"A bad first installment should get a pass, because it's the first installment."

Verbatim · August 27, 2016, 10:19:48 PM

"Yeah, the first game may be shitty by today's standards, but c'mon, it's the first in the series. It should get a pass."

bonus points if they mention something about "setting the standard" for the genre, or how groundbreaking it was during its time, or how it changed the face of gaming upon its initial release, or some other thing

how do you feel about this mentality in general

Jim · August 27, 2016, 10:22:58 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Tyger · August 27, 2016, 10:25:19 PM

Can you give an example?

Like me saying you can't judge Pokemon red by today's standards because they've had 20 years of refinement and at the time it was amazing?

Or somebody saying it's okay destiny was a shit show on release because "10 year plan"

Verbatim · August 27, 2016, 10:42:08 PM

Quote from: Tyger on August 27, 2016, 10:25:19 PM

Can you give an example?

Like me saying you can't judge Pokemon red by today's standards because they've had 20 years of refinement and at the time it was amazing?

Or somebody saying it's okay destiny was a shit show on release because "10 year plan"

Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of Pokémon and other older, long-standing franchises like that. Anything that began in the 8bit era, or maybe during that awkward transitional period between 2D and 3D. Because the industry works a little different now--if your first installment sucks, literally nobody ever gives you a pass. We're pretty unforgiving these days.

I gave Pokémon R/B a 6/10 in my last review, but some would argue that I should be more generous and give it something crazy like a 9/10. Because without Red and Blue, there would be no other Pokémon games, period--and according to them, I should respect that.

I can kinda see where they're coming from, but I do tend to disagree with that logic, because I believe the sole purpose of a review is to discuss the merits of the game itself--not the game's overall importance to the industry, the franchise, or whatever else. If I had to rate Pokémon R/B's importance to the industry, I would be remiss to give it anything other than a 10/10, right?

I gave it the score I did because I (and many many others) simply don't think it holds up very well by today's standards, and I believe "today's standards" are the only relevant metric to go by. No one cares how good a game used to be--is it good now? That's what people care about when they're reading a review.

Tyger · August 27, 2016, 10:52:45 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 27, 2016, 10:42:08 PM

Quote from: Tyger on August 27, 2016, 10:25:19 PM
Can you give an example?

Like me saying you can't judge Pokemon red by today's standards because they've had 20 years of refinement and at the time it was amazing?

Or somebody saying it's okay destiny was a shit show on release because "10 year plan"
Yeah, I was thinking along the lines of Pokémon and other older, long-standing franchises like that. Anything that began in the 8-bit era, or maybe during that awkward transitional period between 2D and 3D. Because the industry works a little different now--if your first installment sucks, literally nobody ever gives it a pass. We're pretty unforgiving these days.

I gave Pokémon R/B a 6/10 in my last review, but some would argue that I should be more generous and give it something crazy like a 9/10. Because without Red and Blue, there would be no other Pokémon games, period. I do tend to disagree with that logic, because I believe the sole purpose of a review is to discuss the game itself and not the game's overall importance to the industry, or the franchise as a whole, or whatever.

If I had to rate Pokémon R/B's importance to the industry, I would be remiss to give it anything other than a 10/10, right? But I gave it the score I did because I don't think it holds up to today's standards, and I think "today's standards" are the only relevant metric to go by. No one cares how good a game used to be--is it good now? That's what people care about when they're reading a review.

just to clarify how I feel, I disagree with the last like because Pokemon red isn't really contesting with modern games. A review score should be comparing products contesting with each other.

That would be like giving a model A ford a poor review because it didn't gave anti lock breaks when they hadn't been invented yet but it's a standard feature on even the shittiest cars today.

you say new bad games don't get a pass now a days but that's because they're bad now, while they're new. Pokemon red was good when it was new.

That's just the way I think about it

Tyger · August 27, 2016, 10:53:49 PM

I think we just have fundamentally different ideas of what a review should be

Thrasher · August 27, 2016, 10:59:43 PM

I think the term bad can have a varied context. Is it mechanics, UI, story, gameplay? For example, the story could be bad, but the gameplay is great, etc. I do think that every first game regardless of genre should have some standard that developer(s) should follow. These things include: having a solid framerate (whether that be 30 or 60), doesn't crash constantly, etc. At the end of the day if the developer learns from these mistakes then it can be considered a stepping stone to a better series.

