Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Are all video games doomed to irrelevance?

Chad Sapieha, March 28, 2008 at 2:19 PM EDT

If The Godfather had debuted in 2008 rather than 1972, it almost certainly would have received reviews that were just as rave as those it earned 35 years ago. Ditto for a classic novel like Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace.

But what if Super Mario Bros. had been released today rather than 1985? Would it still have become the phenomenon that it was 23 years ago? I don't think so.

We still have fun with it, but that's partially because we see the game through a nostalgic lens, remembering the good times we had with it as kids. It's also because we have context; we know what was expected of games at the time it was originally released and marvel at how greatly this particular game exceeded those expectations. Evaluated based on the expectations we have of games today it still does fairly well—it provides a welcome sense of discovery and requires no small amount of skill. But, released in 2008, it would be deemed too small in scope, basic in control, and simple in narrative to be declared a truly great game.

The reason why games don't—and, perhaps, may never—have the same sort of agelessness as other forms of artistic entertainment is that they aren't judged (at least not primarily) on anything as enduring as characters, plot, or writing. Rather, they are evaluated based on elements that are constantly evolving within the medium, such as game design, play mechanics, and, to a lesser degree, graphics.

In order to be considered timeless, a work of art must necessarily affect its audience in a similar way and to a similar degree, regardless of when it happens to be viewed. Super Mario Bros. fails this test because those who play it for the first time today have experienced more modern games that significantly expand upon and outdo Nintendo's archetypal platformer. Everything Super Mario Bros. does well—its run-and-jump action, its hidden levels, its rewarding coin collection system—has since been improved upon by countless other games. We rightfully acknowledge and respect that it served as inspiration for later games, but we also understand that many of these games have inarguably surpassed their original muse.

Super Mario Bros. makes for an easy case—the advancements in video game design and technology that have taken place in the decades since the game first appeared are strikingly obvious. Let's look at a less apparent example: The Halo games.

The original Halo was rightly considered one of the greatest shooters ever made when it was first released. However it simply doesn't compare with the series' latest incarnation, Halo 3, which has undeniably improved upon the franchise's formula by offering a deeper multiplayer experience, a greater variety of game possibilities (by virtue of its new and more refined enemies, weapons, and vehicles), and a more cinematic presentation.

Of course, it can be difficult to get past our rosy recollections. My memories of playing Halo outstrip those I have of playing either of its sequels. But that matters little in the matter of timelessness. The question is whether players who are new to an older game will be affected by it in the same way and to the same degree as those who played it when it was first released.

Will the person who views The Godfather for the first time today enjoy it as much as its original 1972 audience? Probably. Hence, it is timeless, at least insofar as it appeals equally to at least two or three generations of moviegoers.

Will Halo or either of its sequels be as compelling to players who encounter it for the first time 15 or 20 years from now as it was for us? I have my doubts.

Each new game is driven by a need to exceed what was accomplished by its predecessors, and only the ones that manage this difficult feat are recognized as masterpieces. But the fact that a primary criterion in our evaluation of a game is the extent to which it innovates and improves upon existing game design dooms these masterpieces to quickly become dated, and, eventually, perhaps even irrelevant.

Video games must overcome this great hurdle should they ever endeavour to earn recognition as an enduring art form.

Sadly, I'm not sure that they ever will.

  1. Colin McInnes from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Some movie genres are judged the same way too. Look at sci-fi. Show Star Wars Ep 4 to a group of kids today? They'd think it was old, outdated, "soooo 1970's", and not worth their time.

    Marathon was a good game that had decent plot, and even though by today's standards it has aged graphics, the storyline was engaging enough, and the mood/tone it set while you played was enough to make it a game to hold others up to, even today.
  2. Mark Rejhon from Canada writes: I think movies are treated the same ways. A lot of people today don't care about silent movies. Or 1950's science fiction. You name it. Notice how most videogames have evolved to the point where they are almost all 3D today. Very obviously, the pace of videogame innovation has slowed down today compared to the 1980's. Wait another 50 years, and innovation in videogames will become much more difficult, as it has for movies. Gradually, timeless masterpieces may start to show. Think of the original Batman, and the reboot of the series, Batman Returns. Movies keep getting remade over and over. Think of the Star Trek Original Series versus Star Trek The Next Generation. Many people watching the latter in the 90's, didn't care very much for the Original Series. Others have nostagilia, much like for the original Super Mario brothers. Moore's Law is going to slowly peter out. See Intel is having problems and have gone dual-core/multi-core. Just like 1950's when movies went widescreen and all movies from 1950-to-date look very similiar, compared to movies from 1900-to-1950 where there was lots of innovation (from BW to technicolor, from 4:3 to widescreen, with early experiments in 3D already starting to happen then). As this gradually happens, focus slowly shifts In 50 years from now, certain videogames (or series) may become timeless. Videogames are still in their infancy, relatively speaking, when compared to Hollywood. Also, Super Mario is still being made in many new incarnations, such as on the Nintendo Wii. Adults are not as interested in some of them, but new players are still trying them out. Much like Mickey Mouse. Kids love Mickey Mouse today, but would probably yawn at the 1928 "Steamboat Willie" (early black and white Mickey Mouse cartoon). The comparision is the same. Games will eventually become timeless. The problem is we are still in a stage of rapid innovation, much like the first 50 years of moviemaking.
  3. Jon T from United States writes: I think that Super Mario Bros. is not a good example to go by. Along the lines of what Mark said, it is a game made in gaming's infancy. But it is groundbreaking in its storytelling (even if it is bizarre) and having a recognizable protagonist, something that wasn't often done at the time of its release. Maybe the game is not timeless, I would call it a classic since we will always consider it in the circumstances in which it was released.

    There is a similar example in any form of art. Take the German band Kraftwerk, for example. No doubt very revolutionary for its time. They were one of the pioneers of electronic music in the 70's, and were not even accepted at their time (initially having to resort to performing in the fine art world). Yet, if the album "Autobahn" was released today, they wouldn't make such a mark. Timeless? As with SMB, I am not sure. But their albums can be considered classic.

    On the other hand, there are, in my opinion, timeless video games. I believe they can be played 10-20 years from now and still be enjoyable. For instance I would consider the Monkey Island series to be one of them. Great art, great dialogue (and voice acting), and a simple adventure gaming interface, something that is accessible to many, and one could argue that the games could be released today with positive reviews (particularly the well drawn 3rd installment). I would also consider many of the Final Fantasy games as timeless, most notably for their storylines/characters and simple but addicting gameplay, among other things. And concerning the Mario series, I personally believe I would enjoy playing Super Mario 3 and Yoshi's Island if I was just introduced to them this year.

    I think that it's important to distinguish something that is more important for its innovations than for its ability to be enjoyed at any time. Though, I'm sure there are games that do both.
  4. Steven Patterson from Canada writes: As Mark Rejhon noted above, video games are still at an early stage of development. When Roger Ebert went on about how video games can't be art, I noted that we're really only 35 years from Pong; 35 years into the development of cinema the "talkies" weren't invented yet and the feature length film most worth noting by then was "Rise of a Nation." (Which, if released today as a video game, would in all liklihood be rated "AO" and be unavailable for sale because of its offensive themes and depictions of brutal violence.) Perhaps we're too early in the lifecycle of the video game to truly determine if there can be lasting classics.

