The early ones are all pretty easy so its not like you have to go for Dungeon 1 first.


And these games are not underappreciated, they are hugely loved, marked as classics and praised whenever the history of gaming is being told.

Not underappreciated by who? Those who played them love them but many people who weren't around when they were new flat out refuse to even try them.


But they are not being played a lot, which makes sense. They are archaic, limited games from a time before gaming was at all a developed art from. Complaining about people not playing them is like complaining about people not reading enough Greek tragedies and classic Chinese poems. Or that they don't watch enough 10-minute shorts that needed a man with a piano in the theater to provide the soundtrack. These games come from the childhood of gaming, they come from before gaming had the capabilities to be at all complex or deep.

The fact that the games are old does not make them any less great. Its like saying The Count of Monte Cristo or The Hunchback of Notre-Dame are inferior to Harry Potter because they were written in the 1800's. They're an important part of gaming's history, great games that should be experienced and appreciated both for their quality and for the impact they had on gaming as a whole.


And saying that people has to play them does implicitly mean that plot and immersion, as well as stunning audiovisuals, are somehow inferior to gameplay to you.

What I'm saying is that you need to appreciate the classics and know the history to have any right to call yourself a gamer.

Gameplay IS the most important part of a game. Why does this even need to be argued? Its the very defining feature of the medium. Any plotline could be told through a novel, the audiovisuals could be presented in a film, but gameplay is undeniably the most essential part of any game. Insane isn't it... that how fun a game is is the most important part about it.

Now... am I saying that only 8 and 16-bit games are fun? No. Am I saying that all 8 and 16-bit games are fun? No. I'm saying that its important to recognize the ones that are and that its important for newer gamers to experience them.

Now please, if you have nothing constructive to say about the classics, stop derailing the thread.

[chiasaur11]

I would have said that, too, before I played Fallout.

Heard the interface in Arcanum is worse.

Which, you know, impressive feat.

[Rutskarn]

Now... am I saying that only 8 and 16-bit games are fun? No. Am I saying that all 8 and 16-bit games are fun? No. I'm saying that its important to recognize the ones that are and that its important for newer gamers to experience them.

Now please, if you have nothing constructive to say about the classics, stop derailing the thread.

This is saying something constructive about the classics. We're arguing whether or not relevant in the self-definition of an individual as a gamer, and coming to the general conclusion that they are not, necessarily. Saying something constructive doesn't mean agreeing with the basic premise.

I appreciate gaming history. Mega Man? Legend of Zelda? Super Marios? Hey, those were necessary building blocks. I hear they're pretty fun, too. That's cool. But saying that I can't call myself a gamer unless I've played them is madness.

Have you played Tennis for Two? It was considered to be loads of fun. People would come from miles around to have a go at it, and it's an essential part of gaming history. Is it fair to say that if you haven't played it, or some emulation of it, you can't call yourself a true gamer?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

First things first: the category of "gamer" isn't an exclusive club. We don't have some mystical set of standards to uphold, nor should we put people through some fictitious gauntlet in order to do so.

I, for example, am a gamer. I have never played any of the games on your list, and have a particular irritation at many 8-bit and 16-bit games (albeit with one or two exceptions). I don't find them enjoyable...I find them annoying and trying.

You call these the best games ever made...I disagree. Some of the pale in comparison to games I could go to the store and buy now, both in quality and in general entertainment value. I'm not saying the games you suggest aren't classics, but...well...part of being a classic involves certain rose-colored glasses when looking back. I don't think there's any reason to say that people must play these, any more than there is reason to claim that any computer technician must build ENIAC himself, or any artist must first learn cave painting, and then progress into, for example, medieval art before reaching modern aesthetic values. If I jump right into surrealism or abstract sculpture, I'm still an artist: if I go out and buy an Xbox360 and Halo 3, I'm a gamer.

And if I choose to explore the past or ignore the past? That's my choice. Maybe I'll be less informed about the history of my pastime, but that doesn't mean that I enjoy it or partake of it any less. I'm a national level fencer, but I can't trace the evolution of every sword style beginning with the smallsword and reaching the modern competitive fencing foil...and that's never ONCE meant that someone declined to acknowledge me as a fencer. The same applies here.

[chiasaur11]

Although, thinking about it, it ain't a bad idea to give some of the classics a quick spin, if only so you can say "Holy crud am I glad they have 3D graphics now".

Not needed or nothing, but there are worse ideas.

[Terraoblivion]

I will need to get back to you on the Zelda thing. The one of my friends i know can explain it definitely is not online at the moment.

And the Count of Monte Christo and the Hunchback of Notre Dame do not deserve to be mentioned in the same city. The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a complex psychological study written by an artist making slow, ponderous, thoughtful books. The Count of Monte Christo is 19th century pulp from Dumas' book factory.

Also both books came at a time when writing was a mature medium the abilities of which had been thoroughly explored and the narrative toolcase of effects had been developed. The same is not the case with 8-bit gaming. 8-bit gaming was at a time when how the medium worked at the most basic was still being explored and when significant technical limitations existed on what the medium could do. The two are not comparable. A better comparison would be The Epic of Gilgamesh and Harry Potter and i know which one i'd prefer reading.

[quote]that how fun a game is is the most important part about it.[quote]

And all this time i've tried to say that there are different opinions of what is fun. Quite a few people find watching sports the height of fun, while i am willing to bet that quite a few people reading this thread has never watched a game. You find challenge to be the essence of fun above all other aspects of a game. I don't. In fact there are few things i find more boring than playing those really old school games where the whole point is getting the highest score possible. What is fun for me is soaking in the atmosphere, experiencing the plot and feeling like the hero. And for gameplay to be fun for me, it has to be fast, intuitive and forgiving of failure. It can be hard if failure is easily forgiven. In short most older games, even most good older games are not to my taste. And if you try to tell me that i am not having fun or that i am a bad person for having fun in the wrong way or anything of the like you can just **** off. People have different things they find fun and that is the end of it and you should stop trying to force others to appreciate what you do.

And i don't give a damn about classics. If something is fun to you it has value. If something contains valuable knowledge it is important. If something was the first at something then it doesn't matter except in very specific situations unless you find it interesting.

[Thajocoth]

Super Mario Brothers - NES - 1985
The original that started it all.

Super Mario Bros. is an awesome game. Indeed. However, it did not start it all. Mario brought the industry back from the dead, but Pac-Man was the industry's first real character, and there were a lot of games before he came about. (Specifically, it was the Nintendo's chip that required games to go through Big N to be published that brought the industry back from the grave, as it stopped shovelware from watering the industry down too much for anyone to make a profit. I find today's trend towards MORE shovelware disturbing for this very reason.)

A lot of the old stuff is a lot of fun. I'm not sure I'll ever like a game as much as Super Mario Bros. 3. But a lot of games are up there, and I can appreciate Megaman 3, Super Metroid, Sonic the Hedgehog 3 and Knuckles, Mass Effect, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time and Bioshock all side by side, and call all of them "must-haves".

[Alleine]

What I'm saying is that you need to appreciate the classics and know the history to have any right to call yourself a gamer.

If my English teachers told me that I had to read and appreciate what they seem to think are 'classics' in order to say that I like to read in my spare time, I'd rather be illiterate. Either that or I'd laugh in their face and continue on my way. Same applies here.

So what if someone hates them? Can they not be a gamer? People have different opinions, and just because it isn't the same as yours doesn't mean that you are superior to them.



I've noticed a rather disturbing trend in younger people calling themselves gamers despite never picking up a system older than the PS2. Hopefully we can reccomend some great games to the ones who truely want to experience the classics. If not, we can atleast ridicule those who have no right to call themselves gamers while honoring some of the best games ever made.

Not to mention that claiming you have the right to decide what other people have a right to be called is ridiculous, and making fun of them because they don't have your special requirements is just plain mean.

[Cogwheel]

While we're talking classics, I'd like to bring up an excellent little game I picked up in the internet equivalent of a quaint corner store (http://www.gog.com/en/frontpage/). The game is Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura. If you're into the whole plot-and-dialogue-massive-character-freedom scene, this game is a friggin' steal at six dollars.

That it is. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it's quite old enough to be counted by many of the people here (Summoner in paticular). I would've recommended it and a whole lot of other games besides otherwise.

[Vitruviansquid]

Naw, dog. You just have to learn the secret handshake to be a gamer.

But in all seriousness, I don't really understand your logic in making these THE classic games for people to play. I'm not going to say they weren't all good games, but... you've got Metroid on there? Some definite gamers don't even know who Samus is if not for the Super Smash brothers series. And it's not like you have a wide variety of games out there. Where's the strategy title? The fighting game? The FPS?

You've got a whole list of action/platformer games, one action/RPG, and just one lone turn based RPG. Neither are these games really that important in the whole view of gaming history. Where's Dune II, the first RTS? Where's Halo, the game that really popularized the "Halo shield" mechanic and brought shooters to consoles? Where's the most successful online games of all time ever - Starcraft, Counterstrike, and World of Warcraft? Where are all those games that spawned their own genres of poser games - Diablo, Age of Empires, and so on?

[TheSummoner]

Naw, dog. You just have to learn the secret handshake to be a gamer.

But in all seriousness, I don't really understand your logic in making these THE classic games for people to play. I'm not going to say they weren't all good games, but... you've got Metroid on there? Some definite gamers don't even know who Samus is if not for the Super Smash brothers series. And it's not like you have a wide variety of games out there. Where's the strategy title? The fighting game? The FPS?

I just listed a few off the top of my head. You're welcome to add more and if you bring up a classic that I haven't played then I'd probably try to track it down.


Where's the most successful online games of all time ever - Starcraft, Counterstrike, and World of Warcraft? Where are all those games that spawned their own genres of poser games - Diablo, Age of Empires, and so on?

I don't consider them old enough to be classic games. They're great games, yes, but what I want to focus on are games from the 80's to early (and maybe mid) 90's.

[factotum]

I have never, ever played a Mario or Sonic game in my life. Why? I never owned a console! I started out playing Space Invaders and Phoenix on actual arcade machines; at home, I cut my teeth playing games on the aforementioned ZX Spectrum and then moved on through the Amiga to the PC. My gaming lineage includes Elite, Strangeloop, and Valkyrie 17, all of which I consider classics of their genres but which (apart from Elite) I bet hardly anyone has played. Does that somehow make me "not a gamer"? Does it make me more or less of a gamer than someone who's spent the last five years playing World of Warcraft, and that's the only game they've ever played? I don't think it does, to be honest.

If you can say, with hand on heart, that one of your primary hobbies is game playing, then you can call yourself a gamer, and I see no reason to discount people who haven't played some title from 1985...

[TheSummoner]

I beg to differ.

If someone plays nothing but Guitar Hero, Halo and generic WWII games, thinks all Nintendo games are for little kids, that RPGs all suck and are made for Japanophiles, etc... then that person is not a gamer. Not in my eyes anyways.

My point from the start has been that if you consider yourself a gamer then there are certain classic games that you need to experience. The kind of person who flat out refuses to play a game because it has 8-bit graphics instead of thousands of ultra-realistic shades of dull brown, forest green, and cement gray... because the music is simplistic and plays on a constant loop... because the plot is all there in the manual... If you're that kind of person who flat out refuses to give the classics a try because "they're outdated archaic relics" then you're no better than the people who play nothing rhythm and FPS games and have the nerve to call themselve a gamers. Honestly, I take offense to it (not enough to ruin my day or anything, but its irritating... like a bad mosquito bite).

The reason I started the thread was to honor the classic games, to reccomend some great old games to the newer gamers who weren't around to experience them when they were new and actually care. I was trying to emphasise just how important the classic games are... that they're something that every legitimate gamer (you know... the ones who aren't what I described above) really ought to experience.

[Rutskarn]

My point from the start has been that if you consider yourself a gamer then there are certain classic games that you need to experience. The kind of person who flat out refuses to play a game because it has 8-bit graphics instead of thousands of ultra-realistic shades of dull brown, forest green, and cement gray... because the music is simplistic and plays on a constant loop... because the plot is all there in the manual... If you're that kind of person who flat out refuses to give the classics a try because "they're outdated archaic relics" then you're no better than the people who play nothing rhythm and FPS games and have the nerve to call themselve a gamers. Honestly, I take offense to it (not enough to ruin my day or anything, but its irritating... like a bad mosquito bite).


What? Have the nerve to call themselves gamers? I don't think you're being open-minded about this. "Gamer" is a self-designation that indicates an enjoyment of videogames, not a canonization or lifetime achievement award.

I refer you to my first post in the thread. I haven't played any of your games, but I would call myself a gamer any day of the week. Does this position genuinely offend you?

[TheSummoner]

That depends... Are you the kind of person who plays nothing but generic FPS, rhythm, and sports games and shuns anything with cartoonish graphics or colors that aren't dull and saturated? Do you judge graphics higher than gameplay?

If so, yes, that offends me. If not, no, but I still reccomend you try the classic games that I and others listed.

[Rutskarn]

That depends... Are you the kind of person who plays nothing but generic FPS, rhythm, and sports games and shuns anything with cartoonish graphics or colors that aren't dull and saturated? Do you judge graphics higher than gameplay?

If so, yes, that offends me. If not, no, but I still reccomend you try the classic games that I and others listed.

To the first: No, that's not my position, although I'd have no problem with anyone who calls themself a gamer and only plays those.

That last statement strikes me as loaded. Modern gamers don't not play those titles because the graphics are poor, they play them because they like games with further advanced gameplay. There is no quality Legend of Zelda possesses that modern titles cannot exceed--indeed, that titles freely available on the internet could not exceed. Playing them purely as a historical exercise strikes me as unnecessary, especially since I don't particularly like those kinds of games.

Now that I've thought about it, I did once play the first Final Fantasy. It was a few years back, when someone showed me an emulated copy of it. I tried it for fifteen minutes, then set it aside.

I don't feel like I gained anything, and I sure as hell wouldn't have gained anything if I'd stuck with it longer.

That's not saying you can't play these games, and it's not saying they're not good, but my point is, you shouldn't have to play them.

I have more to say about your first point, and will do so later tomorrow.

[Gralamin]

Its amazing how many games listed in this thread I haven't played - and I've been playing Video games since I was 3. I've played F19: Stealth Fighter, Chips Challenge, Star Trek: Final Unity, Crystal Caves, Commander Keen, Starcraft, X-Wing vs Tie Fighter, Arcanum, Planescape Torment to name a few over my life. I have literally played over 1000 video games (Though sadly most of them are no longer in my possesion). I don't remember most of them.
I've never played some games that are classics, such as System Shock 1 and 2, or Dues Ex. I own the X-COM Floppy disks.

I've never finished Baldur's Gate 2, or even got out of the starting dungeon. It's interface is terrible and the starting story is uninteresting. The funniest part of what I played was launching bouncing lightning bolts around. I doubt its a bad game, its just not a good game for me.

I haven't played most of the Fallout games, they weren't interesting, and I've never finished Fallout 3.

I've played many of the classic console and handheld games, but I barely remember any of them. Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy 6, Super Metroid and Seiken Densetsu 3 being exceptions. I'm pretty sure it is impossible not to call me a gamer, yet I've missed or disliked a lot of the classics. I've never played Punch Out or a bunch of other games.

But In conclusion: I don't have any more of a right to be called a gamer then someone who has played a single video game. So really, the point of this thread seems to be... pointless elitism.

tl;dr
I play too much video games, and find this concept pointless elitism.

