The New Classics

[RPGmasterBoo]

I don't think enough time has passed on either Bioshock or The WItcher that we can yet know how they stand in the pantheon of gaming.

 

 

At this point, to me, neither one qualifies as a classic. But that could change in a few years.

 

I said, cult classic, not general classic. The Witcher has too specific an appeal, and its audience is too small to carry weight in a fight against trash like Halo, Gears of War etc.

 

Bioshock will probably gain the title of mainstream classic, but only because its the very highest point of very low times, so to speak.

 

I would also nominate Shadow of the Colossus.

Edited September 1, 2009 by RPGmasterBoo

[entrerix]

i agree with everything boo just said

[cronicler]

Portal is the only title I can call a classic without second thoughts. In my definition classics are those games that despite their flaws and missing parts ( portal is too damn short dammit! I need 20 more hours of it ) they manage to give you something much much bigger than the sum of all its parts.

(If it is eligible add BG&E to the list)

Edit: Riddick. You have to play it to understand

Edit 2: WoW. Say what you want to say and despise it if you want to. It is the blood and ichor bleeding edge in MMO gaming. Sure it takes them 2 years to tie their shoes after it unlaces but except for "public quest" and "open battleground" aspects from WaR, it is the pinnacle and it is still evolving to include better gimmicks and suprisingly, it is inserting more and more story into the "game".

 

There are however quite a few games that are "just not classic" for my tastes.

-Company of Heroes and Dawn of War 2 are the prime runners in this category. I loved the game but only if they had some editors...

-Half Life 2 and episodes. Top tier games but somehow they always felt a bit not enough

-German Games. I hate you f********* Deepsilver. There are a lot of nice and different (Read: not much dumbed down) games coming from german developers but it takes ages to see them in English. (Yes, my German sucks. I can't catch half the spoken content without concentrating hard and it is very iritating )

 

 

TBC...

[RPGmasterBoo]

What will be looked at as classics in 5-10 years by the mainstream gaming community? Halo, Gears of War, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Mass Effect(with sequels), Bioshock and a bunch of weird Japanese games that only the Sony fanboys care about(MGS4, FFXIII+).

 

The gist of the problem. I see it as a victory of the hype machine and advertising over any sort of general consensus of what makes a game great today. Also the broadening spectrum of gamers has set mediocrity and susceptability to style over substance as a desirable trait in a gamer. While this may sound like elitist wankery I think there is plenty of truth in it.

 

Even if you pointed out the lameness and unoriginality of most of those titles, it would serve no purpose as their status is already set.

[Wrath of Dagon]

layed for the puzzles and artwork alone. Also the paintings you were assembling are kind of interesting, I wish I could figure out how they fit into the story.

 

If we're talking strategy, I nominate Combat Mission : Shock Force, the most realistic tactical wargame available, check it out.

 

BG&E, I agree is a great game, but I feel it gets too much praise. It's like a combination of Thief 3 and Oddworld: Munch's Odyssey, but both of those games are much deeper and more deserving of praise.

 

 

you I think, did not understand the point of this thread. you nominated a game that virtually no has heard of, and never will! then you knocked BG&E saying that because thief 3 is deeper BG&E won't be considered a classic 10 years from now?

 

i'm just being a little jerk though, so pay me no mind if you dont want to

Well, yeah, but it's too boring to think about what the unwashed masses will consider to be classics. Clearly far more important is what games I consider classics. Also I don't object to BG&E being a classic, I agree, I just commented that it gets more praise than actually warranted.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Edit: Riddick. You have to play it to understand

 

Yes. Escape from butcher Bay is a slice of perfection, even with the weird double boss battle/ending.

[Slowtrain]

I don't think enough time has passed on either Bioshock or The WItcher that we can yet know how they stand in the pantheon of gaming.

 

 

At this point, to me, neither one qualifies as a classic. But that could change in a few years.

 

I said, cult classic, not general classic. The Witcher has too specific an appeal, and its audience is too small to carry weight in a fight against trash like Halo, Gears of War etc.

 

Bioshock will probably gain the title of mainstream classic, but only because its the very highest point of very low times, so to speak.

 

I would also nominate Shadow of the Colossus.

 

 

Otoh, some classic games like System SHock never had mass appeal. Yet, over the years, they continued to endure and gained the respect and admiration of many.

 

 

I don't think mass appeal is neccessary or even required for a game to be a classic. Nor does a game with mass appeal have less chance to be a classic.

 

 

That's why it takes a while to really evaluate the lasting impact of a game. ALl the dust needs to settle out.

[Purkake]

What will be looked at as classics in 5-10 years by the mainstream gaming community? Halo, Gears of War, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, Mass Effect(with sequels), Bioshock and a bunch of weird Japanese games that only the Sony fanboys care about(MGS4, FFXIII+).

 

The gist of the problem. I see it as a victory of the hype machine and advertising over any sort of general consensus of what makes a game great today. Also the broadening spectrum of gamers has set mediocrity and susceptability to style over substance as a desirable trait in a gamer. While this may sound like elitist wankery I think there is plenty of truth in it.