    Still, there do look to be a few candidates; for instance, people keep finding ways to reinvent Tetris and bring it back. I suspect that the real classics will tend to be the abstract games than those that rely upon "realism" for their draw.

    -- Steve
  5. Adam Theriault from United States writes: Making a direct video games -> movies comparison seems akin to treating the web like print media, but I'll bite...

    Voyage Dans La Lune hardly had the rich character development of the Godfather. It's a small delight to revisit and consider how smart it is given the limitations of the time -- quite similar to say, pong or river raid.

    Video games as a genre seem to only now be reaching a sophomore era in development, where investment capital and technology are attracting big name actors and believable visuals. Player suspension-of-disbelief is also more difficult to achieve given the additional complexities of viewer agency.

    The industry isn't on an infinite plane of progress. Once the market's cost-of-product and graphic quality settle into a niche, I suspect we'll see developers gravitating further towards improving other aspects: mass-appeal, character richness, and ultimately what I think you're driving at is already a term highly discussed in most game reviews: replay value.

    I agree with Mark Rejhon on several points, particularly "wait another 50 years", though I suspect even seven would suffice.

    I personally love watching the same movies I love over and over again. Many of my friends will insist on never revisiting a film they've already seen. Individual tendency perhaps applies similarly.

    Lastly however, do video games need to provide the same character development as movies? Do all of them? Board games like Catan, Arcade hits like Zuma, or Wii Sports tennis are widely popular, have near infinite replay value, and there's not a single character outside your opponents.

    It sounds like your genre of choice, cinematic RPGs, haven't quite hit the mark for you yet. Square Enix and Bethesda are certainly trying.

    While this article strikes me as an intentionally dour op-ed piece to drive up comments and boost advertising, I got roped in, so hey, well done ;]
  6. Norman Caissie from Ottaw, Canada writes: I think your wrong.
    Mario is timeless. I have all the classics on my wii and my 6 year old daughter loves to play them as well as Kirby.

    I think this is because the DS games are so similar to the games I played on the old NES and SNES.
  7. Chad Sapieha from Toronto, Canada writes: Great comments, everyone. I'm happy to see such thoughtful responses. The topic we're discussing is largely a matter of personal opinion, so I won't try to argue back. Besides which, many of you have made some terrific points that would be difficult to counter.

    I've been thinking about the idea of timelessness in games ever since my daughter was born almost three years ago. I realized that while I kept imagining movies and books that I wanted to share with her when she comes of age, I wasn't thinking of any games that I eventually wanted to play with her--which is strange, given my job (and lifelong passion for entertainment of the interactive sort). Of course I want to play games with her, but when I envision the future I see the two of us playing contemporary games together, not any of the classics that I grew up with or am currently playing. In writing this post, I think I was trying to flesh out why that was the case.

    I do hope games achieve the same sort of timelessness as other forms of entertainment, but I still think they've got some obstacles to overcome for that to happen--at least in my mind. :)
  8. The Radish from London, Canada writes: Lot's of good points in previous comments. I would add that in my opinion, certain genres hold up much better than others and that once any genre becomes sophisticated enough longevity is possible. Graphic adventures hold up quite well, the newer games being very much the same as the original point and click games but with better graphics, voice acting and (sometimes) music. I've played some very good newer adventures but none beat Grim Fandango(1998).

    I would also say that immersiveness is always one of the keys to a great game. Rapid technological advances in games has made many older games seem very dated and sometimes it's hard to get past poor graphics, sound etc. and become immersed. I think that if one has enough patience to really get involved in the gameplay of a good older game, one can appreciate the greatness. The most difficult thing to get past, I find, is poor controls or a poor interface. There are games that I liked in the past but wouldn't play now because of control/interface improvements that I've become used to.

    As for games that still hold up for me, my wife and I pull out the SNES every now and again and play Super Mario 3 or one of the Donkey Kong Country games and they're just as fun as ever. This year I played Super Mario 64 (1996) for the first time and it is one of the best games I've ever played.

  9. Luke P from Vancouver, Canada writes: If you ask me, games are only just beginning to hit their stride as a storytelling medium. They are truly turning into an art form, primarily because the element of storytelling is becoming central to the substance of so many games.

    Take Half-Life 2 for instance. For me, this is the absolute pinnacle of video game storytelling. Everything in the game (and the subsequent episodes) was designed to create a believable narrative into which the player can buy. In the process, the designers manipulate your emotions (as any good film director will do) using amazing artistic design, strong dialog and believable interaction. The level of detail is truly astounding, and the artistic quality is surprisingly close to todays film industry.

    I encourage everyone to pick up a copy of Episode 1 and play the game in commentary mode. You will really appreciate just how much work Valve put into making the experience as artistic (for lack of a better word) as possible. If nothing else, it will give you an inkling of where video games are headed in the next decade.
  10. Globe Reader from Canada writes: The concept of "art" itself changes over time. Many creations that we call art today would not be called art 100 years ago. If we could go 100 years into the future, we would be surprised and shocked to see what they will call art then.
  11. Catherine Kimport from Madison, United States writes: A lot of good comments were already made here already so I'll try n ot to repeat that much. One thing you mentioned struck me, about not having any of today's or yersterday's games in mind that you wanted to play with your daughter... I'm about the exact opposite there, although I don't plan to have children, one thing I have long dreamed of is, 25 or 30 years down the road, to teach a sort of "game history" class because there are so many solid games I want to share with future generations.

    One curious thing I have noticed that many (not all) of the games I would count as candidates for being "timeless," is that they are the games that didn't push the boundaries of technology at the time. Take Chu Chu Rocket for an example.... I'll be playing that game for as long as my thumbs work, but it was hardly a showcase for the Dreamcast's technical abilities. Regardless of how technology increases, we are coming to a plateau of technology utillization... more and more game designers are able to do exactly what they imagine using the tools at their disposal.

    And the other thing to note is that so many of today's gamers are not children but adults. Adults are more likely than children to appreciate things that aren't as technically glamorous as they might be, and I suspect as the industry matures we will see a lot of more stylistic works (as opposed to flashy über-realism). We need to give it time, though.

    And one final point, the classics were made by people who didn't grow up playing video games, because there simply weren't video games around for them to grow up with. Nowadays, I suspect all of the people entering the industry grew up with at least a moderate exposure to the medium, and I think that more than anything is going to propel video games into being a legitimate art form. Artists learn from art, after all.
  12. Darya Hance from Longview, United States writes: I think you have your eras wrong. The first Mario shouldn't be compared to something like the Godfather, but rather something more along the lines of Disney's Silly Symphonies. A more appropriate comparison to the Godfather would be Final Fantasy VII. The graphics, like the Godfather's cinematics, are dated, but if you updated them into today's standards, the storylines alone would carry the franchises. That's why so many gamers have been hounding Square Enix to redo FFVII, but even if Square won't, those same gamers will pass on FFVII to their kids and anyone else who will listen. In my personal experinece, I didn't sit down and play through FFVII until 2005, and I couldn't put it down. Was it because the graphics were "omgpretty!"? No. It was the story.