[potatocubed]

Pfft. I think the modern dilution of 'gamer' to cover only video games is a travesty. Unless you've played the original Legend of Zelda and brown box D&D and bridge and at least three variants of poker and Magic: the Gathering and six defunct CCGs and chess and actually finished a game of Monopoly I don't think you deserve the title.

P.S. I have played none of the games on your list.

[Oregano]

Bleh, old games are overrated. All those games you listed have new entries so there's no need to get the old one(although Megaman's is still 8-bit).

Why couldn't some go out tomorrow and buy NMSB Wii, Spirit Tracks, FFXIII, Punch Out Wii, Megaman 10(on Wiiware) and pre-order Metroid: Other M(or get the Prime Trilogy) and call themself a gamer?

Out of your list I've only played Super Mario Bros, Legend of Zelda, Mike Tyson's Punch Out and Final Fantasy.

I agree that there's a whole bunch of games that "gamers" should play but I don't see why we should recommend the original outdated versions over the state of the art new ones. I mean for all the hate its getting I can guarantee FFXIII will be better than the original.

[Aragehaor]

Pfft. I think the modern dilution of 'gamer' to cover only video games is a travesty. Unless you've played the original Legend of Zelda and brown box D&D and bridge and at least three variants of poker and Magic: the Gathering and six defunct CCGs and chess and actually finished a game of Monopoly I don't think you deserve the title.

P.S. I have played none of the games on your list.

i've played the original legend of Zelda, Bridge, Chess and I finished a game of monopoly.

So... Part of the way there!:smalltongue:

[Thanatos 51-50]

Super Mario Brothers - NES - 1985
Played it. Meh.

The Legend of Zelda - NES - 1986
Played it. Double meh.

Metroid - NES - 1986
Think I started with Metroid 2 to be honest, never finished it.

Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! - NES - 1987
Meh to the Meh'th power.

Mega Man - NES - 1987
Played an emulator once. It reminded me how hard games were back in the day.

Final Fantasy - NES - 1987
Bought the updated version for the DS that came out comparatively recently. Put it down and didn't finish it out of boredom.

These games are 'classic' in the same way my grandmother is. Seriously, I love my Gramma, but she's not exactly the best riot on the block. And hell yeah, she's important. And a part of history. But, seriously, I can't say you've have had to spent an afternoon with my Gramma in order to call yourself a socialite.

Bottom Line: I agree with Ruts and Chia. (Big surprise, those two guys are like, awesome.)

[lord_khaine]

I agree that there's a whole bunch of games that "gamers" should play but I don't see why we should recommend the original outdated versions over the state of the art new ones. I mean for all the hate its getting I can guarantee FFXIII will be better than the original.

It might be better than FF1, i cant comment in that regard since i have not played it myself.

But i would rather replay FF6 or FF7 than FF12, so at least some of the older games beat the new ones in term of quality.
Actualy thats something i find pretty disapointing, the general quality of RPG's have been going down lately, i cant think of a good RPG title comming out since FFX

[Oregano]

But i would rather replay FF6 or FF7 than FF12, so at least some of the older games beat the new ones in term of quality.
Actualy thats something i find pretty disapointing, the general quality of RPG's have been going down lately, i cant think of a good RPG title comming out since FFX

I'd probably play VI or VII over XII too but I just can't agree with the bolded bit, there's been plenty of good RPGs since then and quite a lot from Square Enix too. I just think people have become more receptive to their flaws....and a lot of old RPGs are plain overrated.

That's another topic though, there's nothing wrong with people liking the newer entries though even if we don't, plenty of people love FFXII.

[Athaniar]

A real gamer plays games that he/she finds interesting, amusing, challenging, et cetera. Playing games just because they are "classic" or "popular" does not make one a real gamer.

[lord_khaine]

I'd probably play VI or VII over XII too but I just can't agree with the bolded bit, there's been plenty of good RPGs since then and quite a lot from Square Enix too. I just think people have become more receptive to their flaws....and a lot of old RPGs are plain overrated.


Really, what rpg's are you rating above FFX then?

[lobablob]

TheSummoner, if you want to sit in your room alone, refusing to play anything that isn't 20+ years old and scorning all the pitiful humans who haven't attained your level of gaming 'trueness' go ahead. But don't come in here calling us inferior and not 'true' gamers just because we have different opinions to you. We're gonna continue playing modern games because we enjoy them - and your ranting can't prevent that.

If you want to believe that your better than everyone else because of your gaming choice, go ahead. But don't expect us to take you seriously.

[AgentPaper]

Super Mario Bros
Legend of Zelda
Final Fantasy 1
Final Fantasy 4
Final Fantasy 6
Final Fantasy 7
Final Fantasy X
Dragon Quest/Warrior 1, 6, 8
Tetris
Pokemon Yellow/Red/Blue/Any
Golden Eye
Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Mario Kart (any)
Metal Gear Solid
Baldurs Gate
Baldurs Gate 2
Shadow of the Colossus
Ico
Deus Ex
System Shock 2
Half-Life
Half-Life 2
Klonoa 2
Psychonauts
Space/Kings Quest Any
Day of the tentacle
Star Wars:Jedi Outcast
Star Wars:Dark Forces 2
Doom
Wolfenstein 3D
Unreal Tournament
Warcraft 2
Warcraft 3
Starcraft
World of Warcraft
Prince of Persia 1/2 (originals)
Civilisation
Civilisation 2
Total War games (any)
Age of Empires (any)


Bolded for the ones I've played.

Sounds better than "OMG you didn't play my favorite game ever?! You can't call yourself a gamer!", but in the end it just becomes: To be a gamer, you have to have played a bunch of games that I like.

You're a gamer if you play videogames and enjoy them. There's really not not anything more to it than that.

[Oregano]

Really, what rpg's are you rating above FFX then?

Talking personally here, ratings and popular opinion won't be backing me up but I enjoyed Crystal Chronicles: Ring of Fates and Echoes of Time as much as X(and the other FF:CC games aren't RPGs and I've only played a tiny bit of the original), Dragon Quest VIII is better than FFX(and IX is coming out this summer), TWEWY, Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon and that's just me personally. Other people would list stuff like Kingdom Hearts, Valkyria Chronicles, Persona 3 and 4, Shin Megami Tensei games, Tales of(I've only played Symphonia 2) and Mario and Luigi.

Then there's stuff like Muramasa, Fire Emblem and Okami that aren't really RPGs but are RPG-ish.

[Thanatos 51-50]

Blue Dragon

That game got better past the opening level? Seriously? I must have missed out on some quality game, then.
I loved Personas 3 and 4. The original is pretty good, too, though I put it down for a while and can't remember what I'm doing.

To end this post with something mildly controversial:
Halo: Combat Evolved :: Videogames
What
The Mona Lisa :: Paintings

Discuss.

[AgentPaper]

No offense, but you should probably get rid of that tinder before the fire starts. This thread is hot enough already without that bombshell, I think. :smallwink:

[Thanatos 51-50]

But it'll be hilarious to see people completely misjudge what it actually means.

The short of it is: The Mona Lisa is not considered a classic or a masterpiece because of the painting itself, which is, to be honest, pretty ordinary for the time. The Mona Lisa is lauded because it was the first portrait to have a background that was a landscape.
Back then, you either painted a landscape or a portrait, not both.

Halo introduced many mechanics that we take advantage of in today's shooters: Limited weaponry, regenerating health, and even more or less standardized the control scheme used in console FPSs. Halo is a classic - like it or not.

[lord_khaine]

Talking personally here, ratings and popular opinion won't be backing me up but I enjoyed Crystal Chronicles: Ring of Fates and Echoes of Time as much as X(and the other FF:CC games aren't RPGs and I've only played a tiny bit of the original), Dragon Quest VIII is better than FFX(and IX is coming out this summer), TWEWY, Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon and that's just me personally. Other people would list stuff like Kingdom Hearts, Valkyria Chronicles, Persona 3 and 4, Shin Megami Tensei games, Tales of(I've only played Symphonia 2) and Mario and Luigi.



Hmmm, apperently im rating FFX higher then, though it still is interesting to hear about a new Dragon quest game, i wonder when it will actualy hit my distant corner of europe.
Also, what does TWEWY stand for?

[Temotei]

Classic games deserve a spot in gaming history, but that's it. No one has to play a certain set of games to be considered a gamer. In fact...

–noun
a person who plays games.


Really? No way! Note that this isn't just video games, as the potato mentioned before (sorry...can't remember your name exactly...:smallfrown:). By the way, I've finished at least twenty games of Monopoly. I used to be obsessed with that game.

Seriously, though. The thread should be titled "Classic Games You Should Consider Playing," not "Classic Games That If You Don't Play, You Aren't a Part of the Community." :smallsigh:

I consider God of War to be amazing, but for obvious reasons, not everyone can play it or has played it. Some of those people are just plain too young to play it--some don't want to play a game like it. I'm fine with both. I think they should consider playing it, but if they don't want to, I'm not about to randomly call them non-gamers.

[AgentPaper]

But it'll be hilarious to see people completely misjudge what it actually means.

The short of it is: The Mona Lisa is not considered a classic or a masterpiece because of the painting itself, which is, to be honest, pretty ordinary for the time. The Mona Lisa is lauded because it was the first portrait to have a background that was a landscape.
Back then, you either painted a landscape or a portrait, not both.

Halo introduced many mechanics that we take advantage of in today's shooters: Limited weaponry, regenerating health, and even more or less standardized the control scheme used in console FPSs. Halo is a classic - like it or not.

Oh, I'd make that Super Mario 64 instead, then.

And yes, I'd generally agree that Halo is a classic, very much in the same way most of the games the OP posted and the original SW trilogy are: Great for their time and lauded by many as the greatest of their kind ever to exist, despite the fact that they have glaring flaws and are generally inferior to more modern games largely because of the lessons learned by the industry when making it.

Hell, they even all share the general traits of people claiming that the sequels are all terrible-horrible for many reasons but never the real one, which is that the first one only seemed so great because they hadn't seen anything like it before.

[Name_Here]

Its amazing how many games listed in this thread I haven't played - and I've been playing Video games since I was 3. I've played F19: Stealth Fighter, Chips Challenge, Star Trek: Final Unity, Crystal Caves, Commander Keen, Starcraft, X-Wing vs Tie Fighter, Arcanum, Planescape Torment to name a few over my life. I have literally played over 1000 video games (Though sadly most of them are no longer in my possesion). I don't remember most of them.
I've never played some games that are classics, such as System Shock 1 and 2, or Dues Ex. I own the X-COM Floppy disks.

Definately should play at least System Shock 2 and Deus Ex. I played System Shock for the first time 3 years ago and I think it has aged beautifully. They made the game engine dance for them, the stuff they were able to do in that game still amazes me. Deus Ex is another amazing game that has unbeaten immersion. You finish a mission and people will tell you how well you did on the mission, congratulating you if you put the situation down with minimal force, or yelling at you if you had a scorched earth policy. Then X-COM is to my knowledge alone in it's category so if you ever get around to playing it or get past the point you disliked you are in for a completely unique experience.

These are games you should play just because they are amazing games that managed to bottle lighting better than most of the newer games.

[Amiel]

Where is the Thief series, where is Planescape: Torment. Heck, where is the original Dune or even Portal?

Not only are these classics, they are also innovators, beyond their time; these defined an entirely new genre of game. Not only were they were extremely fun to play (absolutely more of a benchmark than anything) they gripped us with story and immersion.

It is not the games that define us, but how we play them and the enjoyment we derive that makes us what gamers are.

[Temotei]

It is not the games that define us, but how we play them and the enjoyment we derive that makes us what gamers are.

Quoted, italicized, underlined, colored, up-sized, and bold for truth.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Quoted, italicized, underlined, colored, up-sized, and bold for truth.

Your methods are a bit subtle for my liking. There he is, spouting great truth, yet you fail to make these golden words stand out even a smidge from your quoted section, let alone the page at all.

I fear many a lost soul shall skim over this and remain trapped in eternal wanderings.

[Zevox]

Talking personally here, ratings and popular opinion won't be backing me up but I enjoyed Crystal Chronicles: Ring of Fates and Echoes of Time as much as X(and the other FF:CC games aren't RPGs and I've only played a tiny bit of the original), Dragon Quest VIII is better than FFX(and IX is coming out this summer), TWEWY, Breath of Fire: Dragon Quarter, Lost Odyssey, Blue Dragon and that's just me personally. Other people would list stuff like Kingdom Hearts, Valkyria Chronicles, Persona 3 and 4, Shin Megami Tensei games, Tales of(I've only played Symphonia 2) and Mario and Luigi.
Yeah, even speaking as someone whose favorite Final Fantasy game of those he's played (which admittedly don't include what seem to be most of the series' fans' favorites, 6 and 7) is 10, I'd have to say there are plenty of RPGs better than it, including many you listed. Just to name several that have come out after it: Dragon Quest 8, Persona 3 and 4, The World Ends with You, Tales of Symphonia, Tales of Vesperia, Disgaea, Xenosaga episodes 1 and 3, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, Dragon Age: Origins, Mass Effect 2, and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. I'd best stop myself here, as I'm taking too much time trying to think of different games.


Then there's stuff like Muramasa, Fire Emblem and Okami that aren't really RPGs but are RPG-ish.
Fire Emblem is an RPG. It's the series that created the Tactical RPG sub-genre, which includes such series as Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea. From what I understand though Okami is an action-adventure game similar to Zelda and Muramasa is just an action game.


Also, what does TWEWY stand for?
The World Ends with You (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_Ends_with_You), an excellent original RPG by Square-Enix for the DS.

Zevox

[Thufir]

I have to say, I disagree a bit with dictionary.com; or at least I think it's unclear. Playing games once or twice doesn't make you a gamer. Being a gamer implies that gaming is or at some point was a regular thing for you, a noticeable element of your life.
That's it, though. That's all you need to be a gamer.

Now, what you can do is further sub-categorise, into say, casual gamers, hardcore gamers (Sometimes referred to as obsessive), old-school gamers (This one may be relevant to the topic at hand), and in my case, lapsed gamers (I just don't have the time usually, what with my busy schedule of being on the internet every waking moment).
And then, sure, you can say, "I'm a more hardcore gamer than you," or "I'm more old-school than you," but you can't say "You are not a gamer" to someone who clearly is.

[factotum]

I have to say, I disagree a bit with dictionary.com; or at least I think it's unclear. Playing games once or twice doesn't make you a gamer. Being a gamer implies that gaming is or at some point was a regular thing for you, a noticeable element of your life.
That's it, though. That's all you need to be a gamer.

I think it really only counts if you're still regularly playing games; otherwise you're an ex-gamer. (A poor benighted soul who should be nought but pitied, obviously :smallsmile:).

[Jahkaivah]

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/ThisisthesiliestsketchIveeverbeenin.jpg
"This is the silliest thread we've ever started...."

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/Shallwestopit.jpg
"Shall we stop it?"

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/Yeahallright.jpg
"Yeah all right....."

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c226/saxcsa/THEEND.jpg

[Joran]

The title really says it all. This thread is for discussing classic games that you absolutly MUST play (and preferrably beat) to have any right to call yourself a gamer.

I'd disagree. Gamer as rightfully said throughout this thread is a person who is enthusiastic about games and spends a regular amount of time playing them. What you seem to be aiming for is a game critic, someone who can put a game in its historical, cultural, and evolutionary context.

For instance, to be able to know how a game like "Mirror's Edge" fits in the gaming universe, you'd have to start with Prince of Persia, throw in some Super Mario Brothers, and Doom or Wolfenstein 3D for the first person perspective.

