The Danger of Musing About Classic Games...

I love retro gaming. There's just something about going back to play the great games of yesteryear that sends chills of nostalgia running down my spine. It's even better when you discover excellent titles that you've missed and get to experience them from a new perspective. If they still hold up today it really says something about how great they really were.

Now this being said, I'm always conflicted when I see someone gushing about an old-school game that isn't necessarily universally accepted as a bona fide 'classic'¹. I can think of at least three major factors that can contribute to the glorification of mediocre games, granting them a wholly unjustified 'classic' status:


1. Platform Justifying Games

There have always been, and will forever be, fanboys who swear their 'loyalty' to a particular platform. This is especially true of younger gamers who do not have enough dough to own more than one system. Once they've made their choice, they're stuck with it. Rather frequently it seems, people who own the 'underdog' console (or Macs/Amigas/etc.) feel the need to justify their purchase by highlighting the most significant titles appearing on their platform of choice. In some cases, these are generally standout games (for example, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time on N64). Unfortunately this isn't always the situation.

In fact, I frequently find myself puzzled as to why some of these games are even considered 'great' at all. The oft evangelized Phantasy Star II (1989) is a piece of garbage - it just happened to be the only RPG of note on the Sega Genesis at the time, as well as the sequel to the rightfully well-regarded Phantasy Star (1988). I also know I'm not alone in thinking that the majority of Sonic The Hedgehog's (1991) appeal/fanbase comes from Genesis owners with an inferiority complex about the vastly superior Super Mario World on SNES.

Phantasy Star II was utter crap, and I'm so glad that I've finally listened to a few podcasts in which people have actually come out and admitted that it's damned near unplayable by today's standards, and receives far more praise than it deserves (kudos to the TriGames podcast). Image cred here.

Unfortunately this phenomenon exists outside of retro-gaming, and is probably part-and-parcel with every platform that wasn't the top-selling system of its generation (incidentally, Mac fans are a pretty rabid bunch themselves). A recent example is that of the first-person shooter Resistance: Fall of Man on PS3. Resistance isn't a bad game by any means, but it's also not a particularly great one either - it's been elevated upon this pedestal simply because it was the single best FPS on the console for a long time. In retrospect, I guess that Sonic seemed pretty damned good on a console with so many crappy platformers.


2. Products of their Time

This is probably the single most common explanation I come to when trying to rationalize why some terrible games received such ridiculously high scores - and also retain loyal fanbases to this day. Some games are thoroughly products of their times, employing techniques or designs that seemed amazingly novel in their day yet fail to hold up in the present.

Unfortunately, I feel this way about many of the games I play on the original PlayStation². It often seems as though the novelty of '3D graphics' or 'Full Motion Video' was enough to land games amazingly high scores, irrespective of whether or not they actually had gameplay to back it up. While RPGs like Wild Arms (1997), Xenogears (1998), and Chrono Cross (2000) may have garnered surprisingly high scores in their day, it seems to be generally agreed upon that they're damn near unplayable by today's standards. Aside from the utter lack of interesting gameplay, the load times alone are enough to drive you crazy³.

I have never met someone in 'real life' who enjoyed Chrono Cross half as much as the gaming press (or anyone else on the internet) did. IGN may refer to this game as 'RPG Perfection', but I couldn't stand it at all - in fact, I couldn't even bring myself to finish it. It's nowhere near as good as the original Chrono Trigger (1994); actually come to think of it, it's nothing like the original CT at all... WTF?

3. Forcing Oneself to Love It

I get the impression that most 'gaming journalists' are at around the same age bracket as I am (late-20s, early 30s); therefore they probably associate the same types of games with their childhood - those from the 8- and 16-bit generations. During the 8-bit NES days, I may have had the opportunity to get two-new games a year. Without the availability of the internet and independent gaming mags, the only method at my disposal for determining whether a game was worth buying or not was to rent it first, and this only if it was available. So, like all kids, I'd occasionally end up making some poor choices (such as Ultima: Ruins of Virtue for the Game Boy [1991]... ungh).

Now imagine that you're 8 years old, and have just received Ghost Busters on NES (1988), which happens to be the only new game you'll be able to play all summer. Either you admit that it's a terrible game and go out and get some exercise, or you do what many seem to have done, and force yourself to play it until you've convinced yourself that you actually like it.

It's a weird phenomenon, but every once in a while you'll hear about someone who really liked The Legend of Kage (NES; 1987) or Star Wars: Shadows of the Empire (N64; 1996). Thankfully, their opinions are usually shot down when they're surrounded by enough people. Alone however, such folk can end up recommending some awful games.


So in conclusion, it usually pays to do some research before looking into a classic title that you're not familiar with (especially if you're planning to drop some real cash on it). My rule of thumb generally goes like this: I look around the intarweb for reviews and try to find the worst possible criticism of the title in question - something easily done if the game's in Metacritic. If I think I could still enjoy the game despite the flaws outlined in the worst review, I'll get it. For example, Gamepro said of Xenogears:

A relentlessly slow plot, plodding dialogue, and the unfortunate fumble of the robot interfaces's potential keeps Xenogears out of that stratosphere enjoyed by its far superior cousin, "Final Fantasy VII."

See, I shouldn't have bought it in the first place...


¹Everyone's personal 'best lists' will obviously be different. However, certain titles are definitely cannon to the majority of retro-gaming enthusiasts with broad tastes.

²Don't get me wrong, PS1 also had many, many amazing games.

³It cannot be argued that 'all load times used to be like that'. Actually, cartridge-based 8- and 16-bit games didn't have load times. They were simply a product of their time.