    Also, it seems to be a pretty constant thread in a few forums that Bungie forsook the story in favor of better graphics and more focus on add ons such as the Forge and the Theater. Halo does have an awesome storyline, but what exactly makes it better than Nintendo's? Mario has adapted over the years, from Super Mario 64 to Paper Mario to the newest installment, Super Mario Galaxy. Personally, I love Halo (the Husband and I shelled out for the Legendary edition last September), but at the end of the day, I'd rather pick up Kirby or Harvest Moon on the Virtual Console and enjoy some simplistic gameplay.
  13. ano nymous from Ireland writes: One point i havnt seen made so far is this one:

    Comparing mario to the godfather is not a fair comparison for one very important reason: mario was trying to be a game, the godfather was trying to be art (both succeeded tremendously well we can all agree)

    there are thousands of movies made a year, most of them for entertainement and very few of them as works of art.

    my argument would be to make 2 comparisons:

    ff7 and star wars: both mind blowing visualy and with a great story when they were released. Now i for one would definitely enjoy watching star wars again despite its very dated effects in the same way that i can force myself to play thorugh the pixellated horror of ff7s characters to in both cases for what is a compelling, original story with fantastic antagonists
    These were made for entertainement, and were so good at what they did that their fans call them art, that is debatable...

    the godfather however is timeless becasue it is a work of art, and it aspired to be, so only a game that srived for the same goal can be matched up to it. Right now i can think of only: ico or shadow of the colossus. These games resemble nothing else, and more than the novel silent storytelling, their mood and art direction push them far beyond the average game.

    There are many gangster movies, but none come close to the godfather in terms of art direction, i think in ico we find the platforming equivalent
  14. Tira J from The Internet, United States writes: I never touched a video game until 1996. Donkey Kong Country. While I don't have that nostalgia for SMB. If you want to compare games to movies, you have to use the same standards. Storytelling. It has been mentioned previously about Final Fantasy VII, and how that is an example of a story game. That has as much of an impact on some people as the Godfather did (more so, possibly if you've never seen movies =P) . How do I know this? Go to any Square-based message board, any RPG-gamer enthusiast site, and you will STILL see people crying about that one death scene.

    Mario should not be compared to Godfather for such a reason. The writer of this article is comparing technical specifications to storytelling. What is more appropriate, is comparing Super Mario Bros. to a Betamax. The TECHNICAL display of the medium. Who watches the Godfather on a Batamax player? Even VHS, reel-to-reel, and laser dics. We do not fault Hollywood for not being able to bring out the first release of the Wizard of Oz on Bluray, do we?

    And the abilities of the design at the time do come into our heads. When we see a game, we know what level of development we are dealing with, and adjust standards accordingly, because we do it all the time in movies. Do we hold it against "Citizen Kane" because it's in black and white? No? But that was technologically inferior to the Matrix! Shouldn't we feel the same way?

    I do agree with the idea that if I pick up Super Mario Brothers for the first time today, I will not be held in a sense of wonder and awe as I was when I played Kingdom Hearts at 16 years old in 2002 (another one which will likely be held timeless, because it holds plot over play), but I -will- enjoy it, I would appreciate it for what it is.
  15. Eric B from Ottawa, Canada writes: Kudos to all those that have posted above! Overall, this is probably amongst the most intelligent and well structured group of forum comment I have seen yet in the Globe yet -- and I'm a regular daily contributor and heavy reader.

    Gaming isn't my strong point but it is hard not to agree with the many great arguments above.
  16. Paul Morro from United States writes: There is also one video game that without a doubt cannot be argued as timeless. It is simple, yet one we all still may play on our cell phones, or in the office when the boss isn't looking. "Tetris" Originally created in 1985, it has seen a few rehashes to its form, but nothing that could be said to really change the game so much that it is no longer recognizable. It is a game that was high on concept, low on story (or well missing a story all together), and low on a need for flashy graphics (though they have been spiced up with brighter colors in recent times, and even become slightly shaded.) But that is no different really than the Godfather being remastered for DVD.

    It cannot be argued that people play Tetris for nostalgia, due to its lack of a story or any real character to be attached to. As well attachment to the actual game its self seems odd because there was not much to it.

    Ultimately, that will be the real mark of timelessness for a video game, in my opinion, the simplicity of it. A game like Tetris may even outlive movie masterpieces, like the Godfather, when in 30 years audiences can no longer comprehend the concept of La Cosa Nostra, but still enjoy fitting brightly colored shapes together to music at ever increasing difficulty and speed.
  17. Barry Tabrah from Torquay, United Kingdom writes: We have modern masterpieces that drum up similar levels of excitement to that which we had 20 years ago. People wait with eagar anticpation for the latest Grand Theft Auto, Gran Turismo, Rainbow Six, Guitar Hero, Burnout, the list goes on.

    And we still have inovation. Take titles like Rez and Lumines for example. And consoles like the Wii have introduced whole new aspects to gaming. They have shown that simple, innovative gameplay is still possible.

    Finally we are able to play online games with hundreds of people at once, something that was unthinkable 20 years ago.

    TIme moves on, technology moves on, but the enjoyment that a well developed game can bring still remains. Old brands are re-invented and new ones are created.

    Finally, far from becoming irrelevant, video games have moved from something that kids grew out of to something that is considered part of home entertainment for kids and adults included. Irrelevant? Not from where I'm sitting.
  18. josh gaudon from halifax, Canada writes: i don't agree, i mean, i'm a gamer, i still play super mario bros. when i get the chance, and i'm only 12, i find it fun because it's classic, everyone i've met that is also a gamer, likes to play super mario bros. and the only gamers i know are people my age or just 1or 2 years older, just because games graphics and gameplay have become more sophistacated doesn't mean we shouldn't play classic viseo games, they're fun, they're games, no one can deny that.
  19. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: No video-game classics? Not a chance. My single favourite has to be FFVII, but there are also games Like Ultima VII the Black Gate, the Civ series, heck the entire Final Fantasy series. These games are classics because they went after the story-line, the characters, and the unforgettable moments.

    Those who go for the glitz of new graphics are also the kind who decide which movie to go see based on the special effects. Using that criteria, movies will never be classics either. The special effects in movies progresses at nearly the pace of graphics in video games, and movies even 10 years old look horrible by today's standards.

    The problem with games is that the graphics are the primary visual element. Books haven't seen a visual upgrade in centuries, and movies without special effects can age decades with only minor visual impairment. As has been mentioned, once game graphics hit the peak (if they ever do), we will see them attain the same level that movies are in now.

    Ah nostalgia -- I remember renting FFVII for a solid month -- I just couldn't return it to Blockbuster until I cleared it. If they ever updated the graphics I would buy it in a heartbeat, even if the story hadn't changed one iota.
  20. Jesse Hine from United States writes: I almost take offense to this.

    From the way it is written, sounds like he simply took the two most rediculously popular games and just went with it.

    If you want games with great, compelling stories, and other "seemingly" overlooked aspects of games, You actually may need to look at companies other than the most monstrous in size.

    Has anyone taken time to play the Lunar series? It's not well known, no, but those who have played either game LOVE them. Sure, they're really outdated with their 16 bit sprites on a 32 bit system, and sure, the battle system in really simple and get repetitive fairly easily.