I'm in support of a gaming "canon", a series of games that you need to have played a little bit to understand how we got to where we are in games, subdivided by genre. For RTS, it'd probably have to start with Dune and Command and Conquer, go into the Blizzard games, make a sidetrip through Total Annihilation, the Total War series, and Age of Empires. Throw in some Company of Heroes and you can analyze any current RTS (I'm sure I'm missing some).

I like the idea of occasionally going back to look upon the classics to see how we got to where we are now. Especially to thank our lucky stars for the innovations made in current games.

[Mathis]

Question: Do you play games, video games, board games or other recreational activities that involve what you would call "gaming" on a regular basis, meaning two times a week or more?

Answer: If no: I'm sorry, you cannot call yourself a gamer. Sure you've played games but you're no "Gamer".

If yes: Congratulations, you have earned the right to carry the title "Gamer", for better or for worse.

[Joran]

Question: Do you play games, video games, board games or other recreational activities that involve what you would call "gaming" on a regular basis, meaning two times a week or more?

Answer: If no: I'm sorry, you cannot call yourself a gamer. Sure you've played games but you're no "Gamer".

If yes: Congratulations, you have earned the right to carry the title "Gamer", for better or for worse.

But what if I can't play except on Saturdays, when I block out 8 hours worth of time? How about the person who plays for 2 days, but only one hour each? ;)

We can always punch holes in any definition. Gamer is a term we use to self-identify, aligning ourselves with the gaming culture. It's sort of like a "geek". It's hard to define, but if you self-identify yourself as a geek, then it's meaningful.

[Ikialev]

But they are like twenty years old, why would I do it by choice.

[Voidhawk]

One of the first computer games I ever played was called Dictator, and was on my dad's old ZX Spectrum from Way Back When. It was on a cassete that got played on a separate tape player that itself was bigger than my current desktop.

I love that game all to hell. It had no graphics to speak of, and always had the same opening move, but I still love it massively. Mostly it was two things: the way that it specifically tells you that your reign as El Presidente is measured in months, and if you get past 12 you're doing great; and that the first thing it always asked you, was "Do you want to invade your harmless neighbouring country? It'll make the military happy..." INVADE LEFTOTO! :smallbiggrin:

{Scrubbed}

[Rockphed]

I find the OP's Game Fu lacking. He mentioned neither Donkey Kong, nor Star Raiders. Neither Commander Keen nor Crystal Caves. He didn't even mention Jill of the Jungle(which I have not played an unbroken copy of in years.) Pitfall was an awesome game.

[Oregano]

Hmmm, apperently im rating FFX higher then, though it still is interesting to hear about a new Dragon quest game, i wonder when it will actualy hit my distant corner of europe.
Also, what does TWEWY stand for?

Well how long does it take Nintendo games to reach you, Nintendo is publishing it and dated it for Summer 2010 on the Nintendo DS.:smallwink:

TWEWY stands for The World Ends With You as Zevox said.



Fire Emblem is an RPG. It's the series that created the Tactical RPG sub-genre, which includes such series as Final Fantasy Tactics and Disgaea. From what I understand though Okami is an action-adventure game similar to Zelda and Muramasa is just an action game.

Zevox

Yer I put them in the "RPG-ish" genre because some people consider them RPGs and some don't, I'd count Fire Emblem as RPGs and possibly Muramasa(it's very iffy to me) and Okami is an action-adventure, but I have seen people refer to it as an RPG(as people do with Zelda).

[Rustic Dude]

Hey, Summoner, you've forgotten Pong. Thats, by your definition, the father of all classics.

....

You're not a gamer. :smalltongue:




(And your definition of gaming is, by the way, severely lacking. I only play on PC, pal. So I'm not a gamer? )



And for something less flamable, bolded the ones I've played of the list.

# Super Mario Bros
# Legend of Zelda
# Final Fantasy 1
# Final Fantasy 4
# Final Fantasy 6
# Final Fantasy 7
# Final Fantasy X
# Dragon Quest/Warrior 1, 6, 8
# Tetris
# Pokemon Yellow/Red/Blue/Any
# Golden Eye
# Zelda: Ocarina of Time
# Mario Kart (any)
# Metal Gear Solid
# Baldurs Gate
# Baldurs Gate 2
# Shadow of the Colossus
# Ico
# Deus Ex
# System Shock 2
# Half-Life
# Half-Life 2
# Klonoa 2
# Psychonauts
# Space/Kings Quest Any
# Day of the tentacle
# Star Wars:Jedi Outcast
# Star Wars:Dark Forces 2
# Doom
# Wolfenstein 3D
# Unreal Tournament
# Warcraft 2
# Warcraft 3
# Starcraft
# World of Warcraft
# Prince of Persia 1/2 (originals)
# Civilisation
# Civilisation 2
# Total War games (any)
# Age of Empires (any)

[Erloas]

How is it that the OP consisted of 3 years, and a single company and system and thought it was in any way complete?

Mario for instance I played when I was maybe 8 (didn't get it right away) and even then I never really cared for it. It was a staple of the time because it came with every system and it was the most well known of a fairly short list of games, not because it was exceptionally good. Its not hard to be the best game of the decade when there are only a hand full of real competition.

Most of the games of that era took no skill besides timing. All the difficulty came from how precise the timing was and that was about it. There were also a lot of cases where passing the first time wasn't really possible and it took a lot of trial and error to figure things out. Its more of a challenge of patience then really a test of skill.

There are a lot of these games that if you give to a new gamer, without nostalgia clouding things up, they just don't go over well. Which means the games aren't as timeless as some people think they are.


I don't think there are really any "must have played" games, though there are certainly genres. Not just FPS, RPG, RTS, Action/adventure on the PC and at least a couple different consoles, but also table top P&P sort of games, as well as wargames, and board games from companies other then the Milton Bradley types. Being familiar with all aspects of gaming is more important then being familiar with any specific game as far as I'm concerned.

[Starfols]

I'm a Sega kid, and I would like to have a word with you on how you define classic... :smallmad::smalltongue:

Also, even on Nintendo; Castlevania, Galaga, and Contra. Where are they? :smalleek:

# Super Mario Bros meh
# Legend of Zelda bad
# Final Fantasy 1 alright
# Final Fantasy 4 good
# Final Fantasy 6 very good
# Final Fantasy 7 alright
# Final Fantasy X bad
--Where's 8&9, aka the best ones?
# Dragon Quest/Warrior 1, 6, 8
# Tetris I used to play every day.. I actually got on a world daily high score table a few times.
# Pokemon Yellow/Red/Blue/Any
# Golden Eye
# Zelda: Ocarina of Time < Majora's mask.
# Mario Kart (any) This doesn't belong on here...
# Metal Gear Solid
# Baldurs Gate have it. haven't bothered.
# Baldurs Gate 2 ditto.
# Shadow of the Colossus
# Ico
# Deus Ex Very good.
# System Shock 2 Also good
# Half-Life Good.
# Half-Life 2 Very good.
# Klonoa 2
# Psychonauts Actually not that great.
# Space/Kings Quest Any
# Day of the tentacle
--Where's Loom? :smallannoyed:
# Star Wars:Jedi Outcast
# Star Wars:Dark Forces 2
# Doom Alright.
# Wolfenstein 3D Not great, but not terrible.
# Unreal Tournament It was fun if you turned the gravity on low.
# Warcraft 2 Didn't bother beating it.
# Warcraft 3 Good for a while.
# Starcraft Pretty fun.
# World of Warcraft actually kinda fun.
# Prince of Persia 1/2 (originals)
# Civilisation
# Civilisation 2
# Total War games (any) medieval 2 is the best.
# Age of Empires (any)

[Drascin]

Bleh, old games are overrated. All those games you listed have new entries so there's no need to get the old one(although Megaman's is still 8-bit).

Why couldn't some go out tomorrow and buy NMSB Wii, Spirit Tracks, FFXIII, Punch Out Wii, Megaman 10(on Wiiware) and pre-order Metroid: Other M(or get the Prime Trilogy) and call themself a gamer?


Well... you certainly could call yourself a gamer, because you'd be playing games. But in truth, some of those aren't things I'd recommend.

For example, preordering Other:M is most certainly not a good idea yet, as we don't know all about it yet, and even from what we know the chances that it's going to let you get the feeling of the Metroid series seems slim - as it seems to be a pretty big reimagining. It'd be like getting people started on RTSs with Dawn of War 2 - yes, the game's good, but it's rather unrepresentative of the genre. At least give the man Metroid Zero Mission or Fusion or something! :smallbiggrin:

[factotum]

I've been looking for an emulated version of it for ages...:smallfrown:

{Scrubbed}

[chiasaur11]

Well... you certainly could call yourself a gamer, because you'd be playing games. But in truth, some of those aren't things I'd recommend.

For example, preordering Other:M is most certainly not a good idea yet, as we don't know all about it yet, and even from what we know the chances that it's going to let you get the feeling of the Metroid series seems slim - as it seems to be a pretty big reimagining. It'd be like getting people started on RTSs with Dawn of War 2 - yes, the game's good, but it's rather unrepresentative of the genre. At least give the man Metroid Zero Mission or Fusion or something! :smallbiggrin:

Prime Trilogy, all the way.

Gives a primer on Metroid, FPS gaming, and some platforming, all in one handy package.

Mainly Metroid, admittedly, but it nails the classic feel despite the prospective shift.

[Thufir]

But what if I can't play except on Saturdays, when I block out 8 hours worth of time? How about the person who plays for 2 days, but only one hour each? ;)

We can always punch holes in any definition. Gamer is a term we use to self-identify, aligning ourselves with the gaming culture. It's sort of like a "geek". It's hard to define, but if you self-identify yourself as a geek, then it's meaningful.

Exactly. Incidentally, I still consider myself a gamer despite not gaming that much any more because having been more of a gamer in the past, it's still part of how I think. And you know what they say: If it thinks like a gamer, quacks like a duck, and transforms like a 2nd rank tensor, then I'm mixing my proverbs.

[TheSummoner]

How is it that the OP consisted of 3 years, and a single company and system and thought it was in any way complete?

Never said it was. I just named a few that immediatly came to mind and thought others would post more and there would be a discussion about classic games. I was also planning on updating the list as things went along, adding in ones that others mentioned.

Instead the thread spirals into such insane offtopicness because of the way I tried to emphasise how important these games are.

No, instead of being a thread for appreciation of classic games, there are things like...

But they are like twenty years old, why would I do it by choice.
Which I really hope was sarcasm...

I don't think there are really any "must have played" games, though there are certainly genres. Not just FPS, RPG, RTS, Action/adventure on the PC and at least a couple different consoles, but also table top P&P sort of games, as well as wargames, and board games from companies other then the Milton Bradley types. Being familiar with all aspects of gaming is more important then being familiar with any specific game as far as I'm concerned.[/QUOTE]


I find the OP's Game Fu lacking. He mentioned neither Donkey Kong, nor Star Raiders. Neither Commander Keen nor Crystal Caves. He didn't even mention Jill of the Jungle(which I have not played an unbroken copy of in years.) Pitfall was an awesome game.
"I just named a few that immediatly came to mind"

And to all of you who keep bringing up newer games...

I could go on and on about how great the Metroid Prime trillogy is... I could talk about how much I love NSMBWii or Megaman 9 and 10 for having all of the greatness of the classic games despite still being quite new... I could post a huge wall of text for how much I loved No More Heroes for its stlye and the unique and memorable bosses despite the gameplay itself being nothing special.

Going back further, I could talk about how great a game Banjo Kazooie or Megaman X or Star Fox 64 or Goldeneye are...

But these games aren't the classics I was talking about when I started the thread. I was almost excluslvely referring to great 8-bit games that everyone who calls themself a gamer should play... Some 16-bit as well (so maybe Megaman X does count...)

Did I say that these were the best games ever made and that older games are by default better than newer ones? Nope... I named a few examples of games that are so outstandingly generic and get far too much attention than they deserve (Halo specifically)... But I never claimed it was impossible for a game made more recently than 1995 to be good. However, those games are entirely irrelevant to the actual topic of the thread... Great old games that everyone should experience.

[The Glyphstone]

Yar, get off my lawn, you darn kids!

Where's Master of Orion? The granddadddy of the entire 4X genre, backed up shortly afterwards by Civilization and its successors?

[RPGuru1331]

While the OP is full of crap for not mentioning incipient games of varying genres, I think a lot of the followup posts are a bit... off too. Saying 'Old Games Suck by today's standards" feels like saying "Gutenberg sucks because Al Gore invented the Internet", especially since even by today's standards, some aren't bad. Platformers haven't really advanced that much; Haven't gotten to poke at Wii stuff, but aside from the newest Mario games, platformers aren't made very often outside of freeware.

I also think it's a bit overgenerous to say "Hard games still get made often". To the best of my knowledge, you get two or three a year, and one of those is Touhou, so if you don't like danmaku, piracy, Japanese (as a language), or dealing with Racist Japanese Paywalls, you're already SOL. Since the PS2 era, I can think of Demon's Souls, Cave Story, various Touhou Entries, but not all of them, Etrian Odyssey 1 and 2 (and by extension Touhou Labyrinth), Mega Man 9, IWBTG, and possibly La Mulana. If I'm generous, I can add Shin Megami Tensei 3 and Persona 3 to that list. Any actually recent PC roguelikes can count as well, but I don't just mean "New patches". Dwarf Fort may count, but since you can't win it probably doesn't.

[TheSummoner]

Yar, get off my lawn, you darn kids!

Where's Master of Orion? The granddadddy of the entire 4X genre, backed up shortly afterwards by Civilization and its successors?

Its right in your post. "I just named a few that immediatly came to mind"

If this thread actualy manages to get back on track I will keep a running list and Master of Orion will be on that list.


While the OP is full of crap for not mentioning incipient games of varying genres

"I just named a few that immediatly came to mind"


I think a lot of the followup posts are a bit... off too. Saying 'Old Games Suck by today's standards" feels like saying "Gutenberg sucks because Al Gore invented the Internet", especially since even by today's standards, some aren't bad. Platformers haven't really advanced that much; Haven't gotten to poke at Wii stuff, but aside from the newest Mario games, platformers aren't made very often outside of freeware.

NSMB Wii is essentially SMB3 with more advanced graphics, a few new tricks and entirely new levels. This is not a bad thing.

You're exactly right in that Platformers haven't changed much since the early days of the genre.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Its right in your post. "I just named a few that immediatly came to mind"

If this thread actualy manages to get back on track I will keep a running list and Master of Orion will be on that list.

The thread doesn't really have a track, as very few of us seem to agree with you that there are "classic" games that one must play to call oneself a gamer. Therefore, we don't really have suggestions.

Just my thoughts on the matter, of course.

[Avilan the Grey]

I have not played any of the games on the OP list. I have never owned a console, plus I loathe JRPGs.

However, I've been playing since my friend got his VIC20.

Packman...
Astroids...

Then I got my own C64...
And then Amiga 500.
And then a PC.

Not that I consider myself a "Gamer", because at least in this country, people who brand themselves as "Gamers" are teenage morons. The kind that still considers Counter Strike to be the first "real" game, and thinks that if you own any version of The Sims, you have no right to own a computer (not an exaggeration).

[Drascin]

NSMB Wii is essentially SMB3 with more advanced graphics, a few new tricks and entirely new levels. This is not a bad thing.

You're exactly right in that Platformers haven't changed much since the early days of the genre.