Ian · August 27, 2016, 11:30:26 PM

I agree with pretty much everything you said except for this. The general public may be pretty slanderous, but reviewers are nothing more than literal (and in proper definition of the word "literal") paid shills and can't seem to give anything less than a 7/10.

Quote from: Verbatim on August 27, 2016, 10:42:08 PM

We're pretty unforgiving these days.

Elai · August 27, 2016, 11:40:28 PM

i think games should be compared to a universal standard regardless of when they came out

gold and silver arent worse games because they came out a long time ago and dont have the improvements made later on

but red and blue were just broken games at the start with a promising idea and a flawed execution

Verbatim · August 28, 2016, 09:06:38 AM

Quote from: Prehistoric on August 27, 2016, 11:40:28 PM

i think games should be compared to a universal standard regardless of when they came out

gold and silver arent worse games because they came out a long time ago and dont have the improvements made later on

but red and blue were just broken games at the start with a promises idea and a flawed execution

A universal standard sounds good until you realize that the bar continues to get raised all the time. You might not like the 3D models for the new Pokémon games, but they're generally considered to be "better" than the old sprites--and they're only going to get even better and more detailed as time goes on. Generation VI, to me, would easily be my favorite generation if I wasn't a stubborn nostalgic baby.

So while I say that my favorite generation is the second one, I know in my heart that it's probably not the best.

Obviously, there's no objectivity in this, but my point is that it's hard to have a universal standard when there's theoretically no limit to how good games can get. Therefore, if a mind-blowingly awesome game that's ten or twenty levels above the best game you've ever played comes out, that means your ex-favorite game of all time is now a little bit worse. What you thought was a 10/10 has now been dropped to an 8/10 due to rising standards.

There's no way you could've foreseen that, but technically, it can.

Tyger · August 28, 2016, 09:24:47 AM

Quote from: Prehistoric on August 27, 2016, 11:40:28 PM

i think games should be compared to a universal standard regardless of when they came out

gold and silver arent worse games because they came out a long time ago and dont have the improvements made later on

but red and blue were just broken games at the start with a promises idea and a flawed execution

you know if gold and silver came out today they would be considered garbage

Big Boss · August 28, 2016, 10:17:21 AM

I don't think a review of an old game should include comparisons to newer ones. I think it's better to compare them to the other games that came out at the time, or similar games that came before it. The fact that things have improved since it came out shouldn't influence the review, I think. It's like giving a movie from the 1930s a bad review today because the special effects weren't too good.

Rather than giving it a solid score I think it's better to just list the positive and negatives of it, so the reader can come up with their own interpretation based on what they've seen.

I mean yeah Pokemon Gen 1 has aged like milk and feels prehistoric compared to the newer games but still, you have to at least know what an impact it caused when it first came out, and the fact that it set the groundwork for the rest of the series. Sure it was a glitchy mess with a lot of problems and nobody should give it a free pass because 'it was the first' and 'muh nostalgia' but at it's core I think it's still an enjoyable, if basic RPG. Hell, Gen 1 is probably my least favorite next to 5 but it's not even a bad game.

Big Boss · August 28, 2016, 10:18:48 AM

Quote from: Tyger on August 28, 2016, 09:24:47 AM

Quote from: Prehistoric on August 27, 2016, 11:40:28 PM
i think games should be compared to a universal standard regardless of when they came out

gold and silver arent worse games because they came out a long time ago and dont have the improvements made later on

but red and blue were just broken games at the start with a promises idea and a flawed execution
you know if gold and silver came out today they would be considered garbage

You mean Gold and Silver as they were released back then, but today instead?

It'd probably sell really well as an indie game tbh. Look how well Shovel Knight did

Big Boss · August 28, 2016, 10:19:55 AM

Y'know this has made me want to do a review of the Pokemon series, Gen by Gen

Verbatim · August 28, 2016, 10:21:12 AM

Quote from: Big Boss on August 28, 2016, 10:19:55 AM

Y'know this has made me want to do a review of the Pokemon series, Gen by Gen

Please do. No reviews have been written in a long time.