    But those games made me laugh, and cry, and anger me. You didn't just have a protagonist to play, you KNEW them characters, you felt what they felt, and the stories, both individually and as parts of the same whole, are moving and heartwrenching and wonderful all at once.

    I have played Lunar 2 more times than I can remember, only so I could re-live the story.

    It's not state of the art, even in its OWN time, but it had a tale so compelling, so emotional that I continue to play it today.

    Games can and are timeless works of art, but you must cast your net wide, else you sound like THIS guy.

    Moral: When making an opinion about a group of anything or anyone, picking only a few and claiming it to be true for the rest is ignorant.
  21. Canada Forever from Canada writes: Counterstrike, Quake and Starcraft go against your article.

    Modern games, not built on nostalgia, just good to play and fun and there are people out there, thousands(?) still playing.
  22. Chris Lee from Granada Hills, United States writes: There are a few games I'd like to point out, that would have some great timeless qualities to the gaming medium.

    There's are many games in the Final Fantasy series, even before VII, that new gamers even today are picking up and playing. Number 3, 4 and 6 are some of the bigger hitters, in fact, so adored, that Square Enix decided to re-make those games, and let it out into the public again, some with only some new computer generated scenes added, others with a completely new 3D makeover, with the soundtrack re-mastered.

    Another game I'd like to point out is Chrono Trigger. You do not mess with the Chrono Trigger, that sucker is absolutely timeless, and there are people out there willing to lose a limb to have it again in any of the new systems of today, be it portable or not. In fact, there was a time when Square let it out for Playstation with a new soundtrack, and added animated scenes, including a new intro. It's been about an eon since then, and people want that game to be released yet again.

    Doukutsu Monogatari, also known as Cave Story, is a pixelated game made by a single soul, (programming, character art, animation, storyline, music, EVERYTHING) that was released, free to the public in early 2005. The graphics and music both seem like they belong in an old Nintendo system, and the control scheme seems like it should be used with a Super NES controller. Yet it was wildly popular amongst the crowd who actually got to play it. The weapon level up system was well planned, the story was engaging, with multiple endings, at least 40 hours of gameplay, plus tons of replayability, due to the multiple endings, and a time attack mode! I daresay, if it hit shelves to buy, this sucker would've been a hit today.

    All in all, I'd like you to rethink your sense of reasoning. Just because most of 'A' is 'B', and some of 'B' is 'C', does not mean that some or all of 'C' must therefore, be 'A'.
  23. doctor business from vancouver, Canada writes: Cinema and Video games are called art only for lack of a better word. These overwhelming sensory illusions can bring you in and engage you more than any of what use to be called art. Does this make em more or less art? artifact? All art is defined by trends and revisionism. Especially the classics. I very much doubt our current definition of art will hold up for many more generations. It is too vague and meaningless. Engagement in videogames can be so powerful it can get addictive. But often this is gross and antisocial rather than beauty. It's all the same, all within pre defined boundaries. Interactive gaves escape that somewhat, but never entirely. Culture with videogames at the centre is very different than a social, cooperative culture. Unless, and I think this could save us but there isn't much hint in the mainstream... open source takes it all over. That removes some of the gross NEW BEST THING hype and allows for the unfettered imagination as Art should.

    But in the end what is the meaning of a fictional interactive life for your mind while your body sits still?

    Enjoy!
  24. John Howington from Little Rock, United States writes: I'm seeing quite a bit of fanboy rants in here. I suppose we have http://www.vgcats.com to blame for that, as well as for me contributing.

    As far as the article goes, I feel like it's a bit unfair to compare The Godfather and Super Mario Bros., as they're classics for completely different reasons.

    The Godfather, of course, is widely hailed for an incredible amount of reasons. One outstanding one being that it was one of the first commercially successful movies to portray gangsters beyond a stereotype, with ponderous complexity and character development.

    To say that it is timeless, however, isn't entirely true. It gains that title because it is aging in a society where the idea of the mafia is still in the clear and present mind of the public. A culture unfamiliar with organized crime might not understand The Godfather the same way we do.

    As for Super Mario Bros., it's not so much superlative beyond its time as it is influential. As it is the very first platforming game, a better comparison in movies would be The Jazz Singer, remembered far more for ushering in a new era in its medium than for its actual content.

    Arguments for the status of timelessness in the same context as The Godfather can be made for many of the above mentioned games, I'm sure. As for defining them, and cinema as well, as art, it would be difficult to find a commercially successful contender in either medium. The Halo series and other popular contemporary games are designed for just that, commercial success. Artistic vision is present, but takes a backseat to pandering to the lowest common denominator. As with cinema, some of the best examples of true art in video games are the non-commercial ones, available free for download on this obscure website and that one.
  25. Globe Insider subscriber content
    Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: I don't agree. I'm sure there are hundreds of amazing black and white movies (and even silent movies) out there that are supposed to be great, but I can't stand watching them. I watched 5 minutes of Hitchcock's famous "The Birds" (or something like that), a supposed masterpiece, before turning it off in boredom and annoyance. It's the same reaction my niece had when she came over and all I could set up for her was my dusty old Nintendo I found in a box somewhere. She thought it was sooo lame, but I was happy that at least she had fun laughing at it hysterically for about 30 minutes.

    After she left I spent a few hours playing those classics though, including SMB1. Good times. It's really all a matter of perspectice, I guess.
  26. Chad Sapieha from Toronto, Canada writes: I'm happy and surprised to see this conversation continuing. Again, I'm not going to try to counter any of your arguments, many of which are quite good.

    However, In the interest of keeping the discussion on track, I'd like to remind readers that the basis of my argument isn't that video game stories cannot be timeless--indeed, I believe they have the potential to age just as gracefully as the narraives of any film or book.

    Rather, I'm putting forth the notion that the evolutionary nature of game design makes it difficult for contemporary gamers to get into older games and enjoy their stories. I believe that average (read: non-hardcore) players who start playing a classic game for the first time often get turned off by interfaces, control schemes, and features that seem clunky and dated when compared to those of modern titles.