Indeed. And it's actually really good, which was a surprise after the complete failure that was NSMBros DS - I kind of expected another unfun disaster, and got an actual good Mario game.

I did miss the mini-shroom, though.

[Mando Knight]

Indeed. And it's actually really good, which was a surprise after the complete failure that was NSMBros DS - I kind of expected another unfun disaster, and got an actual good Mario game.

I wouldn't consider NSMBDS to be a complete failure. Plenty of people liked it, and Metacritic gives it an 89% aggregate score, which is pretty darn good.

[Joran]

While the OP is full of crap for not mentioning incipient games of varying genres, I think a lot of the followup posts are a bit... off too. Saying 'Old Games Suck by today's standards" feels like saying "Gutenberg sucks because Al Gore invented the Internet", especially since even by today's standards, some aren't bad. Platformers haven't really advanced that much; Haven't gotten to poke at Wii stuff, but aside from the newest Mario games, platformers aren't made very often outside of freeware.

Depends on the game. I like being able to save my game at any point, I like sliding scales of difficulty.

I do enjoy the Super Mario Brothers Wii, except for the motion control aspect. I jerk my hand when doing precise jumps... and I end up dying.

There are plenty of platformers out there, depending on your definition. Does Portal, Ratchet and Clank, and Mirror's Edge count? There's still N+, Braid, LittleBigPlanet,


The thread doesn't really have a track, as very few of us seem to agree with you that there are "classic" games that one must play to call oneself a gamer. Therefore, we don't really have suggestions.

Just my thoughts on the matter, of course.

Yeah, the majority of the people posting here immediately objected to the premise, that there's a canon of games that everyone must have played to be considered a "gamer".

If it took a less hostile tone and instead was a "if you liked this modern game, here's its classical predecessors that still hold up well." then there will be contributions to your list.

For example: If you liked Bioshock, go play System Shock 2.

[SolkaTruesilver]

First, I would have to say that these old games are not proof of being a gamer. Because I am sure many people played all these, and nothing beyond the N64. Are these gamers? I don't think so.

So there are modern games I would say are also necessary to experience, because they have had major influence over modern game. Zelda OoT is probably the best example.

Also, I would deny the right for anyone to apply Oregon Trail on that list, because it makes any non-americans automatically out, as they probably never even heard of that game before Xkcd made a comic strip out of it, seeing it was an educational game of American History.

[Thane of Fife]

Prime Trilogy, all the way.

Gives a primer on Metroid, FPS gaming, and some platforming, all in one handy package.

Mainly Metroid, admittedly, but it nails the classic feel despite the prospective shift.

Ehhh... I'd rather play Zero Mission than any of the three Prime games, really.

Not to say that the Prime games aren't exceedingly fun, though.

[Ikialev]

Which I really hope was sarcasm...
It was not. I really can't see myself getting suddenly interested in old games for a system never even realeased here. Maybe I'm ungrateful and I don't appreciate precursors of the genre, but whatever. I prefer my modern gaming.

[Drascin]

I wouldn't consider NSMBDS to be a complete failure. Plenty of people liked it, and Metacritic gives it an 89% aggregate score, which is pretty darn good.

I didn't say it wasn't popular, I just said it was pretty bad compared to almost every other Mario game. Not correlated matters :smallwink:.

EDIT:

It was not. I really can't see myself getting suddenly interested in old games for a system never even realeased here. Maybe I'm ungrateful and I don't appreciate precursors of the genre, but whatever. I prefer my modern gaming.

Well, dude, you're seriously missing out. Every era has had its awesome jewels of gaming, and limiting yourself to one is going to hurt no-one but you, really. It's the exact same as a classic gamer deciding to not ever play anthing that came after, say, N64/PSX era - namely a very bad idea.

But eh, your choice. I'm nobody to argue.

[Ikialev]

It's not exactly my choice, it's I lack any means to play games that were released before PS2 era. And emulators aren't my thing.

[SolkaTruesilver]

It's not exactly my choice, it's I lack any means to play games that were released before PS2 era. And emulators aren't my thing.

I'd like to find a reliable N64 emulator :smallfrown:

and the handle that'd fit into my computer, off course :smalltongue:

[TheSummoner]

{Scrubbed}

[Mando Knight]

I'd like to find a reliable N64 emulator :smallfrown:

Its name is Wii.

[SolkaTruesilver]

Its name is Wii.

Does the Wii handle plays the N64 game well?

[pendell]

Y'know, there's a lot I could say to this. A LOT.

I am thirty-eight years old, and have been playing games since 1974. My very first game was SeaWolf, a torpedo-shooting game on a black & white monitor. This was before Space Invaders.

And if someone were to ask me for a list of classic games that are worth playing I would mention the following:

Asteroids (Bally/Midway, 1980?)
Star Raiders (1982, Atari 400/800)
River Raid (Activision, 1984)
Donkey Kong (Nintendo, 1984)
Dragon's Lair/Space Ace (1984)
Street Fighter II (1989)
Starflight/Starflight II (Binary Systems)
Mortal Kombat (same epoch)
Wing Commander (1990)
X-wing/Tie Fighter (early 90s)
King's Quest/Space Quest/Police Quest Sierra series (1990s). Brother, if you've never played classic Sierra, you're seriously missing out.
Quest for Glory/Hero's Quest (Sierra). In a class by themselves.
Star Control 2 (1993).
Homeworld (1998)
Metal Gear Solid series (1990-2000s)
Civilization/Civilization II/Civilization IV (1990s - present day)
And so on.

I'm not saying that you're not a gamer if you haven't played these titles. My point is there are thousands -- possibly millions -- of spectacular titles that predate the initial list. I haven't actually played any of the games on the original list. But I have played racing games, sports games, strategy games, war games, roleplaying games, console games, computer games, continously from 1979 to the present.

I am a gamer -- not because I've played a selection of titles -- but because I'm fanatic about games, pure and simple.

And if you're a fellow fanatic, I consider you a gamer too. Even if you only played one title in your life. It's not experence that makes a gamer, it's passion.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Drascin]

Does the Wii handle plays the N64 game well?

No, but you can use a Gamecube controller, which does :smallbiggrin:.

[Temotei]

Your methods are a bit subtle for my liking. There he is, spouting great truth, yet you fail to make these golden words stand out even a smidge from your quoted section, let alone the page at all.

I fear many a lost soul shall skim over this and remain trapped in eternal wanderings.

Surely. I shall edit out the rest of the quote text.

[Mando Knight]

Does the Wii handle plays the N64 game well?
It...
...wait, what? This... doesn't make... sense...

[Rockphed]

King's Quest/Space Quest/Police Quest Sierra series (1990s). Brother, if you've never played classic Sierra, you're seriously missing out.


Wait, Sierra made those games? I remember them being hard, and I never finished any of them, but wow, that explains a lot. Now to see if I can find a copy of them. I don't suppose Sierra has released them into the public domain? If not, are they on steam or some other legit download service?


I am a gamer -- not because I've played a selection of titles -- but because I'm fanatic about games, pure and simple.

And if you're a fellow fanatic, I consider you a gamer too. Even if you only played one title in your life. It's not experence that makes a gamer, it's passion.

Hear, Hear! There is much wisdom contained in these paragraphs. Let all read them and weep at their sublime glory!

[Mando Knight]

Wait, Sierra made those games? I remember them being hard, and I never finished any of them, but wow, that explains a lot. Now to see if I can find a copy of them. I don't suppose Sierra has released them into the public domain? If not, are they on steam or some other legit download service?

King's (http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/king%E2%80%99s_quest_4_5_6) and Space (http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/space_quest_4_5_6) Quests 4-6 are available on Good Old Games. Watch out, though. Sierra (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Sierra) adventure games are notorious for their ludicrous (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Understatement) difficulty (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/UnwinnableByDesign).

[Demented]

I've played Space Quest. It's not hard. Just infuriating, like every other adventure game known to man.

"Please find (unrelated object) by clicking on (obscure and irrelevant pixel) that is not associated with (any reasonably interactive object).
"Please pick (unrelated object) and apply to (another unrelated object) to achieve (completely ridiculous solution) to solve (otherwise practical problem)."

Which is a shame, because, like many recent games and unlike (Classic Games You Should Have to Play to Call Yourself a Gamer), the game's scenarios, atmosphere and storyline are a suitable reward in and of themselves.

[chiasaur11]

Hmm.

Just was thinking about old school, narrativeness, and the like...

Anyone else played Star Guard? (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/10/09/making-them-like-they-used-to-star-guard/)

Proof positive they do make 'em like they used to.

[RPGuru1331]

NSMB Wii is essentially SMB3 with more advanced graphics, a few new tricks and entirely new levels. This is not a bad thing.

You're exactly right in that Platformers haven't changed much since the early days of the genre.

I don't necessarily disagree. SMB3 is a good game. It seems a bit lazy, but given the relative lack of changes, a forgivable one.


Depends on the game. I like being able to save my game at any point, I like sliding scales of difficulty.

There are plenty of platformers out there, depending on your definition. Does Portal, Ratchet and Clank, and Mirror's Edge count? There's still N+, Braid, LittleBigPlanet,
I have some contention with 'at any point' possibly. But I wouldn't count Portal (More a puzzle game) or Ratchet and Clank (I'm trying to remember the term) as one. I didn't play Mirror's Edge, but it did seem to be a nice take on platforming from the commercials. Do note, I didn't declare them dead, just... exceedingly uncommon. Bit of a shame, but I suppose folks would rather buy NFL Blitz 2011 or whatever. I suppose that is Fine Too.

As to saving, at any point, while we're discussing old games, use save states. I find them a good work around to save you time, and to avoid passwords.

[Terraoblivion]

The list of hard newer games, that is hard newer games that are actually any good, should at least also include Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia, which is considered the second hardest Metroidvania style Castlevania game, with the other being Circle of the Moon which was mostly harder because of how much you needed to grind, often far away from save points. Order of Ecclesia is more forgiving on the grinding, but otherwise as hard as i understand it. I would also like to throw out Suicidal difficulty in Galactic Civilizations II and Deity in Civilization 4. I would also argue that Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn is really hard on most difficulties, especially if you do it properly and refuse to let anybody die. The same can be said for Valkyria Chronicles, which even has an extra hard mode that eliminates the exploits that do exist in the game. I haven't really heard anybody think that the hard mode campaigns in Advance Wars is anything but challenging. I am sure there are more new games that are difficult, these are just the ones that spring to mind that haven't been mentioned yet.

[chiasaur11]

Circle of the Moon?

Oh yeah, that was a nasty one. My first Castlevania. (Unless I played Castlevania first. Don't think so, but it's a possibility)

Died so many times to the worms.

And the medusas.

Other than that I did alright enough.

Knives saved me from Adramelech, cross and flame whip generally solved the other problems until I got the Thunderbird summon. Good times.

[Mando Knight]

The list of hard newer games, that is hard newer games that are actually any good,

Mega Man 10. Hard Mode. As Proto Man.

I'd tell you to go Mr. Perfect on it, but that's just crazy. :smalltongue:

[RPGuru1331]

The list of hard newer games, that is hard newer games that are actually any good, should at least also include Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia, which is considered the second hardest Metroidvania style Castlevania game, with the other being Circle of the Moon which was mostly harder because of how much you needed to grind, often far away from save points. Order of Ecclesia is more forgiving on the grinding, but otherwise as hard as i understand it. I would also like to throw out Suicidal difficulty in Galactic Civilizations II and Deity in Civilization 4. I would also argue that Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn is really hard on most difficulties, especially if you do it properly and refuse to let anybody die. The same can be said for Valkyria Chronicles, which even has an extra hard mode that eliminates the exploits that do exist in the game. I haven't really heard anybody think that the hard mode campaigns in Advance Wars is anything but challenging. I am sure there are more new games that are difficult, these are just the ones that spring to mind that haven't been mentioned yet.

I intentionally am not counting Deity-likes. The way you play in Deity-like modes is not the way you play the game in literally every other difficulty mode or in multiplayer. The games themselves are not that difficult, they just include a mode where the enemy civs start with many times your resources. I might count a regular hard mode that sees regular use, but not Deity. Similarly, I am not counting IWBTG due to Impossible, I'm doing so because of the rest of the game.

Having not played Order of Ecclesia, I have no personal comment on its difficulty. However, I'm fairly leery, since most of my friends who played it seemed to have little trouble with it. If I don't hear a string of curse words at some point as I did with Demon's Souls or IWBTG, I feel safe to assume it "not very difficult".

[Inhuman Bot]

My thoughts on this thread:

http://ghostradio.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/picard-facepalm.jpg

It's been said, yes, but I admit to haveing just read the thread title before needing to post it. >.>

Also, you need to play SwordQuest, Dr. Jeckyl & Mr. Hyde, and beat Battletoads on 2 player.

What if that's what I think you need to do be a "Real gamer". huh?

[RPGuru1331]

Also, you need to play SwordQuest, Dr. Jeckyl & Mr. Hyde, and beat Battletoads on 2 player.

What if that's what I think you need to do be a "Real gamer". huh?

Nobody beat Battletoads. You are a charlatan.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I've noticed a rather disturbing trend in younger people calling themselves gamers despite never picking up a system older than the PS2. Hopefully we can reccomend some great games to the ones who truely want to experience the classics. If not, we can atleast ridicule those who have no right to call themselves gamers while honoring some of the best games ever made.


Being a gamer isn't some honorable title.

Stop treating it like one.

[TheSummoner]

My thoughts on this thread:

http://ghostradio.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/picard-facepalm.jpg

It's been said, yes, but I admit to haveing just read the thread title before needing to post it. >.>

Also, you need to play SwordQuest, Dr. Jeckyl & Mr. Hyde, and beat Battletoads on 2 player.

What if that's what I think you need to do be a "Real gamer". huh?

Thank you for (like so many others) entirely missing the point.

It isn't about some masochist's quest to play the most insanely difficult games ever made (otherwise Battletoads and I Wanna be the Guy would be at the top of the list). Its about classic games that anyone who calls themself a gamer should experience. Games that had a massive impact on the industry or were just so damn good that they're better than many newer games.

For a guy with a Crashman avatar, you seem pretty hostile to classic games...

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Its about classic games...

Fair enough. This we're fine with. People should be able to find good classic games, if they choose to do so. :smallbiggrin:


...that anyone who calls themself a gamer should experience. Games that had a massive impact on the industry or were just so damn good that they're better than many newer games.

This we don't agree with. You're making this statement eclipse a discussion of good old games, and that's drawing flak from the rest of us who don't share the opinion that these are somehow mandatory, or necessarily better than modern games.

I'm not missing the point...I, and many others here, are disagreeing with your given statement. We see your point, and nobody seems to agree that your point is entirely valid. Hence our evidence to the contrary.

[Irbis]

No no no! You're all wannabes! :smallamused:

In order to be a real gamer you have to finish...

PonG! :smallbiggrin:

Spacewar also counts.

Anyone did? :smalltongue:

[Fri]

While the OP is full of crap for not mentioning incipient games of varying genres, I think a lot of the followup posts are a bit... off too. Saying 'Old Games Suck by today's standards" feels like saying "Gutenberg sucks because Al Gore invented the Internet", especially since even by today's standards, some aren't bad. Platformers haven't really advanced that much; Haven't gotten to poke at Wii stuff, but aside from the newest Mario games, platformers aren't made very often outside of freeware.
.

Nah, it's more like "You must learn Avicenna to call yourself a doctor."