Big Boss · August 28, 2016, 10:47:18 AM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 28, 2016, 10:21:12 AM

Quote from: Big Boss on August 28, 2016, 10:19:55 AM
Y'know this has made me want to do a review of the Pokemon series, Gen by Gen
Please do. No reviews have been written in a long time.

Alright I'll start writing later.

Turkey · August 28, 2016, 10:53:11 AM

I'm not sure I can recall ever hearing that sentiment. Maybe in regards to taking older games with a grain of salt because of modern bias, e.g., Pong would be little more than a freshman programmer's practice problem to design, but was a great achievement at the time.

Spartan · August 28, 2016, 11:00:32 AM

I can appreciate what they were for the time, but whenever I can't play them, I can't help but think what they are with a modern bias.

Big Boss · August 28, 2016, 11:13:19 AM

I don't think there's anything wrong with saying that something was good at the time, because it was. If it was good at the time but has aged poorly then I don't think that should be held against it.

Word Wizard · August 28, 2016, 11:31:28 AM

It depends. Shitty by what metric? These sorts of things usually rely on comparisons and market trends, they generally shape the masses perception of things. Graphics and artstyle are things can fall out of style and be "shitty" now or later for example.

Gatortag · August 28, 2016, 02:16:44 PM

Quote from: Jim on August 27, 2016, 10:22:58 PM

To a point it's valid. I'm glad Fallout 1 and 2 exist, despite the fact that I don't like them, because it gave me New Vegas.

That doesn't mean you should feel obligated to enjoy them. Games do age, contrary to what some believe. Some are timeless, others are not, others are improved through slight modernization (System Shock with mouse look).

A shit game is a shit game, though. If it's really that shitty then that tells me it really wasn't considered to be a good game, just a game that has potential.

He said bad games. How are Fallout 1 and 2 bad?

Verbatim · August 28, 2016, 02:35:50 PM

Quote from: Josh55886 on August 28, 2016, 02:16:44 PM

Quote from: Jim on August 27, 2016, 10:22:58 PM
To a point it's valid. I'm glad Fallout 1 and 2 exist, despite the fact that I don't like them, because it gave me New Vegas.

That doesn't mean you should feel obligated to enjoy them. Games do age, contrary to what some believe. Some are timeless, others are not, others are improved through slight modernization (System Shock with mouse look).

A shit game is a shit game, though. If it's really that shitty then that tells me it really wasn't considered to be a good game, just a game that has potential.
He said bad games. How are Fallout 1 and 2 bad?

I can't speak for Jim but I personally can't stand isometric games.

Solonoid · August 28, 2016, 04:46:12 PM

I really admire System Shock and TES: Arena, even though I feel the games are almost unplayable today.

Elai · August 28, 2016, 05:02:55 PM

Quote from: Tyger on August 28, 2016, 09:24:47 AM

Quote from: Prehistoric on August 27, 2016, 11:40:28 PM
i think games should be compared to a universal standard regardless of when they came out

gold and silver arent worse games because they came out a long time ago and dont have the improvements made later on

but red and blue were just broken games at the start with a promises idea and a flawed execution
you know if gold and silver came out today they would be considered garbage

how do you figure

what's wrong with gold and silver

Elai · August 28, 2016, 05:05:14 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on August 28, 2016, 09:06:38 AM

Quote from: Prehistoric on August 27, 2016, 11:40:28 PM
i think games should be compared to a universal standard regardless of when they came out

gold and silver arent worse games because they came out a long time ago and dont have the improvements made later on

but red and blue were just broken games at the start with a promises idea and a flawed execution
A universal standard sounds good until you realize that the bar continues to get raised all the time. You might not like the 3D models for the new Pokémon games, but they're generally considered to be "better" than the old sprites--and they're only going to get even better and more detailed as time goes on. Generation VI, to me, would easily be my favorite generation if I wasn't a stubborn nostalgic baby.