    That said, I think one of you did manage to identify a truly ageless game. Kudos to Paul Morro for pointing out that Tetris, which hasn't changed significantly in design for more than 20 years, has aged amazingly gracefully. That is indeed a game that I can imagine playing with my daughter a decade from now.
  27. Em Eff from Toronto, Canada writes: Please, at least pretend to make an effort to opine intelligently on this subject. Your point about nostaligia is off-base, and besides, why not consider the films from bygone eras through a similar lens of nostalgia? What bothers me the most, however, is the absence of a deep understanding of the subject your are writing about. You compare Early Era games to Late Era movies. You ignore a variety of games that do, in fact, have this poorly defined potential you seem to find so clearly evident in film. Half-Life has a massive community of fans, and has crossed over in a variety of ways into the non-gaming media ether.
  28. Cristian Perez from San Juan, Puerto Rico writes: What you say is so not true, there are many games that, by todays standards, should be criticized for their graphics and gameplay, but they are still revered because they are timeless classics, just like The Godfather. Games like The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, a game that was released in the early 90s, and then re-released years afterward during the last generation of gaming, with little to no alterations, was still revered among critics and the current generation of gamers as well. It is fact that games are not doomed to be irrelevant. A great story is far more valued than graphics or gameplay, take most of the Final Fantasy games which have been made, they have incredible stories which make them great and memorable even by todays standards. It is also the reason why the first Halo is considered by many to be superior to the sequels and is often featured in many top games lists while the sequels are left out. I never even played any of the old Final Fantasy games and other "retro" games until recently, and many of them have now become some of my favorite games of all time.
  29. Tyler Standifird from Oceanside, United States writes: I find this article to have one explicitly recurring theme: crap. To classify a game's quality as "timeless" and "irrelevant" to the present is just plain closed-minded. I was born in 1991 and I did not start playing video games until I was three. When I was five, I was introduced to Super Mario World. This game absolutely blew my mind. I would play it for hours on end, always chasing after the same ambiguous target. Do I have any special moments of rememberance with it? Do I remember my first Yoshi? Do I remember the first time I unlocked Star World? Do I remember the first time I completed the game? No. I continue to play this game over and over again despite its simplicity and age. Even today, Super Mario World Advance is still selling. Mario is always going to be a fun game because it is always going to be a fun concept. Whether your favorite was the original Mario games for NES or the slightly re-vamped version of Super Mario World, the game is the same basic concept. Think about Doom. Doom 3 did not fare too well with the public. Why is this? Doom 3 turned a simple arcade game into a "scary" feature whose goal it was to make you paranoid about the Hell Knight that was standing behind you. Resurrection of Evil, however, was loved among the gamer community for its inclusion of Doom and Doom 2. I, personally, bought it for this very reason. Duck Hunt is another example. The father of all Light Gun games, Duck Hunt set a precedence. There were none like it at the time. For the first time, people were able to shoot the TV without having to buy a new one. This thrilled people for inexplicable reasons. Does anyone still play Duck Hunt? No. Duck Hunt serves as an example that Nostalgia does not equal Quality. The real Quality games are being re-released constantly in the exact same condition they were in when they were originally released. Video games are, have been, and always will be about quality. Those of you who see this as otherwise are stupid.
  30. Patrick Schaefer from Saint Louis, United States writes: You're looking too far back. Don't get me wrong either, I don't think that SOME games will ever live up to an expectation, however, there will be games that people will play over and over again because of how great it is. Case and point - Final Fantasy 7. Deemed one of the greatest RPG's ever created and still gets much hype despite being over nearly a decade old. While it hasn't spawned a large gathering like movies like Star Wars, I doubt it will be forgotten in game history ANYTIME soon. It was what sold Sony's playstation. This game defined what PSOne games should have been at the time. Though it was succeeded by FF8 and 9 which graphics were better, the FF7 game still ranks the best amoung many of the followers. To say Video Games will never rank up to movies is wrong. Perhaps not the greatness, but even we in our age of 256bit Console Gaming still go back to our roots in our NES, PSOne, Sega Genesis, and even Atari games. I'm only 22 years old, I own an atari and still like to go back and play vintage games like Pitfall and Pong on my Atari. Perhaps Games won't have such a following as Epic Movies like The Godfather and Star Wars, but to say they'll never match up to the hype of movies is an understatement. There will be games that are etched in history. Halo 3 was blamed for the Box Office drop the weekend it was released worldwide(which is believable considering all things). I could talk about this topic forever and even probably write pages on why it's feasible that games will live on for a long long time. However, it's actually up to gamers alone: Past, present and future ones to keep those games alive. Without a following movies like the Godfather, and Wizard of Oz would have been lost in history too.
  31. Steven Patterson from Canada writes: Remember, folks, we're not talking about old favourites... we're talking classics, which means that twenty years from now you can introduce the game to someone (of the appropriate age group) who has never played it before and he/she will still experience roughly the same level of joy.

    That's why I mentioned 'Tetris' as a candidate. It's been remade for every generation of platform since it came out. It's possible Bejewelled or Peggle could make the cut as well, but it's too soon to tell. "Ports" of classic board games would be likely candidates too.

    However much I'd like to wax nostalgic over the eternal appeal of Spy Hunter, Moon Patrol, Marathon, and X-com, I can't see future generations sitting down to play them save out of antiquarian interest. The same likely goes for other fan-favourites I see named above.

    It's not whether you'll be playing the game in 20 years, it's whether others will be seeking the game out 20 years from now that determines which game is a classic... at least in the terms of the article.

    -- Steve
  32. Alex LeClair from Kingston, Canada writes: I will be short. One point, as most have covered the real points. Look at Starcraft. It is a really old, simple RTS game, yet, even as the release of the second game approaches, people are still playing and love it. And after the second is released? People will still play the original, for both the gameplay and storyline. Making a game too complex is not a good strategy, because it makes gameplay much less enjoyable and frustrating.
  33. Eirikur Fannar Jonsson from Iceland writes: Your reasoning is faulty. Many have pointed out the fact that Mario and The Godfather are not comparable due to their different standing in the history of their medium. I have nothing to add to this. What I have to add is that all artistic mediums are evolutionary in nature. Some are not impeded by technical evolution but rather by cultural evolution. This means that some works of art, if made now, would not be considered great or timeless if not for the time they were made in. Mona Lisa would not be considered special if painted now. This is true for any art. Don Quixote considered a classic, but actually it's pretty poorly written and terribly dull to read. All art must be viewed for what it is and more importantly when it is. Many have mentioned old movies, which when viewed by today's audiences are considered incredibly slow and dull. You say that most old games will not be enjoyed by others than those who played them when they were new and hardcore gamers. The same is true for all art. Your average Joe does not listen to Beethoven, he does not read Tolstoy, he does not play the original Mario Bros and he does, sadly, not watch The Godfather. He listens to some god-awful pop music, reads Dan Brown, plays Halo and watches Ben Stiller movies. Only hardcore readers read Tolstoy, only hardcore music enthusiasts listen to Beethoven and so forth. Games are a relatively new artform, but we will hopefully never forget it's roots, Pong, Space Invaders, Tetris and Mario Bros.
  34. Max Peters from Los Gatos, United States writes: I think the main reason that games seem unable to reach that 'timeless' quality that certain other media do is that they are not created for the same reasons. Did the original Super Mario Bros contain a story as complex as the Godfather's? No, its main feature was that it was fun to play. The same goes for the Halo series: although it certainly has a story, most players enjoy the game for its gameplay and graphics, which are easily expanded upon in later updates.

    It would be like enjoying just the special effects of a given movie. Let's take, for example, the "Alien" series. Over the four installments, the movies' effects have increased in visual appeal and complexity. Yet the first movie is arguably the best of the series, because it had the best story and most subtle filmmaking strategies. Movies whose appeal is based on effects are usually forgotten fairly quickly, no matter how good the effects were.