I'm not saying that Avicenna's or Galen's work isn't important or useless. Theirs are called classic for a reason. But you don't have to LEARN their books to be a modern doctors. Same with gaming.

[chiasaur11]

No no no! You're all wannabes! :smallamused:

In order to be a real gamer you have to finish...

PonG! :smallbiggrin:

Spacewar also counts.

Anyone did? :smalltongue:

Yeah.

And not on a sissy emulator. Old school Pong booth, arcade.

[Drascin]

Nah, it's more like "You must learn Avicenna to call yourself a doctor."

I'm not saying that Avicenna's or Galen's work isn't important or useless. Theirs are called classic for a reason. But you don't have to LEARN their books to be a modern doctors. Same with gaming.

The problem with that analogy, Fri, is that Galen's work has been rendered obsolete and does nothing current works don't do better, while the best of classic games are still better than the average game of today (because in gaming, a jewel is a jewel, no matter its era - old or new, the good is still good).

Still, it's true that no particular game is necessary to call yourself a gamer. The only requisite is that you play a lot of them and enjoy them. But I stand by my statement that refusing to play the old games solely on the grounds that they're old and therefore inherently worse than the new ones is a huge mistake, and robbing you of a fair bit of enjoyment.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

But I stand by my statement that refusing to play the old games solely on the grounds that they're old and therefore inherently worse than the new ones is a huge mistake, and robbing you of a fair bit of enjoyment.

I don't think anyone was actually saying that...it's all down to opinion. Many of the early Mario 8 and 16 bit games were great games, but I'd personally prefer to play TF2, or Left 4 Dead, or Bayonetta (which is mindlessly entertaining an an over-the-top way), simply because I prefer the visuals and the game play of those games. I'll play the old games, but only if I actually enjoy them. For me, the newer games are often better.

It's all down to perspective.

[Fri]

The problem with that analogy, Fri, is that Galen's work has been rendered obsolete and does nothing current works don't do better, while the best of classic games are still better than the average game of today (because in gaming, a jewel is a jewel, no matter its era - old or new, the good is still good).

Still, it's true that no particular game is necessary to call yourself a gamer. The only requisite is that you play a lot of them and enjoy them. But I stand by my statement that refusing to play the old games solely on the grounds that they're old and therefore inherently worse than the new ones is a huge mistake, and robbing you of a fair bit of enjoyment.

Well... I bring galen for hyperbolic reason. And are you sure that old games hasn't been rendered obsolete and does nothing current works don't do better as well?

Case in point. Why should I play the original zelda when Zelda:The Link to the Past is better in every way and rendered the original zelda obsolete?

Same with the original final fantasy. What did it do better compared to, say final fantasy VI? or even IV?

And I actually do still regularly play games in dosbox. But playing a game simply because it's called 'classic' is just as big a mistake as not playing a game simply because it's old.

[Mewtarthio]

I'll give the old days one thing: It's been a lot harder to find good 2D platformers ever since the end of the SNES era.

[Ultimuh]

Looking at theese lists brings back memories.
Sadly, 90% of those I havent ever beaten.

Still got a working SNES around somewhere, but the wire/cord/whtever for the electricity seriously need to be replaced.
And several controllers are as good as useless.

But I got some good ol' games for the console. :smallbiggrin:

Lets see..
Leged of zelda: A Link To The Past (one of the best games ever)
Harvest Moon (I like the original one better than all the newer versions)
Soul Blazer (often underestimated, its a nice game but the popularity of others overshadows this one)
Secret of Mana (one of the best games ut there!)
Secret of Evermore (err.. nice game but it's not as good as the other mana games)

and a whole bunch of others I dont have nearby.. my younger siblings have them somewhere tough..


Used to have a NES tough, but sold it inorder to affoard the SNES.. I miss Startropics.. :smallsigh:

[SolkaTruesilver]

I'd say that there is a big difference between spiritual successor and real successor.

The main difference I can find is:

Zelda --(Successor)--> Link to the Past --(Spiritual Successor)--> OoT

Link to the past was Zelda+. It was the same thing, but with better things all around. Better story, better gameplay. More options. there isn't a single thing that hasn't been improved.

Ocarina of Time is a spiritual successor to LttP, since there was things that got changed a lot. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. A lot of inspiration is taken from LttP, but it isn't LttP+.

It isn't worth it playing a game that has a successor. As stated earlier, what does FF1 has that FFVI doesn't?

FFVII is, on the opposite, a breakthrough. Something quite new. FFVI has things that FFVII doesn't.

What has Warcraft that Warcraft II didn't?
etc...

[TheSummoner]

I'd say that there is a big difference between spiritual successor and real successor.

The main difference I can find is:

Zelda --(Successor)--> Link to the Past --(Spiritual Successor)--> OoT

Link to the past was Zelda+. It was the same thing, but with better things all around. Better story, better gameplay. More options. there isn't a single thing that hasn't been improved.

So by that logic, the only Megaman game worth playing is Megaman 10. Afterall, the Megaman games all follow the same formula... 8 levels, each one has its own boss fight at the end. After you beat the boss you get a new weapon. Each boss is weak to one specific weapon. After you beat all 8, you go through a castle or two and face Dr. Wily who has some new batle machine.

I disagree. The games aren't the same thing. Each one is a unique experience with its own levels, bosses, challenges, puzzles, etc (not specifically talking about the Megaman series anymore). The newer games in any given series may be able to take advantage of more advanced technology, but that doesn't mean the old ones aren't worth playing.

[SolkaTruesilver]

I disagree. The games aren't the same thing. Each one is a unique experience with its own levels, bosses, challenges, puzzles, etc (not specifically talking about the Megaman series anymore). The newer games in any given series may be able to take advantage of more advanced technology, but that doesn't mean the old ones aren't worth playing.

I think you missed the point. We were talking about "games you have to play to have a better comprehension of game history". Well, there isn't more to be won by playing Megaman 1 and 5 and 9. You will understand the influence it had on the gaming in general just by playing the 9, and if you are into that game, play more of it.

Remember the original topic?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

...The newer games in any given series may be able to take advantage of more advanced technology, but that doesn't mean the old ones aren't worth playing.

Nor, however, does it mean the old ones must be played. Can we get you to agree to that? If so, we're all on the same page (and can drop this discussion of what qualifies as a "real gamer"), and can actually start discussing some good older games, which I think was your original intent.

[Drascin]

Well... I bring galen for hyperbolic reason. And are you sure that old games hasn't been rendered obsolete and does nothing current works don't do better as well?

Case in point. Why should I play the original zelda when Zelda:The Link to the Past is better in every way and rendered the original zelda obsolete?

You probably don't need to, as LttP is an evolved LoZ. But that was not my point when comparing to "new" games - LttP still counts as "classic" for many people. And I will contend that LttP is still a perfectly good game, better in fact than most things out there, and which does some things that few if any newer games do (in addition to being one of the best Zelda games ever. Given how the Zelda series is generally good, this is a serious badge of honor) because the design paradigms that it's made under are completely out of fashion in the current industry, and nobody will make a game like it anymore, not for a while.


Same with the original final fantasy. What did it do better compared to, say final fantasy VI? or even IV?

Probably not much. But in comparison, let's say... FFV, did a lot of things differently than VI, or VII, or VIII, and still merits a playthrough to this day. In fact, I first played it a month ago thanks to emulators (what with the game never being actually released in my country and all), and I still loved it and its most peculiar class system.


And I actually do still regularly play games in dosbox. But playing a game simply because it's called 'classic' is just as big a mistake as not playing a game simply because it's old.

That was my point. Playing a game because it's old may be stupid, true. But not playing a game just because it's old is equally as stupid. You're kind of supposed to judge games on their merits and playability, not on when it came out or how techy its graphics get.


I don't think anyone was actually saying that...it's all down to opinion. Many of the early Mario 8 and 16 bit games were great games, but I'd personally prefer to play TF2, or Left 4 Dead, or Bayonetta (which is mindlessly entertaining an an over-the-top way), simply because I prefer the visuals and the game play of those games. I'll play the old games, but only if I actually enjoy them. For me, the newer games are often better.

It's all down to perspective.

Yeah, it's all tastes. Personally, the only way I really buy games with any frequency anymore is Steam sales and second hand, because little seems to be worth the same kind of money stuff like Terranigma was. There's exceptions (Galaxy was first-day buy, as will be Sin&Punishment 2 and Monster Hunter Tri), but on average, I just don't buy a lot despite technically having more money, because it just doesn't feel worth it.

You know, it's probably telling about the kind of gamer I am that despite easy access to many new good games (consumerphile friends have their advantages!), I've played all of those a lot less, to the point of them languishing in my HD, than a simple, old-style-with-new-graphics arcadey shooter like Shadowgrounds :smalltongue:.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Please avoid discussions of emulators, illegal downloads, and such.

[Temotei]

Huh. I suppose I expected the thread to be six-gunned.

[T.G. Oskar]

So yeah...I cannot consider myself a gamer even though I started my video gaming with Donkey Kong, Pac-Man (or was it Ms. Pac-Man?), Zaxxon and Combat.

I still yearn for Zaxxon. And Raider. But I suck at Ikaruga.

Then I went for the NES, and went for Mario 1, Zelda 1, and Rad Racer (sp?); of course, it wasn't really mine; it was from a boyfriend of one of my sisters. So does my first foray into Genesis, with Sonic 1 being the usual choice.

Then the SNES came (and was of my possession), and I went into the well-expected games; Super Mario World, Zelda: A Link to the Past...then came my first official RPG (and Final Fantasy) experience, which was FF: Mystic Quest, then Mario All-Stars (which meant playing once again Super Mario Brothers 1, and also Super Mario Brothers 2, SMB 3 and Lost Levels), then Final Fantasy III (aka, Final Fantasy VI for all of you who weren't born in the SNES era), then Street Fighter II Turbo and Mortal Kombat (the only fighting games I would play, since I'm not the kind that does fighter games). I also played a few other games, be them lent or rented: Breath of Fire II, Lufia II, Wizardry V, Illusion of Gaia, Super Metroid, Rival Turf (but never, oddly, Final Fight), between others.

Then I get into the PSX, and...well, I think I've presented enough gaming credentials. But, since I never played the original Metroid (Metroid II, however, I gamed and beaten), nor Punch-Out (though I played Super Punch Out; not my kinda game), nor most of those games you claim are necessary to be considered a gamer (even though I played Doom and Quake and Turok and Sim City and Secret of Evermore and Breath of Fire III and Star Ocean: the Second Story and Valkyrie Profile and Suikoden and Legend of Legaia and Legend of Dragoon and Wild Arms and...well, you get the point), I am not a gamer.

I have, though, played Dungeons & Dragons. And GURPS, and Exalted. Maybe I'm a tabletop gamer...? Wait, no, I only played 3.5 D&D, and 3rd Edition GURPS, and Exalted 2nd Edition. Nope, no go.

Perhaps I'm not a gamer after all? Because if I'm a gamer despite having not played nearly half of the games you've mentioned, then this thread is meaningless?

[Cubey]

The only games you should play to call yourself a gamer are those you enjoy.

Because if you don't enjoy video gaming, you're not a gamer. See what I did there?

Satisfaction from your hobby >> smug elitism.

[Tengu_temp]

For a guy with a Crashman avatar, you seem pretty hostile to classic games...

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see any hostility towards old games in his post.

[Mando Knight]

(Metroid II, however, I gamed and beaten),
...
...
...You have a copy of Metroid II?
...*Kills and takes his stuff*

[Kish]

Nor, however, does it mean the old ones must be played. Can we get you to agree to that? If so, we're all on the same page (and can drop this discussion of what qualifies as a "real gamer"), and can actually start discussing some good older games, which I think was your original intent.
I think the title of this thread will constitute an insurmountable albatross hung around its neck as far as productive discussion in it goes. Even if all the people who have posted in the thread so far agreed to drop the discussion of what qualifies as a real gamer, people who haven't would be far more likely to come in guns blazing than to read the entire thread carefully and see the statement on page three or so* that the thread isn't actually what it's labeled as.

*I display forty posts per page, so I don't generally know which page number anyone but me is on.

[T.G. Oskar]

...
...
...You have a copy of Metroid II?
...*Kills and takes his stuff*

Hey, what's the big idea!? Yes, I think I still have Metroid II and the fridge Game Boy around (not to mention the Super Game Boy cartridge for the SNES). I think I even got the little instruction booklet around. Which reminds me...

*shoots with Ice Beam*

[Inhuman Bot]

Nobody beat Battletoads. You are a charlatan.

I realize that, thus why I specified classic games. :smallwink:


Thank you for (like so many others) entirely missing the point.

It isn't about some masochist's quest to play the most insanely difficult games ever made (otherwise Battletoads and I Wanna be the Guy would be at the top of the list). Its about classic games that anyone who calls themself a gamer should experience. Games that had a massive impact on the industry or were just so damn good that they're better than many newer games.

For a guy with a Crashman avatar, you seem pretty hostile to classic games...

Yeah, but the fact you specified "Let's make fun of people who didn't play these games :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:" seemed a little... Rude.

I'm not hostile to classic games that I consider good, like Megaman 2. I just think that it's possible for current games, like Megaman 10, to be better.

[Vitruviansquid]

Alright, getting past this whole discussion on elitism and what a "gamer" is... here's some games you should play.

Pong - Game that started it all

Donkey Kong - Game in which Mario was born (and, for that matter, Donkey Kong).

Street Fighter II - Game that put Fighting games on the map.

Halo - Second game that put console shooters on the map (first was, of course, Goldeneye) and would be copied by most console shooters from then on.

Space Invaders - Game that put arcades on the map.

Starcraft - Game that put South Korea on the map.

Diablo - Game that put hack and slash RPG on the map.

Super Mario - Game that put mario on the map.

Counterstrike - I absolutely loathe this game, but it's as important in the history of "realistic" shooters as Halo is in the history of console shooters.

Doom - put FPS's on the map.

World of Warcraft - Possibly most successful game ever invented thus far.

Dungeon Crawl - I consider this the pinnacle of rogue-like games. Personally, I also think it's a game that you can take something away from.

Age of Empires/Command and Conquer - Game that sort of put RTS's on the map. Not really, but there are so many poser games that came after these, that you should really go see what it's all about.

I'm sure there are plenty of other games that are as important to gaming history or even moreso, but these are the oens I can think of right now.

[TheSummoner]

Yeah, but the fact you specified "Let's make fun of people who didn't play these games :smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin::smallbiggrin:" seemed a little... Rude.

I'm not hostile to classic games that I consider good, like Megaman 2. I just think that it's possible for current games, like Megaman 10, to be better.

Was more of a "Lets make fun of people who absolutly refuse to ever play these." Rude or not, that kind of person deserves my scorn.

I'll grant that its possible, but it doesn't mean it happens every time... You brought up Megaman 10... yeah, its a great game, but I would still only put it at about 6th in the series (2, 3, 1, 9, 4, 10, 5, 7, 6, the one I refuse to admit exists). I mean... they range from good to great (with the exception of that one), but I still think some of the older ones are the best.

[AgentPaper]

Was more of a "Lets make fun of people who absolutly refuse to ever play these." Rude or not, that kind of person deserves my scorn.

Oh, so I'm deserving of scorn just because I don't want to play a bad game?