So while I say that my favorite generation is the second one, I know in my heart that it's probably not the best.

Obviously, there's no objectivity in this, but my point is that it's hard to have a universal standard when there's theoretically no limit to how good games can get. Therefore, if a mind-blowingly awesome game that's ten or twenty levels above the best game you've ever played comes out, that means your ex-favorite game of all time is now a little bit worse. What you thought was a 10/10 has now been dropped to an 8/10 due to rising standards.

There's no way you could've foreseen that, but technically, it can.

i don't see the bar being raised at all. the only thing that's been improved in modern years is graphics and what is actually capable with the technology -- but neither of these things have generated anything really astounding, save maybe one or two games.

utilising the tools of the time and creating something spectacular within those limits is what makes a game good. just because the tools get better over time doesn't mean the products do too.

Solonoid · August 28, 2016, 05:10:53 PM

Quote from: Jim on August 27, 2016, 10:22:58 PM

That doesn't mean you should feel obligated to enjoy them. Games do age, contrary to what some believe. Some are timeless, others are not, others are improved through slight modernization (System Shock with mouse look).

I think you're confusing System Shock's contribution to modern gaming with Marathon's. System Shock's look system was good for the time, but less than three months later, Marathon set the precedent the industry is still held to today.

System Shock's major contribution is cited to be its innovative 3D rendering engine, which set the standard polygonal 3D environment games would be shaped by for the next decade.

Four years later, Half Life capitalized on these concepts and produced the first truly modern experience, and in my opinion one of the only games that still has as much playability as it did at launch in this pantheon of Legendary games that includes System Shock, Marathon, Arena, Fallout, Half Life, and other games that practically created their genres all over again.

Really this is a great topic, because a lot of these games deserve to be remade using lessons learned from other notewrothy games on the list.

Solonoid · August 28, 2016, 05:12:50 PM

Quote from: Prehistoric on August 28, 2016, 05:02:55 PM

Quote from: Tyger on August 28, 2016, 09:24:47 AM
Quote from: Prehistoric on August 27, 2016, 11:40:28 PM
i think games should be compared to a universal standard regardless of when they came out

gold and silver arent worse games because they came out a long time ago and dont have the improvements made later on

but red and blue were just broken games at the start with a promises idea and a flawed execution
you know if gold and silver came out today they would be considered garbage

how do you figure

what's wrong with gold and silver

They're missing a lot of mechanics created in Gen III that we have come to expect from Pokemon, that and they would need a complete graphical overhaul.

Elai · August 28, 2016, 05:14:41 PM

Quote from: Solonoid on August 28, 2016, 05:12:50 PM

They're missing a lot of mechanics created in Gen III that we have come to expect from Pokemon,

Gen. 3 made a lot of improvements, but reverting to Gen. 2's system on its own would not make the game "garbage".

Quote

that and they would need a complete graphical overhaul.

Graphics don't matter. At all.

Solonoid · August 28, 2016, 05:24:38 PM

Quote from: Prehistoric on August 28, 2016, 05:14:41 PM

Quote from: Solonoid on August 28, 2016, 05:12:50 PM
They're missing a lot of mechanics created in Gen III that we have come to expect from Pokemon,

Gen. 3 made a lot of improvements, but reverting to Gen. 2's system on its own would not make the game "garbage".

Quote
that and they would need a complete graphical overhaul.

Graphics don't matter. At all.

You say that, but a major part of Pokemon is collecting your Pokemon and watching them smash into each other and shoot lightning, and when we know what we're capable of, there's no excuse for black and white flame sprites.

Graphics matter a lot, whether you appreciate them or not.

Elai · August 28, 2016, 05:27:27 PM

Quote from: Solonoid on August 28, 2016, 05:24:38 PM

You say that, but a major part of Pokemon is collecting your Pokemon and watching them smash into each other and shoot lightning, and when we know what we're capable of, there's no excuse for black and white flame sprites.

Actually I always turn battle animations off. I don't really care for them.

Quote

Graphics matter a lot, whether you appreciate them or not.

They really, really don't. So long as they get the job done, that's all that matters.