    And certain games can achieve a timeless quality to them. I would argue that Starcraft does not exactly fit this niche, since I doubt it would sell well on today's markets if it were released tomorrow. But let's look at the Half Life series, a set of games that managed (and manages still) to release expansions to the original games for years with the same graphics and no new features (maybe some new monsters), just an extension of the storyline. I think the entire problem is that making installments of games whose entire selling point is graphics and gameplay is (a) easier and (b) more profitable.
  35. Will Prah from Visalia, United States writes: I have to say that I agree with the previous posts. I can't really think of anything to add that hasn't been said, but I have to provide one more example of a "timeless" game. I may get flak for this, but The Legend of Zelda, Twilight Princess is the absolutely best game I've ever played, and will easily be the most re-played game in my library for all of ever. In my opinion the entire LoZ series has done very well as far as being "masterpiece" quality. Of course beauty is in they eyes of the beholder, and with any luck prudes like the author of this article will die off sooner or later, and be replaced by those of us who don't prejudge a medium without knowing how to be relevant.
  36. Prashant Jayaraman from San Jose, United States writes: Many of you seem to be missing the point, including the VGCats writer, who brought my attention to this article. A classic, as far as I'm concerned is not defined as anything of nostalgic value, because EVERYTHING has nostalgic value, regardless of how good it is. A true classic is something that anyone from any generation can appreciate because it still is genuinely good.

    The real question is, at what point does a form of art stop being primitive and start being timeless? Some would argue that the blues of old is too simplistic to be enjoyed at the same level of blues-rock bands, who added more meat and substance to the music. Others would say that the timelessness of old blues is in the subtleties, things that can't fully be described in words.

    Similarly, some would argue that Super Mario Bros. is too simple to be enjoyed at the same level as Super Mario Galaxy. My opinion is that this is not the case. I think the gameplay, graphics, and sound of Super Mario Bros. have aged really well. Same goes for Megaman, Zelda, Metroid, etc.. In fact, I would argue that the NES was the turning point for video games as an art form, and that the Atari consoles and arcade games that came out prior to the NES are not nearly as enjoyable today as they would have been in the '70s and early '80s. Those games, such as Space Invaders, Pac-Man, Pitfall, and Centipede are primitive.
  37. Prashant Jayaraman from San Jose, United States writes: Oh by the way, I forgot to mention that I wasn't even born during the NES's lifespan, so my view of the system and its games is not clouded by nostalgia and fond childhood memories. That would be the N64 for me.
  38. Janelle Lantaigne from Canada writes: I agree, yet disagree with your article, simply because I've never played Halo and have no interest in doing so (I prefer other genres over FPSs). But I didn't grow up on Super Mario Bros. In fact, the first console I got was a used N64 with Turok, Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and Super Mario 64. I didn't come into contact with the original Mario until much later. I find that the Zelda series (or at least until OoT) are classics, and I haven't played anything earlier than OoT. Mario also still provides entertainment and fun for me, because while I wasn't good at the games, I'd love to show my kids the games eventually. If you're going on about the graphics, think about the New Super Mario Bros. for the DS. It's the same as the original games, just the graphics and the gameplay (to some extent) have been updated to the times. I enjoy playing it, but not for the graphics. I like the gameplay. I've played the original a little, and I loved playing it, along with Pac-man (another classic) and Tetris. All in all, it really depends on the kids. I do get a laugh out of the old Atari, NES, and Genesis because of the simplicity, but I still find fun in them because of that. I don't know if kids of the future will think the same as me, but I would like to think they will. In terms of comparing movies, you're working on two different scales that have been set for their own mediums. You mention the Godfather, and while I agree with you it is a classic (I have yet to see it, but I'm sure I will someday), you forget that certain other movies that were breakthrus and "classics" don't appeal to today's generation. Example; Jaws. It scared a nation into avoiding beaches at the time of its release, but nowadays kids just laugh at it (I know I was at some parts). It was a good movie and in some ways can still be called a classic, but it doesn't have the same effect today. But you're right in some ways. Certain games are classic, others aren't. Same with movies.
  39. Kai Vold from Seattle, United States writes: I agree and disagree. Most games, even the few great ones that people play for years after they are released, enjoying them as much as ever, can be so completely improved upon that the original is obsolete. Halo and Super Smash Brothers Melee are, in my opinion, examples of these.
    Despite this, some games (a relatively diminutive bunch, considering how many videogames there are in total), are timeless. I still play Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, The 2D Bomberman games, Mario RPG, Mario 64, Ghouls and Ghosts, just about all the Zelda games, Doukutsu (definitely google/download this if you haven't played it, it's just amazing) and so many more that people would just get annoyed at me if I listed them. I play these games at least as regularly as any of my next-gen games.
    For the record, many of these I didn't ever play until they were out for years (over a decade for some like Ghouls and Ghosts).
  40. Aaron Barlow from Victoria, Canada writes: I feel that I'm largely going to agree with the crowd here; the Godfather and Super Mario were not trying to accomplish the same thing, so it is hard to say that one is timeless and the other is not. They're just timeless in different ways. Super Mario defined a genre more because it was the first, not necessarily because it was the best. A more apt comparison might be between Super Mario and the 1903 movie "The Great Train Robbery", the first real "western" movie ever made. The movie was very popular in its time, but now more exists as a historical artifact for the current generation than something of a timeless classic. On the other hand, there *are* video games that have transcended the graphics gap that are worth noting, either as art, or simply as really good games. As noted already, in the RPG community, many of the middle Ultima and Final Fantasy games are still considered some of the best ever because of the calibre of the storylines more than anything else, even though the oldest of these may be pushing 15-20 years of play. On the gameplay side of things, some strategy games such as Warcraft II, Starcraft, Civilization 2 still have active player communities in spite of their ages. I don't know if it is still happening anymore, but as of ~2 years ago, the 1998 game Starcraft was being played on *televised tournaments* in South Korea. Relative to the age of the industry, that would seem to me to be fairly comparable to something like the Godfather.
  41. Trevor Anderson from Saint Petersburg, FL, United States writes: Video games may always be changing, but you sir, will wake up tomorrow, and still be an idiot. Allow me to explain, and don't take this as a 'waving my gamer card' rant, this will be a serious rebutal with prime examples. To say that a game as classic as Super Mario Brothers wouldn't work if it were released today is like saying we need a musical remake of Sunset Blvd. (Which we are getting, so explain that.) No, the problem isn't video games, the problem is America, and most of the world. Most people watch a classic like, well, we'll take your example, Godfather, and might say, "Hmm, this movie could use a bit more action. There isn't nearly enough blood, or CGI, and it's too long. I think I could make it better." Problem is, The Godfather is a near perfect film. It can't be redone, re-edited, remastered, or any 're-' you can think up. Oh, sure, I can NAME things that could be done. Casablanca could be colorized, and everyone would love it, right? Because Casablanca was missing color, right Mr. Turner? Wanna add ewoks Mr. Lucas? Super Mario Brothers is a near perfect game. Could we improve the graphics? Sure. Could we make the music digital, as apposed to analog? Sure. Could Nintendo sell an 'advanced' version of Super Mario Brothers, and it sell? Of course, and it did, in "Super Mario Brother All Stars". But did it truely make it better? I have both, and I pop in the NES version before the SNES version. See, what you're basically saying is that gaming will never be looked back on as art, because it's constantly getting better, and last years games are soon to be forgotten. Do we have artwork we enjoy, dated before the surrealist movement. Or pre-perspective. How about when people drew on walls with animal blood. You're right. Video games are constantly trying to out do themselves, unlike the movie industry, and that's a good thing. Older videogames might be forgotten by most, but I've already forgotten your article.
  42. Allan Hall from United States writes: Deus Ex. Thread over.
  43. Sean Kelly from Nova Scotia, Canada writes: Sure you can compare Mario to the Godfather. Consider both as a recognizable identity - the same way you have Mad Max and Samus or Bubsy and Spock. If I remember playing an NES game two full decades after it was released, I wouldn't say that's irrelevance. My god, do you guys remember seeing that Hitler clone's face explode at the end of Bionic Commando? Riveting!
  44. Jordan Stone from United Kingdom writes: I am a gamer, I admit it, but I won't mindlessly flame you.