You seem to have fallen into the fallacy of "only gameplay matters". Don't get me wrong, gameplay is incredibly important, but graphics, sound, interface, controls, and so on are all also very important. Gameplay may well be the most important feature of a game, but you can't make a game with gameplay alone, just like you can't make one with graphics alone. And newer games have also become pretty much universally better than old games, even in gameplay, or perhaps especially in gameplay. There's a reason everyone stopped playing everquest and started playing World of Warcraft, and it's not because WoW has cutting-edge graphics. :smalltongue:

[chiasaur11]

Oh, so I'm deserving of scorn just because I don't want to play a bad game?

You seem to have fallen into the fallacy of "only gameplay matters". Don't get me wrong, gameplay is incredibly important, but graphics, sound, interface, controls, and so on are all also very important. Gameplay may well be the most important feature of a game, but you can't make a game with gameplay alone, just like you can't make one with graphics alone. And newer games have also become pretty much universally better than old games, even in gameplay, or perhaps especially in gameplay. There's a reason everyone stopped playing everquest and started playing World of Warcraft, and it's not because WoW has cutting-edge graphics. :smalltongue:

Just look at the PC Gamer top 100, results decided by critics.

Enlightening read. Also, it has Deus Ex at #1, so it's automatically somewhat valid. And Tom Francis and Kieron Gillen contributed. Double valid.

[Ecks Dee]

Video games are my favourite video games. I think anyone who hasn't play a video game, from the games on a screen genre, isn't even worthy of the title of a player of video games.

[Rutskarn]

Was more of a "Lets make fun of people who absolutly refuse to ever play these." Rude or not, that kind of person deserves my scorn.

I'll grant that its possible, but it doesn't mean it happens every time... You brought up Megaman 10... yeah, its a great game, but I would still only put it at about 6th in the series (2, 3, 1, 9, 4, 10, 5, 7, 6, the one I refuse to admit exists). I mean... they range from good to great (with the exception of that one), but I still think some of the older ones are the best.

You know why I "refuse" to play these games? Same reason I "refused" to play Army of Two. It looked like a game that I had no interest in playing, designed for a console I didn't own, so it slipped off my radar.

[Poison_Fish]

Was more of a "Lets make fun of people who absolutly refuse to ever play these." Rude or not, that kind of person deserves my scorn.

And that's where the majority of people take issue here. Your acting like your the end all, and that somehow these games need more attention then they get. Should they be looked at? Yes. But a must play? Certainly not. Historical perspective is nice, but most people who play games to enjoy them will get very little from playing games from the 80's besides nostalgia. And this is coming from someone who was alive in the 80's. Step off your mountain oh sage and walk among people.

[Jahkaivah]

Video games are my favourite video games. I think anyone who hasn't play a video game, from the games on a screen genre, isn't even worthy of the title of a player of video games.

I disagree, video games suck, you should play video games instead.

[warty goblin]

You know why I "refuse" to play these games? Same reason I "refused" to play Army of Two. It looked like a game that I had no interest in playing, designed for a console I didn't own, so it slipped off my radar.

Quite right. I've never played a Mario - or any Nintendio game- and yet I think by any reasonable definition I'm a gamer. Why not? Because they hold little to no interest me. I don't play them, and I don't expect other people to force themselves to play Caeser III if citybuilders don't interest them. Yet Caeser III, and the other Impressions games have had a lot of influence on citybuilders as a whole, all of which is completely irrelevant to somebody who doesn't play citybuilders.

Now if I was to set out to write a major history of videogaming, I'd need to play Nintendo games from the eighties. But I'm not writing a history, or a definitive guide, or anything. I'm playing games, and I'm playing games that interest me. Just like everybody else who likes games should be.

If it happens that somebody finds games without fancy pixel shaders enjoyable, then they shouldn't play games without fancy pixel shaders. It really is that simple folks. The games you should play are the games that you enjoy playing, or that you find thought provoking, or somehow a good way to spend your time. This is up to you and your tastes, not what somebody else tells you.

[TheSummoner]

And that's where the majority of people take issue here. Your acting like your the end all, and that somehow these games need more attention then they get. Should they be looked at? Yes. But a must play? Certainly not. Historical perspective is nice, but most people who play games to enjoy them will get very little from playing games from the 80's besides nostalgia. And this is coming from someone who was alive in the 80's. Step off your mountain oh sage and walk among people.

If the thread is (suppose to be) a list of great classic games, and someone flat out refused to play even a single one of them, what do you think their reason would be?

Maybe you hate RPGs. Theres more than RPGs on the list. Maybe you hate platformers... look at that, more than just platformers. So... whats the common factor between all the games? They're all great classic games.

Now, I've never heard someone say "Well I don't like games that are good" with a straight face so I'm pretty much forced to assume anyone who looked at a list of great classic games and said "I flat out refuse to play any of these games" would do so because they're older games. I really don't have much respect for the sort of person who would blindly label a game as inferior because it isn't new (even if it still is quite shiny).

As for what someone would gain from playing them... They're great games. You get as much from playing a great game released in 1990 then you do from playing a great game released in 2010.

[warty goblin]

If the thread is (suppose to be) a list of great classic games, and someone flat out refused to play even a single one of them, what do you think their reason would be?

Maybe you hate RPGs. Theres more than RPGs on the list. Maybe you hate platformers... look at that, more than just platformers. So... whats the common factor between all the games? They're all great classic games.

Now, I've never heard someone say "Well I don't like games that are good" with a straight face so I'm pretty much forced to assume anyone who looked at a list of great classic games and said "I flat out refuse to play any of these games" would do so because they're older games. I really don't have much respect for the sort of person who would blindly label a game as inferior because it isn't new (even if it still is quite shiny).

As for what someone would gain from playing them... They're great games. You get as much from playing a great game released in 1990 then you do from playing a great game released in 2010.

Depends entirely on your criteria. If part of your criteria is 'not looking like ass,' then you are probably not going to get as much from a twenty or thirty year old title as one released last week.

And there's nothing wrong with wanting to play games that look good either. That opinion is just as subjectively valid as any other.

[TheSummoner]

Depends entirely on your criteria. If part of your criteria is 'not looking like ass,' then you are probably not going to get as much from a twenty or thirty year old title as one released last week.

And thats the kind of attitude that makes me look down on people who hate classic games. The graphics have no effect on the actual game part of the game... the part you play... how much fun the game is, how difficult it is, how the controls handle.

A game with vibrant and colorful pixels has just as much potential to be great or suck horibly as one with 1000 different ultra-realistic shades of gunmetal gray, moss green, and crap brown.


And there's nothing wrong with wanting to play games that look good either. That opinion is just as subjectively valid as any other.

And pixelated games automatically look bad, right?

Theres far too much emphasis on graphics. In itself, a heavy emphasis on graphics isn't a bad thing, but when the rest of the game suffers, it becomes a problem. Game graphics can only get so good before they hit an invisible ceiling... Now, good graphics don't always make the rest of the game suffer, but when it does you end up with a pretty game that has nothing else going for it. Its really the same reason voice acting is often so terrible. The voice acting is usually one of the bottom priorities. Oftentimes, the voice actors are given their scripts and made to do the acting the same day with no chance to get into character or rehearse. Point is the less priority you put on an individual area of the game the worse off that aspect will be. Gameplay is the last thing you want to ignore. Its perfectly possible to have a great game with "bad" graphics but good gameplay (Megaman 10, released a mere week and a half ago), but its pretty much impossible to have a great game with absolutly beautiful graphics but horrible gameplay. (This is where I stopped myself before talking about plot)

(A bit of an aside) I mean... one day I was sitting in my room, flipping through the channels and ended up on G4 watching X-Play (both a station and show that I have long since lost all respect for but there was literally nothing else on). It was a recent episode and they were talking about Resident Evil 4. They actually said "the graphics haven't aged well." This is when I turned the TV off. Resi 4 was a great game and it looked fine. The fact that they had to turn to graphics to find something to complain about shows just how far they had to dig.

[warty goblin]

And thats the kind of attitude that makes me look down on people who hate classic games. The graphics have no effect on the actual game part of the game... the part you play... how much fun the game is, how difficult it is, how the controls handle.

Fine, that's your opinion. Nobody has a problem with you feeling that way. What people in this thread, myself included, object to is you apparently deciding that any opinion not yours is worthy only of scorn.

Firstly, it's arrogant.

Secondly, it's unsubstantiated. If you are going to delegitimate a lot of people's views, you need to present a reasoned, thought out argument, preferably with supporting evidence. So far, at least as far as I have seen, you have not done so.


A game with vibrant and colorful pixels has just as much potential to be great or suck horibly as one with 1000 different ultra-realistic shades of gunmetal gray, moss green, and crap brown.

Again, only if you exclude graphics from your evaluation. You can certainly choose to do that, but you have not presented either evidence or a cogent argument as to why other people should as well.


And pixelated games automatically look bad, right?
Never said that, don't think that.


Theres far too much emphasis on graphics. In itself, a heavy emphasis on graphics isn't a bad thing, but when the rest of the game suffers, it becomes a problem.

Name me a game you can prove has worse gameplay because the graphics are good.

Now give me evidence. Actual, sustainable evidence that a particular game is worse than it could otherwise have been because the graphics are good.


Game graphics can only get so good before they hit an invisible ceiling... Now, good graphics don't always make the rest of the game suffer, but when it does you end up with a pretty game that has nothing else going for it. Its really the same reason voice acting is often so terrible. The voice acting is usually one of the bottom priorities. Oftentimes, the voice actors are given their scripts and made to do the acting the same day with no chance to get into character or rehearse. Point is the less priority you put on an individual area of the game the worse off that aspect will be. Gameplay is the last thing you want to ignore. Its perfectly possible to have a great game with "bad" graphics but good gameplay (Megaman 10, released a mere week and a half ago), but its pretty much impossible to have a great game with absolutly beautiful graphics but horrible gameplay. (This is where I stopped myself before talking about plot)
The thing is I cannot for the life of me think of a single moderately successful game company today that ignores gameplay. I can think of plenty that produce games I have zero interest in ever playing, but that's a very different thing. It strikes me that you are attempting to create a dichotomy where there really isn't much of one.


(A bit of an aside) I mean... one day I was sitting in my room, flipping through the channels and ended up on G4 watching X-Play (both a station and show that I have long since lost all respect for but there was literally nothing else on). It was a recent episode and they were talking about Resident Evil 4. They actually said "the graphics haven't aged well." This is when I turned the TV off. Resi 4 was a great game and it looked fine. The fact that they had to turn to graphics to find something to complain about shows just how far they had to dig.
I play quite a few older games. Some of them don't age very well graphically. It's a perfectly fair statement.

[Platinum_Mongoose]

Hey, I'm a cinema major and let me say this. You have never felt inferior in an older=better discussion until you told your Film History professor you hated Citizen Kane.

Even worse was saying I hadn't even seen Stagecoach. I swear, she would've killed me if there hadn't been witnesses. (To be fair to Stagecoach, I have since seen it and man oh man is that a fine piece of cinematic mastery.)

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that quality is subjective. It's good if you enjoyed it. It's bad if you didn't. Historical context matters in a scholarly sort of way, but I think that's about where it ends. Quality is not a matter of chronology. That's the point I'm trying to make, even though I didn't make it very well. It made a lot more sense before I typed it...

[factotum]

I've tried playing Resident Evil 4 (on the PC, admittedly) and the really crappy controls put me off after a couple of hours. Does that make me a bad person? RE4 is certainly no Holy Grail of what makes a game perfect, IMHO, and if someone wants to criticise it for the graphics or any other aspect they find to be subpar, I'm happy to let them do that. Heck, I'll even listen to their argument and point out where I think they're wrong. I won't do the equivalent of saying, "But that game is AWESOME, therefore your criticisms are invalid because mine is the only valid opinion here!".

[Jibar]

And thats the kind of attitude that makes me look down on people who hate classic games. The graphics have no effect on the actual game part of the game... the part you play... how much fun the game is, how difficult it is, how the controls handle.

Yes it does.
Kind of avoided responding to this thread now, since I wrote a small essay about what makes a gamer but I've got to say graphics can have a big effect on how games play and the like. The ability to distinguish what is what in a game is very important. I can't play certain games, especially old ones, simply because the pixels or colour choice don't define the different elements of the game very well. Being half blind is a wonderful thing.

[AgentPaper]

Aside from enhancing gameplay, graphics also help a ton when it comes to immersion. It's not the only thing that contributes, of course, but it's one of the biggest. Gameplay is not all-important. It is very, very important. It is in fact the defining feature of a game. But that does not mean you can or should ignore everything else. Which would you rather play, Zelda: Ocarina of time with great graphics, or Zelda: Ocarina of Time where link is a white box and the enemies are green dots?

Of course, I would rather play said box and dot game rather than, say, sit staring at the most amazingly rendered model of the master sword for five hours, but it's not an either-or situation.

[Dispozition]

I've tried playing Resident Evil 4 (on the PC, admittedly) and the really crappy controls put me off after a couple of hours. Does that make me a bad person? RE4 is certainly no Holy Grail of what makes a game perfect, IMHO, and if someone wants to criticise it for the graphics or any other aspect they find to be subpar, I'm happy to let them do that. Heck, I'll even listen to their argument and point out where I think they're wrong. I won't do the equivalent of saying, "But that game is AWESOME, therefore your criticisms are invalid because mine is the only valid opinion here!".

RE4 on PC has notoriously horrible controls, the console versions are handled much better. The game is fairly ridiculous by plot standards, but it's generally regarded as the best in the series.

Anyway, to address this thread. The Summoner has to be a troll...I refuse to believe anyone is that pug headed...Wait, that's a lie, they are. Anyway. I haven't played any of those classics, and I admit, they are classics, although I think LttP and Super Metroid should be in there instead of their earlier iterations. I started gaming on a genesis or a saturn, I honestly can't remember, then went onto a snes. I can't remember enjoying any game more than Mario Kart, but looking at it now, it's a pretty bad game. Some games just do not hold out well over time. Mario Kart 64 is superior in every way to Mario Kart, except maybe the hardness of 150cc mode, in which a single mistake will cost you anything but last in the snes version. In my opinion, more classics came from the N64 and PS1 than from the SNES or anything from that era, except maybe some PC ones I've never heard of. Golden Eye and Perfect Dark are two great examples. Horrible FPSs by today's standards, but the very best of the time. Perfect Dark pretty much led the way for gaming these days, being the first FPS (to my knowledge and experience) to have bots in multiplayer mode (although something in the Unreal may have beaten it to it).

Anyway, on the subject of graphics making a game...They can to a certain extent. Take Crysis for example. I hated that game, but I recognise it as having the best graphics engine around right now, even though it past a year old. Sure, it's not amazingly optimised, but it still looks by far the best, that alone made it worth owning...That and the level editor. I find myself struggling to play older games such as Quake and the older Final Fantasies since the graphics just aren't there. FF1 may have an amazing story, same goes for FF2 (which I own on PSP), but they're hardly user friendly. FF2 gives you some plot then tells to you go somewhere, giving no indication of where it is. It took my 30 minutes to find where I was meant to go. Compare this to FFX which starts the game in a somewhat railroad manner, but then gives you a lot of freedom to play around later on. FFX also has the best story I've seen in a game for...Ever pretty much. Admittedly I haven't played FF9, which is supposed to be the best, from what I've heard. For that reason, I rate FFX above any other FF I've played (2/3/4/8/12). Also, a lot of genres are around these days that didn't exist in the 80s and 90s. Give me a 'classic' game that's similar to Kingdom Hearts. I'll honestly be surprised if you can. As time passes, games evolve. Look at the Tony Hawk series. Tony Hawk 1 was pretty bad really, 2 is great for what it was, 4 as well. But Underground restarted the series, adding a lot to it, but keeping the originals intact. I can't say past that, but I imagine it's done so again with the newest games.