    I have spent most of my life playing new games, Halo, Call of Duty (4) etc.

    I was brought up on doom and quake 3, I was too scared to play against AI's, but they were all I ever did.

    So when I found out there were games older than the PS1, I was intrigued and checked it out.

    I had never played a mario game before, because my Quake heritage had made me think he was too childish. I thought, "what the hey" and played some classic mario.

    I was hooked.

    It doesn't matter what era of gaming and what era of player, the old games will always be the best.

    Unless you're one of those idiots who prefers graphics over gameplay.
  45. Globe Insider subscriber content
    John Stanton from Canada writes: you are wrong. SMB is amazing. also, halo 3 is halo with a few new gimmicks. that's all. stop failing up my internet.
  46. Joey Lago from United States writes: You make a very good point but I dont think that games totally lack that ageless appeal that other forms of media possess. Sure, most have lost it (such as Halo and Super Mario Bros) but mostly. I think that they have dwindled with time because they have been repeated in style so often. Halo 1 was indeed a great game that placed Xbox in its respective place in the so-called Console Wars, but as you stated, its doesn't compare to Halo 3. But, if you ask fans of series like Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy most will tell you that the most current games are not the best. Take the most recent Legend of Zelda game for instance. Twilight Princess was as few will deny, one of the greatest Zelda games of all time (some consider it the best). But the widespread opinion is that it still doesn't compare to the series famous Ocarina of Time. Fans of the games held a clash that I consider epic, there are few games that are so ferociously compared as Zelda: Twilight Princess and Zelda: Ocarina of Time.
  47. Joey Lago from United States writes: So why are some games placed aside as outdated masterpieces and others are frames as the basis upon which newer games of the series should be judged? I believe the answer lies strongly in the gameplay of the titles. Halo and Super Mario Bros added new things to each game and the worlds were different but the storyline was generally the same, I and forced to sadly admit that there no aspects of the original games that made me think "Hmm, I think that they did that better earlier, I think I'll go back and play them again." Where games such as Zelda and Final Fantasy, and a few others I may have forgotten, always switch the storyline around, you never know what to expect. Now I say this with the full knowledge that most Zelda games have the same general goal *Go through dungeons, kill the bosses, gather items necessary to beat the final boss, go fight the final boss and save the princess or the world* the reason I say that Zelda has the sort of agelessness that most games lack is that they incorporate fundamentally different inner stories and goals. People have set Ocarina of Time as the standard for Zelda games because it has an exstensive storyline and it also was the first 3-d Zelda game. Twilight Princess beat the standard on graphics, theres no question there. But its story and difficulty was not quite on par with Ocarina of Time in the minds of fans. I am willing to accept any flaming you make but please use constructive and intelligent critisism. (I had to make two different posts to fit all of this.)
  48. T: E. from Frankfurt, Germany writes: I don't think that one can say that there are no games in general that are timeless. The examples mentioned in this article are both low on story and based mostly on gameplay and graphics, the fastest developing elements of games. The problem of timelessness lies not in the genre "video game" but in the lack of possibilities for identification in most games, even many entire genres. Take the Final Fantasy games as examples and things begin to look different. While the graphics have aged the stories told by these games are still the same, ready to be experienced by anyone from today, the past or the future. Just think about the fact that years after FF7 the film "Advent Children" was made. The problem that remains are the graphics, which make some of the older games hard to bear for the new gamers who grew up with polygons, anti-aliasing etc.. But if you look at Final Fantasy again you'll realize that there are "reenactments" of the old Final Fantasy games, like a remade Final Fantasy 3 for Nintendo DS.
    Another problem of this text is that there is no such thing as "timelessness". Everything ages. Even narrative structures. Who reads medieval texts anymore? Only scientists and other people interested in this part of the european past. The main reasons for this are the language, the way the story is told and the story itself. People wanted to read and write different things than today. And in 700 years "The Godfather" will be a historical document rather than a movie one still would look to have fun. Only those stories survive that are still able to touch those, who are alive. The rest dies with its target audience. "The Godfather" may still work out in 700 years. Bad Zombie Movies of the 80ies probably will not.
  49. Adam Voorhees from Shakopee, United States writes: I agree with previous posters that the comparison seems invalid. Do we judge the value of the cave paintings at Lascaux based on their art value as we understand it today, or even over spans of periods? Those artists, though admittedly rudimentary in their renderings, were moved by passions we (hopefully) all understand to depict their surroundings, their struggle, and their victories, trusting that their descendants would find their depictions useful - not just evocative, nor esthetic, but a primer to their way of life, to allow the physically and temporally unrelated to experience their viewpoint. I believe that these early games share the same function - clearly they are graphically, narratively, and functionally less rich than their own descendants, but as all things naturally evolve over time, this is an inevitable progression. Yet we do not forget those early essays into a new paradigm - we who have grown up with gaming and enriched our lives thereby teach our children these building blocks so that they understand more about us, and feel the same genuine appreciation we did as each of these games first awed and engaged us. It is no more consistent to compare The Godfather to Super Mario Brothers than it is to compare The Jazz Singer to Bleak House, in terms of content. Each field of comparative artistry necessarily undergoes vast terms of evolution in their own respective periods. It is only recently that we can even appreciably compare two such incredibly immature forms of media, because technology has enabled these periods of evolution to diminish astonishingly. Bear in mind that cinema as we know it was barely known as little as a century ago - an incomprehensibly short time next to more classically acceptable art, such as print, music, or "pure" art. I think we have to understand that we, as the first generation of gamers, have a responsibility to not only appreciate this new medium of narrative, but to carry forward the tradition first instilled in us.
  50. Daniel Maze from United States writes: I have a feeling that the peron who wrote this article really isn't much of a gamer, if at all. The Godfather is indeed a relic, a work of cinematic art. The same could be said of many, many other games, including Super Mario Brothers, but not in the same way. That comparison is like comparing apples and oranges, because the two are so fundamentally different that there's no real way to compare them. After audio became the standard in film, there's really no need for inprovement other than for visual effect, and the film industry had all it needed to make a truly great movie. On the other hand, the game industry had to work from the ground up with the technology they had at the time. Around the time of the Super Nintendo, you get games that can honestly qualify as true works of art, because the graphics, sound, and technology finally had the chance to bring out incredible storytelling and had potential cinematic possibilities. I'm sure anyone who has played through Final Fantasy 6, like me, still get's goose bumps from the opera scene, or still feel dread when they see the world torn apart and devastated. FF7 fans still feel the shock of the death of a character they followed and watched for hours on end. I'm even willing to wager that Metal Gear Solid fans still love the battle with Psycho Mantis, and are still saddened by the death of Gray Fox. There's also something to be said about people passing on the classics. If people through the years since the movie hadn't exposed others to The Godfather, would it still be remembered as a timeless classic? I doubt it. The same goes for Mario, or Final Fantasy, or even Halo. It's quality is what makes it worth passing on to future generations, and while that will happen with classic movies, you can be sure people will pass on classic games to the future, and people will still call them great, regardless of current graphics and audio. The perception of art is fleeting, but memories of a great experience last forever.
  51. Nina Plowman from United States writes: If I can say that many of my favorite games are from a time before I started playing video games, then, for me... it certainly means that older games, despite their age, can still touch the hearts of people.

    My first console was a Playstation. I did not pay much attention to games on the older consoles, even though my friends had them. They do not really serve as nostalgia for me. But, now, I have to say that I have taken a great liking to many older titles. The classic Final Fantasies, Megaman, Mario, Sonic, Fire Emblem... and that is barely scratching the surface. Even though the opera scene of Final Fantasy VI did not reach me for the first time until many years after its first grace upon the SNES, it still touched me in the same way it had for those who saw it before me.

    The pixel art phenomenon online is a prime example of old meets new, proving that people are still interested in the styles and ways of the old classics. Even those who did not grow up with 2D games have come to join the community, and I can say this as someone from the inside.

    Now, for the "casual gamer," things might be a different story. No one bought ICO when it first came out in North America. Now, partially thanks to Shadow of the Colossus, the game is a widely-known cult classic, at least in the gaming community. But, the regular Joe who picks up sports games and maybe an action game here and there will only go so far as to appreciate the newest, biggest, and latest thing. Quite often, these things are not stories, but graphics, gameplay, and grandiose. I can't help but continue to question if many games are evolving their stories and characters as much as we'd like to think.
  52. Raymond Nolazco from Pasadena, United States writes: Well, along with many other people here, I think that video games have only just started to develop stories that make us feel for the characters and make us relate to them. Some games may only be made for entertainment through gameplay only, but games like Final Fantasy and such have stories that make gamers twist back and whip out the old playstation, partly for nostalgia, but also for the odd twists and conflicts of the story. The person who wrote this article obviously hasn't looked at the classic more story-inclined games, he picked Halo, a series not known for it's deep and intricate storyline. I still play Final Fantasy 7 to see how Cloud reacts to the world around him, and yes if it gets remaked into a million dollar graphic-enhanced dynamo I will buy it, but I know that the story is enough to make me a big fan of video games. I know because I am one of those people and had I been offered a choice I would pick story over gameplay. I say in five years video games will be known for their stories just as much as stories. Look at a synopsis of any Final Fantasy game and you will see that it has a story line worthy of being called memorable.
  53. Tyler Faccenda from United States writes: I stopped reading when SMB was compared to Halo. Never, ever should Halo even be mentioned in the same paragraph, let alone the same breath as Super Mario Brothers. The only time this would be acceptable is when you are saying "Super Mario Bros is better than Halo."

    All people do is hype about Halo. Here's a news flash: It is not that revolutionary. All the time when Halo made it's big debut, all I heard was Halo this, Halo that.

    Halo was praised as being the first shooter by people in my area as the first shooter with duel wielding weapons. Unreal Tournament had that 2 years before Halo came out.

    Bottom line: stop living in a dream world people. If it hadn't been for games like Super Mario Brothers, games today would be nothing as to what they are now. Halo is just your average, run of the mill game. Nothing special.
  54. Austin Lewis from Cincy, United States writes: This man is unintelligent. People years from now will still play super mario and say 'this is an absolutely amazing game'. Sure, they might be playing it on a computer built into their wristwatch, but they'll be playing it nonetheless.

    To be fair, what has the author done that won't be proven irrelevant in the next five years?
  55. ryan stark from chicago, United States writes: well, the author here does sort of have a point but only because he's failing to take into account the actual reason we immortalize things. see, chrono trigger is a perfect example of a classic and timeless game. but it's not because of the cutting edge graphics of it's time, or because of the original combat initiative system, or even the way characters position in the environment effected the combat(although these certainly factor in to make it a "good" game). no, the qualities that set it apart as a work of art rather than a simple distraction during leisure time are the amazing depth of each character, the compelling plot line, the way that each of the characters was an archetype of the human animal.

    nobody thinks the godfather is a great movie because of it's black and white images and era sound track. it's a great movie because of the content, the story line the characters. the author is trying to define a work of art based on the frame and the quality of pigments used, rather than the content of the piece and the colours being used.

    it's not the craftsmanship that makes something "art". it's the content.
  56. Austin Lewis from Cincy, United States writes: Great works don't stop being great works. People still read James Joyce's works, though most people don't understand half of the words, phrases, or events occurring at the time of his writing (thank God my grandfather had been in Ireland at that time or had heard of the occurences from his dad when he got older, or I never would've understood Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man). Some movies are timeless; the Godfather, Good Morning Vietnam, the Matrix, the LOTR series (until it gets remade again 20 years or more down the road), etc. Look at games. As I read this, I am playing FFVII, hunting down the damned Ultima Weapon in my airship. Afterwards, I'm playing FFVIII, then IX, then X, and then XII (yes, I know I skipped FFX-2, its absolute crap and I refuse to play it ever again), to complete my playing the entire series (including III) front to back. From the Nintendo Final Fantasy, to Super Nintendo's Final Fantasy IV and VI, to FFVII, they all have amazing stories and good memories of times when I had more free time to spend. Even with outdated graphics, they're still a lot of fun to play, just as much fun as Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, Lost Odyssey, Oblivion, and what have you. The point is, this author didn't really think through his statements, which honestly, is about par for the media world-wide these days. He took the one example that he might have known (and by the way, Super Mario still stacks up to the newer iterations and newer games with fancy 3d graphics) and assumed all games were like that. I tell you, if they remade Chrono Trigger or FFVII for my PS3, I'd be in line with sixty dollars in my hand to grab it just as quick as I'll be in line for Metal Gear Solid 4.
  57. Sam Troy from Fort Wayne, United States writes: I will admit, the points focused above are quite true, the realm of video games has been "evaluated based on elements that are constantly evolving within the medium, such as game design, play mechanics, and, to a lesser degree, graphics," But that's not what makes them memorable. Since Chrono Trigger is a decently covered base for arguments, I'm going to avoid it in my own. I'm going to use Star Ocean, not Till the End of Time, but the original SNES title that never made it's way to the US. I'll admit I played the PS2 release long before ever finding the SNES prequal, but that didn't make the PS2 counterpart the better of the two. Infact I found the old SNES version to be astounding, the story and plot, as well as the characters can only be described as cinematic. And thus my rushed point. Video Games may be rated by their design, mechanics, and graphics, but it's the plot, story, and characters that keep a lot of gamers coming back, in a way The Godfather's epic story is just as rememorable as Chrono Trigger, Star Ocean, Halo, or any other gaming icon of our past's story and plot. Infact if you browse some gaming magazines, you may just find some copy that rates a game lower for it's minimalistic or one sided story, or it's poor background into the characters. Games are constantly evolving, but like movies and literature their evolving through increased graphics and devices, but also furthering on those stories, and ideas of old and new, and merging into the artistic medium.
    • Posted 07/04/08 at 5:05 PM EDT |