Games are very much like movies. It all started out with black and white, soundless 'classics'. It then evolved into colour, adding elements such as background music or recorded sound. These days, movies and games are closer than many would give credit for. Take Mass Effect 2 or Heavy Rain. ME2 has a massive voice acting cast, great graphics, and a very immersive story. Heavy Rain is (as far as I can tell) essentially a movie with quick time events and you guide it. Movies are also picking up on games, with stuff like Prince of Persia and that Street Fighter movie that came out last year that no one liked. Sure, nothing really good has come out of them yet (although the Super Mario Bros. movie was damned epic) but there's a hell of a lot of potential...Also, movies are straying into the 'graphics' argument, with stuff like Avatar.

I think I got a bit off topic at the end there...
What I'm saying is...You don't need to have played the 'classics' to be called a gamer. Hell, half these 'classics' aren't even really classics as far as myself and quite a few others would be concerned. Games evolve, and mostly for the better, so more often than not, you're better off playing a more recent game in the same vein than a classic.

[Terraoblivion]

Pixelated graphics can definitely look great, if the art design is up to par. It frankly isn't in SMB1 or the original Legend of Zelda. They are graphically bland with muddy color schemes featuring large, mostly solid patches of color. SMB3 on the other hand, shows just how good graphics the NES could pull off when the developers had a solid understanding of the technology and of art design for gaming. I still think it has the best art design of any Mario game.

In general i would say that it was not until the very end of the 8-bit era and largely the 16-bit era that the kinks was worked out of gaming to any major degree. I was too rude and aggressive in stating my position earlier, but i do think that 80s gaming was too immature and underdeveloped to truly be entertaining, non-frustrating examples of the genres that existed back then. The early 90s is another matter. The games from that period are still in many ways limited compared to modern games, but technology and skill at working with it had advanced enough to allow decently developed writing and vivid art design to come about. Similarly understanding of gaming had developed enough that control schemes were beginning to solidify and become refined, just like many gameplay elements such as giving the player basic directions on what he is supposed to do. Experiments still happened, of course, but they were experiments based on a much greater understanding of gaming.

And it is for this reason that we find so many more people praising Link to the Past, SMB3 and SMW, FFIV, Super Metroid and so on, than we do people praising the originals. It was in this era, the very end of the 8-bit era and all of the 16-bit era, that the refinement making the good core gameplay of each series rise to the surface from beneath poor graphics, confusing writing and occasionally clumsy control schemes.

I still don't think there is any basis for demanding that people play any of the four games i mentioned, or any of the other good 16-bit and late 8-bit games out there, though. People should play what they have an interest in. I just think that this is the era where problems making the games genuinely bad had been worked out and it merely becomes a question of taste and preferences.

[Ecks Dee]

I disagree, video games suck, you should play video games instead.

Pfeh, what a casual gamer. You, sir, you are a blight! No wonder Gamer Company is releasing Video Game 2 as a dumbed down piece of rubbish on the video game console that I plug into my TV. Maybe you just don't understand Video Game 1:The Enemies Die; that's OK, but don't pretend to lecture your betters on which are better, video games or video games.

[Comet]

I, personally, believe that any person that hasn't played King of Dragon Pass has no right to call themselves a human being.

Yes, I know this means that humankind consists of me and a dozen guys or gals at best. But I like that game, damnit!

[Matar]

So, uh. Classic games you need to play to call yourself a gamer?

Sure, I'm game. Why the hell not.

Super Mario Bros.
Pac-Man.

. . .

These... are like, the only two games I could think of that would make me feel like someone had to absolutely had to play them before calling themselves a gamer. Old games that are entertaining for there simplicity. Hard enough to challenge you, basic enough for anyone to play, simple enough to never overwhelm even the youngest of players. You can play them with friends, or alone. Lacking any real reason to not play them.

[Eldariel]

Lessee, I trust we can all agree on a bunch of progenitors like:

Pong
Asteroids
Pac-Man
Tetris
Elite
...and then some. Of course, it's a matter of where we draw the line. Would Sid Meier's Pirates! fall under the "REALLY OLD"-school? What about the various Quests from Sierra? Everything before 90s? That'd even cover the earlier NES classics.

[factotum]

Lacking any real reason to not play them.

Apart from, as I mentioned earlier, never having owned a console on which to play them! Not every gamer in the world owned an NES (or any other Nintendo console, for that matter).

[Drascin]

Yes it does.
Kind of avoided responding to this thread now, since I wrote a small essay about what makes a gamer but I've got to say graphics can have a big effect on how games play and the like. The ability to distinguish what is what in a game is very important. I can't play certain games, especially old ones, simply because the pixels or colour choice don't define the different elements of the game very well. Being half blind is a wonderful thing.

Yes, I have to say that graphics are indeed important to how a game plays... but that is precisely why I feel the opposite and extremely dislike the graphics in so many modern games - I like seeing things and being able to differentiate the enemies from the background, thank you very much :smalltongue:. Say what you will about sprites, but they generally are high enough contrast to let you react on peripheral vision. By comparison, pretty much any game lately that goes for "realism", I can't see a thing before it actually starts trying to kill me.

Incidentally, this is part of the reason why I posit that A Boy and His Blob has some of the best graphics this gen, and I will not be budged on this :smallamused:.

[pendell]

Lessee, I trust we can all agree on a bunch of progenitors like:

Pong
Asteroids
Pac-Man
Tetris
Elite
...and then some. Of course, it's a matter of where we draw the line. Would Sid Meier's Pirates! fall under the "REALLY OLD"-school? What about the various Quests from Sierra? Everything before 90s? That'd even cover the earlier NES classics.

What about spacewar? I first saw it in arcades about the same time
as Space invaders. And before that it may be the oldest video game ever on any platform. Freeward versions of it are still available.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Eldariel]

What about spacewar? I first saw it in arcades about the same time
as Space invaders. And before that it may be the oldest video game ever on any platform. Freeward versions of it are still available.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Oh, definitely. Blanked out on that. 80's was a long time ago.

[Inhuman Bot]

So, Thesummoner, your thoughts are that "If it looks bad, it MUST be great"?

Now, I won't argue that some old games with fairly poor graphics are classics.

X-COM, Fallout 1/2, Super Mario World (Though it looks pretty nice), and so on.

However, would you argue that Starwars: Dark Forces is the pinnacle of Starwars games?

I can't speak from personal experiance, but going by speaking to older gamers, what was once the best-of-the-best for graphics, gameplay, and so on, is now simply forgettable and mediocre.

To steal a quote from my father when talking to him about this: Some games are like wine: They get better as they age. Some games are like, say, apples. I don't think I'd want to eat a 30 year old apple.

[faceroll]

The only real criteria for being a gamer is playing too many videovgames. It doesn't matter what you play, just like being a couch potato isn't dependent on what you watch.

[shadow_archmagi]

Pong - Game that started it all

Space Invaders - Game that put arcades on the map.

Diablo - Game that put hack and slash RPG on the map.

Counterstrike - I absolutely loathe this game, but it's as important in the history of "realistic" shooters as Halo is in the history of console shooters.

World of Warcraft - Possibly most successful game ever invented thus far.


Have played these; did not enjoy all that much.



Donkey Kong - Game in which Mario was born (and, for that matter, Donkey Kong).
Street Fighter II - Game that put Fighting games on the map.
Super Mario - Game that put mario on the map.


Don't own the relevant system to play these.




Starcraft
Halo

Have played these. Enjoyed them.



Doom
Dungeon Crawl
Age of Empires


Have not played these. Probably won't simply because playing a really old FPS doesn't appeal to me much.

[Mando Knight]

Don't own the relevant system to play these.
Wii plays at least 2/3.

Have not played these. Probably won't simply because playing a really old FPS doesn't appeal to me much.
Doom is the only FPS in that set. Age of Empires II is probably still one of the best medieval RTS games to date.

[TheSummoner]

So, Thesummoner, your thoughts are that "If it looks bad, it MUST be great"?

No, my thoughts are "Graphics have a minimal effect on how good a game is. The overall most important part of a game is the defining aspect of any game, the gameplay. Stunning visuals, sound, and plot all have the potential to enhance a game, but are purely secondary."

Its perfectly possible for a game low-tech visuals and sound and a nearly nonexistant plot to be great games, but a game with amazing visuals, sound, and plot, but bad gameplay can never be great.


Now, I won't argue that some old games with fairly poor graphics are classics.

I'm glad we agree. Thats kinda the entire point of the thread... older games, made before the technology existed to have great graphics, that are still great games.


However, would you argue that Starwars: Dark Forces is the pinnacle of Starwars games?

No comment, not really a Starwars fan =/


I can't speak from personal experiance, but going by speaking to older gamers, what was once the best-of-the-best for graphics, gameplay, and so on, is now simply forgettable and mediocre.

Going to use Megaman as an example for this...

Of all the Megaman games (I mean just normal Megaman, no X or any of that), 8 had the "best" graphics (assuming you define best as most advanced). However, 8 is usually considered the worst game in the series. 7, despite being the only other one with non-8-bit graphics is also pretty low on the list. Would you say Megaman 2 or 3 are forgettable and mediocre?

In a lot of game genres, the gameplay really hasn't evolved much... Most classic games fit into one of the genres that evolved early and haven't changed much since. Sure, the graphics may have become more high tech over time, but a great game is still a great game regardless of some whether the graphics are 8-bit, 16-bit, cell shaded, or whatever.


To steal a quote from my father when talking to him about this: Some games are like wine: They get better as they age. Some games are like, say, apples. I don't think I'd want to eat a 30 year old apple.

And I agree with him. The classics age like wine and the rest like apples. We're not talking about rotten apples though, its about the fine wine.

[Dogmantra]

No, my thoughts are "Graphics have a minimal effect on how good a game is. The overall most important part of a game is the defining aspect of any game, the gameplay. Stunning visuals, sound, and plot all have the potential to enhance a game, but are purely secondary."

I would argue this point. The gameplay of Portal, while great, is not actually what makes me enjoy it so much. I enjoy it because of the atmosphere, the writing, the soundtrack and the artistic choices. It is, I would say, an exception rather than the rule, but it's not one of a kind.

[Darth Mario]

No, my thoughts are "Graphics have a minimal effect on how good a game is. The overall most important part of a game is the defining aspect of any game, the gameplay. Stunning visuals, sound, and plot all have the potential to enhance a game, but are purely secondary."

I see you and counter you with Myst, a game released within your time-period for "classic" status. The environments of Myst defined that game just as much, or more, as the puzzles did, and the simple point-and-click "gameplay" was, well, point and click. Acquired taste as it may be, Myst still holds "classic" status in my head (though I prefer playing the graphically updated version, as it actually runs on my computer, unlike the original).

[Eldariel]

Wii plays at least 2/3.

PC can flawlessly emulate all 3 by now. Hell, I play most of my SS2T on PC nowadays. Arcades just aren't as common as they once were.

[shadow_archmagi]

Wii plays at least 2/3.

Doom is the only FPS in that set. Age of Empires II is probably still one of the best medieval RTS games to date.

Do not have Wii.


Already have Dwarf Fortress, Stronghold 2, Warcraft 3, Civ 4, so another medieval RTS is sorta redundant.

[Rustic Dude]

Do not have Wii.


Already have Dwarf Fortress, Stronghold 2, Warcraft 3, Civ 4, so another medieval RTS is sorta redundant.

It's not similar to those you list.

¡Go for eet! :smallbiggrin:

[Dispozition]

I'm glad we agree. Thats kinda the entire point of the thread... older games, made before the technology existed to have great graphics, that are still great games.

I'm inclined to disagree. Your opening post very much states that in your opinion if you haven't played these 'classic' games, you aren't a gamer. Find more classic games and discuss. Pretty much all of us disagreed with your stance, and even suggested some more modern classic games which you disagreed with.

[chiasaur11]

I'm inclined to disagree. Your opening post very much states that in your opinion if you haven't played these 'classic' games, you aren't a gamer. Find more classic games and discuss. Pretty much all of us disagreed with your stance, and even suggested some more modern classic games which you disagreed with.

Ayup.

I mean, I don't see a single reason the NES or SNES eras are more classic than, say, Atari or early PS2 era. Well, I can see reasons they're more classic than Atari (A few more really ace games), but seriously. Deus Ex is ten years old. If that isn't old enough to be classic, than we got a nasty shifting timeline on our hands.

[Inhuman Bot]

New challenge.

Name them all. (http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/069/4/6/Hardcore_Gamer__s_IQ_Test_by_shadow502t.jpg) :smalleek:

[chiasaur11]

New challenge.

Name them all. (http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/069/4/6/Hardcore_Gamer__s_IQ_Test_by_shadow502t.jpg) :smalleek:

Huh.

Probably could get a lot of them, if'n I gave a rat's patootie, but it's interesting how many games from the last year or so are there. And several upcoming ones.

Really, though. IDing the Haze guy is just sad, not evidence of any particular virtue.

[Starfols]

Huh.

Probably could get a lot of them, if'n I gave a rat's patootie, but it's interesting how many games from the last year or so are there. And several upcoming ones.

Really, though. IDing the Haze guy is just sad, not evidence of any particular virtue.

Agreed. I see a lot of shooty-gun-bang guys there. Also many guys from terrible games up in there. :smallannoyed: I did see the arkanoid paddle though.

[Lawless III]

I've played a good number of the nintendo and pc games mentioned. Some of them are pretty good, but if you didn't get into them back then, they probably won't blow your mind now. I recommend pretty much any Bethesda game. I wouldn't say you have to play them though. (Unless that would get you to play them. Then you totally do.)

My one real beef with some "gamers" is when they mod their games until they no longer resemble the original product. "I uploaded the game engine and character models from Assassins Creed into Oblivion." "But... Now it's just assassins creed with Argonians..." "Actually, I replaced all the Argonians with the space pirates from Metroid Prime." "Agck":smalleek:



Hey, I'm a cinema major and let me say this. You have never felt inferior in an older=better discussion until you told your Film History professor you hated Citizen Kane.

I feel your pain. My hatred for that movie makes it impossible to talk to any film buff over forty. (This is a hyperbole, possibly offended, middle-aged, film loving playgrounders. Please don't make me watch "All Quiet on the Western Front" again. Have mercy.)

[Cogwheel]

May I suggest moving to this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8068353#post8068353) thread? Most of the issues have been smoothed over, but as others have said, this thread is still a bit messy. Might be best to move to another one, if that's ok with everyone.

[taltamir]

I honestly find such a thing foolish. Especially since that what you posit is the equivalent of making a list of silent movies that people have to see in order to claim to like movies. These games are ancient from when gaming was a medium was technologically immature. They are simply not good games by today's standards. Yes, they hold great historical significance but apart from Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario World none of these games have aged at all well. The clunky controls, arbitrary limitations leading to much of the difficulty and the graphics that generally don't even make use of what the technology of their systems could do make them something that there is no point in playing today. And no, i am not some kid who got into gaming with the PS2. The first video game i played was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade on my father's Mac when it was released back when i was 3. I just see no point in making a list of classics and feeling snobby towards people who weren't gaming in the 80s.

I agree with pretty much all of it :P

Also, OP, the games you listed are to your taste, but are not necessary to call yourself a gamer. In fact, I call myself a gamer and I don't like a single one of them... mario from that list is the only one I find even worth playing. If you want awesome classic games try digger, breakout, Masters of Magic (MOM), Masters of Orion, Star control 1 and 2 (starcon2 was open sourced and you can play it today), dune 2 (the first RTS ever), zork, and many other games that are either older or newer than the games on your list.

[Eldariel]

I found an article made by a Finnish game magazine on just this subject. Their list (though with some general categories) as a quote, translated where applicable:

"Action: Doom, Half-Life, Counter-Strike, Metal Gear Solid, Halo, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Star Control 2.

RPGs: Ultimas, Dungeon Master, Final Fantasy VII (yuck), Baldur’s Gate, Betrayal at Krondor, Fallout, World of WarCraft, Chrono Trigger, System Shock.

Strategy games: Populous, Civilization, X-Com, Total Annihilation, StarCraft, Master of Orion, DEFCON, Total War (any), MULE, Steel Panthers.

Retros: Galaga, Archon, Impossible Mission, Commando, California Games, R-Type, Outrun, Dragon’s Lair, Operation Wolf (arcade), Elite, Arkanoid.

Others: Game & Watch -electronic games, Street Fighter II, Leisure Suit Larry, X-Wing, The Secret of Monkey Island, Sims, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Wii Sports, any hardcore flight simulator."


Feels like a pretty good generic list. I have to admit, I haven't played a bunch of those (Betrayal at Krondor, MULE, Galaga/Archon/Impossible Mission/Commando/R-Type/Outrun/Dragon's Lair/Operation Wolf & Wii Sports), but it covers most of the true classics. They failed to mention Jagged Alliances even though they were prominently featured in the article though, which was weird.

[Lord Loss]

I see you and counter you with Myst, a game released within your time-period for "classic" status. The environments of Myst defined that game just as much, or more, as the puzzles did, and the simple point-and-click "gameplay" was, well, point and click. Acquired taste as it may be, Myst still holds "classic" status in my head (though I prefer playing the graphically updated version, as it actually runs on my computer, unlike the original).

Myst is, indeed a masterpiece of Gaming. I played the original for a while, then drifted off to the realms of Riven. Although not as grand as it's predecessor in terms of classic-ness, it has a much larger world. I never got anywhere near beating it, but I know someone who almost (but not quite) beat it.

[chiasaur11]

I found an article made by a Finnish game magazine on just this subject. Their list (though with some general categories) as a quote, translated where applicable:

"Action: Doom, Half-Life, Counter-Strike, Metal Gear Solid, Halo, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Star Control 2.

RPGs: Ultimas, Dungeon Master, Final Fantasy VII (yuck), Baldur’s Gate, Betrayal at Krondor, Fallout, World of WarCraft, Chrono Trigger, System Shock.

Strategy games: Populous, Civilization, X-Com, Total Annihilation, StarCraft, Master of Orion, DEFCON, Total War (any), MULE, Steel Panthers.

Retros: Galaga, Archon, Impossible Mission, Commando, California Games, R-Type, Outrun, Dragon’s Lair, Operation Wolf (arcade), Elite, Arkanoid.

Others: Game & Watch -electronic games, Street Fighter II, Leisure Suit Larry, X-Wing, The Secret of Monkey Island, Sims, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Wii Sports, any hardcore flight simulator."



Odd list.

Star Control 2 under action, System Shock under RPG, Deus Ex nowhere to be found...

Well, bolded what I've played enough to give an opinion on.

[factotum]

Odd list.

Star Control 2 under action, System Shock under RPG, Deus Ex nowhere to be found...


System Shock *was* an RPG--it was made in the same mould (and using the same engine, I think) as Ultima Underworld 2. Its successor was more what we'd call today an FPS-RPG, but even then I wouldn't blink at someone including it in the RPG category.

[chiasaur11]

System Shock *was* an RPG--it was made in the same mould (and using the same engine, I think) as Ultima Underworld 2. Its successor was more what we'd call today an FPS-RPG, but even then I wouldn't blink at someone including it in the RPG category.

I have System Shock and Star Control 2. Haven't beaten either, but many hours sunk, and I gotta say, Star Control feels by far the more RPGish,

System Shock RPG features: An inventory. Also, abilities you level up, but you level them up by finding items in the same way you get the long jump in Half-Life.

Star Control: NPC interaction and loyalty systems, a diverse cast of recruitable characters, grinding for money to level up your main character, random battles when traveling the overworld, "towns" to trade at...

The only notable departure from the standard is making the battles real time ship to ship combat.

[taltamir]

Final Fantasy VII must be the most overrated game of all time

[shadow_archmagi]

Star Control: NPC interaction and loyalty systems, a diverse cast of recruitable characters, grinding for money to level up your main character, random battles when traveling the overworld, "towns" to trade at...


You're thinking of Star Control 3

Star Control 2 was primarily a strategy game, where you used a turn-based system to move ships around a star map, build colonies and mines, and then when two ships met it went into a realtime combat.

[chiasaur11]

You're thinking of Star Control 3

Star Control 2 was primarily a strategy game, where you used a turn-based system to move ships around a star map, build colonies and mines, and then when two ships met it went into a realtime combat.

No, no I am not.

In the slightest.

You might be thinking of Star Control 1, though.

[taltamir]

You're thinking of Star Control 3

Star Control 2 was primarily a strategy game, where you used a turn-based system to move ships around a star map, build colonies and mines, and then when two ships met it went into a realtime combat.

actually... he is right. starcontrol 1 was a turn-based system to move ships around a star map, build colonies and mines, and then when two ships met it went into a realtime combat.

BTW, while the original source code was lost, the upgraded source code of the 3d0 version remained. Which the original creators from toys from bob got back from 3d0, and released as open source. Since then it has been updated to run on modern machines, and even include the awesome HQ2x algorithm. Also many of the original sound producers got together and recreated the music in modern equipiment (vs the old midi). its really awesome, you can find it here:
http://sc2.sourceforge.net/

I strongly recommend you do NOT use any of the 3d0 stuff, only original or remade for FOSS content.

[factotum]

I have System Shock and Star Control 2. Haven't beaten either, but many hours sunk, and I gotta say, Star Control feels by far the more RPGish,


I was just addressing the point you made about System Shock being classed as an RPG...I never mentioned anything about Star Control 2's rating. Not sure I agree with you anyway, though--the only "levelling up" you did in SC2 was by adding bits to your ship.

[taltamir]

leveling up has nothing to do with playing a role. And should never have been came up with.

And yes, in SC2 you upgrade your ship. its very much a role playing game.

[ondonaflash]

You know, when it was released, FF7 was the be all end all class of society (very exclusive but not higher than me), it was it. If you owned a playstation it was just naturally assumed that you owned FF7, but going back and looking at it? Damn, that is one ugly game. Blocky 3d graphics, with items only distinguishable because they sparkled? I swear to god there are items in that game that I only know existed because someone else found them first. Seriously, that game is a savage beating of retinal area.

Also, let me say that it is to my deep distress that no one has brought up Chrono Trigger as a Game That Is Worth Playing If You Like JRPGs. It came out for the snes, but it is stupidly expensive, so you're better off getting the DS remake. They don't really fiddle with the game so it should be fun for your non-anal retentive players. Just... just avoid the area with all the non-hostile reptites. Apparently when they designed that section the production staff decided that redundant level-slogs such as those found in the Phantom Hourglass were what this game really needed.

[Eldariel]

Also, let me say that it is to my deep distress that no one has brought up Chrono Trigger as a Game That Is Worth Playing If You Like JRPGs. It came out for the snes, but it is stupidly expensive, so you're better off getting the DS remake. They don't really fiddle with the game so it should be fun for your non-anal retentive players. Just... just avoid the area with all the non-hostile reptites. Apparently when they designed that section the production staff decided that redundant level-slogs such as those found in the Phantom Hourglass were what this game really needed.

Been mentioned. And umm, what area is that you're talking about?

[ondonaflash]

Been mentioned. And umm, what area is that you're talking about? Also, emulators.

And its an area in the DS version, I didn't give it a hard playthrough, but its basically a series of fetch quests for a tribe of non-hostile reptites. It also features a Black Nu, which is pretty cool. It has a... green? portal instead of the ordinary blue ones.

[Eloel]

Classics you say?

I'll go with genre-changing games.

Heroes of Might & Magic III
Age of Empires II
Worms (II or III or Armageddon or World Party)
Quake III Arena
Dungeon Keeper

Yes, I just typed these out from my flashdisk. I'm crazy like that :p

[Eldariel]

And its an area in the DS version, I didn't give it a hard playthrough, but its basically a series of fetch quests for a tribe of non-hostile reptites. It also features a Black Nu, which is pretty cool. It has a... green? portal instead of the ordinary blue ones.

Hm, wasn't there another green portal at some point during the game? Red portal for Lucca's sequence, black at Magus's castle, hmm... I can't put a finger on it.

At any rate, Black Nu sounds cool but the quests don't. Really, CT is a masterpiece as is; I don't think the SNES version really wants anything.

[Green-Shirt Q]

The title really says it all. This thread is for discussing classic games that you absolutly MUST play (and preferrably beat) to have any right to call yourself a gamer.

By classic, I mean 8-bit and maybe 16-bit, but nothing any later than that.

I've noticed a rather disturbing trend in younger people calling themselves gamers despite never picking up a system older than the PS2. Hopefully we can reccomend some great games to the ones who truely want to experience the classics. If not, we can atleast ridicule those who have no right to call themselves gamers while honoring some of the best games ever made.

Super Mario Brothers - NES - 1985
The Legend of Zelda - NES - 1986
Metroid - NES - 1986
Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! - NES - 1987
Mega Man - NES - 1987
Final Fantasy - NES - 1987


Okay, I consider myself a "gamer". I'm pretty new, though, and wasn't even born before any of these games came out. My first console was the Nintendo 64. However, I can garentee that, out of all the people I personally know, I care about video games more then ANYBODY. Anybody like me, who sees their own life as a videogame, who sees the words "Press X to do homework" should automatically be a gamer even though they don't have the care or income to track down these games most everybody stopped caring about with 8-bit graphics and the most simplistic gameplay in the universe.

I am one of many people who are part of a new generation. People who have had videogames around their entire lives, and videogames predated their existance. When people in the future are playing "Virtual Cyberspace Ultragame 11000" in the year 2050, they should not have to play Punch-Out for the NES, only availible on display in videogame museums, to call themselves gamers.

However, I do kinda agree with your whole purpose. A lot of "casual" games are out there and the borders of "Gamers" and "occasional game-players" are less and less defined. It's a little disrespectful to call yourself a gamer when you don't even own a console and didn't spend all your allowence on games. It's like somebody who calls themselves a model builder because they used somebody else's Lego set once and never purchesed a single actual model building kit.

Therefore, I think there should be some prerequisites people have to meet before calling themselves a gamer. Not "you have to play these super-old gamers and beat them, even if they're not of a genre you like" but you, sir, are on the right track I reckon. I think, while one doesn't have to play and beat these games in question due to the considerable advances in the gaming technology, people should at least KNOW they existed. I think you should know a brief history on gaming as a hobby and culture and how it became the ultimate, amazing thing it is today and some of the few games that helped it become that. Emphisis on brief. While one doesn't have to know EVERY single game in existance to call themselves a gamer, they can't call themselves a gamer if they think Halo was the first videogame ever.

Also, they need own and have beaten, at least, I dunno, 5 games. 10 at the most for this prerequisite. You can't call yourself a gamer if you just played Wii Sports Resort once because you wanted to see what the hype was about.


Hmm... so anything that happened more than 20 years ago isn't important because it hasn't aged well. So long The Wheel. Goodbye Fire.

It's more like "You can't call yourself alive until you go back in time and experience the big bang". If should probably know it happened, but we have moved beyond it at this point.




Man, this post turned out pretty long, didn't it? :smalleek:

[Eldariel]

I'd say you should strive to at least play the old games (you can find ways if you try) enough to know what everyone is talking about. It's ok not to have beaten Punch-Out (old NES games are on average very hard compared to stuff coming out nowadays), but I think you really should have at least tried it.

Same with all the other old NES (and older) classics. Allows you to understand what makes the genre tick, what everyone is talking about and gives you a piece of history.

[taltamir]

Classics you say?

I'll go with genre-changing games.

Heroes of Might & Magic III
Age of Empires II
Worms (II or III or Armageddon or World Party)
Quake III Arena
Dungeon Keeper

Yes, I just typed these out from my flashdisk. I'm crazy like that :p

oh wow, that list brings me warm fond memories. but why the numbers after the names? whats wrong with heroes of might and magic 1, age of empires 1, quake 1, and worms 1?

[factotum]

It's a little disrespectful to call yourself a gamer when you don't even own a console and didn't spend all your allowence on games.

As I said earlier in the thread, I have never owned a console. All my gaming has been done on computers--first the ZX Spectrum, then the Commodore Amiga, and finally the PC. Yet I've been playing games for longer than you've been alive, and I still spend many hours a week playing games. Exactly how am I not a gamer just because I don't own a console?

This is the problem with this entire thread. As soon as you try to define exactly what a gamer is, an exception like myself will pop up that contradicts your definition.

[taltamir]

a console is a computer... one with extra DRM, a trimmed down OS, and less variety in hardware choice.

The only console I ever owned was the NES... I have been playing on computers (non console) my whole life (I turn 26 in may, I starting playing on the computer when I was 6 years old, in 1990); my first game was digger. Ah the memories. I definitely consider myself a gamer and I haven't owned any consoles since the NES.


This is the problem with this entire thread. As soon as you try to define exactly what a gamer is, an exception like myself will pop up that contradicts your definition.
Well, this is more of a problem with people being derisive of others. I might prefer full computers to consoles, but I wouldn't tell someone "console gaming is not real gaming" or otherwise try to belittle them for having chosen a different way to play.

I might dislike JRPGs (I love RPGs though) and some other games, but I will not tell someone they aren't a real gamer because thats what they like (I will tell them the game sucks though :P).

The problem of this thread is that it doesn't try to find a real definition for what a gamer is, it just uses a blanket "either you share my exact gaming preferences or you are not a gamer"

[Green-Shirt Q]

As I said earlier in the thread, I have never owned a console. All my gaming has been done on computers--first the ZX Spectrum, then the Commodore Amiga, and finally the PC. Yet I've been playing games for longer than you've been alive, and I still spend many hours a week playing games. Exactly how am I not a gamer just because I don't own a console?

This is the problem with this entire thread. As soon as you try to define exactly what a gamer is, an exception like myself will pop up that contradicts your definition.

Oh, well I kinda meant PC as a console when I said that.

The point is, you play, own, and buy a lot games, that makes you a gamer. Not because you own a PC but because you play games on the PC. Not just, say, the little Minesweeper game that came with your computer.

[Klose_the_Sith]

Oh, well I kinda meant PC as a console when I said that.

The point is, you play, own, and buy a lot games, that makes you a gamer. Not because you own a PC but because you play games on the PC. Not just, say, the little Minesweeper game that came with your computer.

I don't buy a lot of games, no money.

Methinks you should change it to "acquire" :smallwink:

[Temotei]

A lot of people rent games instead of buying them because they're really fast players or they just don't have the money to buy them.

Cue OP entrance.

[taltamir]

how about a "gamer" is anyone who considers themselves to be a "gamer", that is, considers video games to be an important part of their life?
whether you buy them or not (or get them from parents, sugar mama/daddy, or whatever) or the type of console/PC you own doesn't matter.