 

Even if you pointed out the lameness and unoriginality of most of those titles, it would serve no purpose as their status is already set.

 

Whether it's true or not that's (apparently) the point of this thread.

 

Also WoW is more than a classic, it pretty much single-handedly defined the MMO as it stands and achieved both critical and popular acclaim. Newer MMOs are called post-WoW for a reason.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Purkake

[Slowtrain]

WoW.

 

 

WoW was one my one potential nominee that I considered, even though I don't think too highly of it personally. It's had to great an impact on gaming really, it seems, to not be a classic.

 

Still, I think it needs to be over for a few years before we can really say.

[cronicler]

/Shrug. Being a Classic does not mean being perfect. (at least for me) A Classic game is one of those rare games that despite all of its flaws, drawbacks and idiot choices; manages to become something much more than it's parts. For example, as a game Portal has a lot of weak points, short, linear, more than a few of design flaws in the puzzles and so on. So what? The game still delivers a massive puch within it's 6 or 8 hours and that is it. You are left bleeding on the ground, craving for more...

 

I felt the same thing with BG&E and Riddick. Sure forced boss battles in both games sucked but so what? I still wanted more and I had this sad feeling seeing the game end..

[Slowtrain]

the hype machine

 

 

The nice thing is that every game's hype machine (or lack thereof) runs out after a few years. Once nobody cares any more, once there's no more money to be made, no more axes to grind, no more mags to sell, games can be seen more clearly for what they really brought to the table ( or didn't bring).

[RPGmasterBoo]

WoW has already written history so to speak, but the passable nature of MMO's (works as long as servers are running and new content coming) is what I think prevents them from being classics.

 

They are not "full" products and exist only as a collective > when the collective goes, the game goes, whereas a classic from the Commodore is still as viable as any classic, whether it is now or a decade into the future.

[cronicler]

Yes and No Boo, As it stands now, Blizz MMO team are building "on" the foundations of WoW. Sure their engine and IP will change but we will surely be seeing most of the concepts from WoW in future games.

 

I guess that defines a Classic in MMO Genre. UO was a classic, Everquest wasn't classic as it only gave 3rd dimension and collecting to the player but after EQ only Wow managed to become one. (Aion? no idea but it seems to much like a wow clone atm. Sure a better designed, prettier and more tidy but still a clone. Disclaimer: Haven't experienced it first hand yet)

 

Edit: I think we can add Old SWG and Eve to the list and thats it.

Edited September 1, 2009 by cronicler

[Purkake]

/Shrug. Being a Classic does not mean being perfect. (at least for me) A Classic game is one of those rare games that despite all of its flaws, drawbacks and idiot choices; manages to become something much more than it's parts. For example, as a game Portal has a lot of weak points, short, linear, more than a few of design flaws in the puzzles and so on. So what? The game still delivers a massive puch within it's 6 or 8 hours and that is it. You are left bleeding on the ground, craving for more...

 

I felt the same thing with BG&E and Riddick. Sure forced boss battles in both games sucked but so what? I still wanted more and I had this sad feeling seeing the game end..

 

A linear game being linear is not a weak point. If the game was meant to be that way, it's neither a plus or a minus. Is Super Mario Bros bad because you only go from left to right? I think it was perfect in size, it changed things up and didn't make you do the same thing for too long. Non-linear games are not inherently superior.

 

the hype machine

The nice thing is that every game's hype machine (or lack thereof) runs out after a few years. Once nobody cares any more, once there's no more money to be made, no more axes to grind, no more mags to sell, games can be seen more clearly for what they really brought to the table ( or didn't bring).

 

If you have only played ME and no earlier Bioware or BIS games, you won't have any other points of reference and ME will remain the awesomest WRPG ever in your mind.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Purkake

[Slowtrain]

SO I guess WoW is all we have so far.

 

With some possibility for Bioshock and Halo.

 

I'm surpirsed there isn't more Mass Effect love.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Well I don't know to be honest. The gameplay is so far removed from what I consider quality gaming, that I have trouble giving the genre along with casual games, browser games and such any credit.

The MMO's are like a text written in a foreign language to me (tried Guild Wars, quit after 3 days), so I'll just shut up about it.

[RPGmasterBoo]

the hype machine

 

 

The nice thing is that every game's hype machine (or lack thereof) runs out after a few years. Once nobody cares any more, once there's no more money to be made, no more axes to grind, no more mags to sell, games can be seen more clearly for what they really brought to the table ( or didn't bring).

 

True but some are incredibly stubborn and enduring (like Halo) and some run out in a flash, like for example Doom 3.

 

As for Halo, I played it after it was ported to the PC and I couldnt understand what the fuss was about, being weaned on Half Life, Unreal Tournament etc etc it seemed incredibly lame and yawn inducing. I still dont understand its appeal.

Edited September 1, 2009 by RPGmasterBoo

[Purkake]

SO I guess WoW is all we have so far.

 

With some possibility for Bioshock and Halo.

 

I'm surpirsed there isn't more Mass Effect love.

 

There's plenty of ME love in the mainstream. This is not really the place to make such a list, with all the crotchety old-skool people.

 

As long as you can see the impact of a game like WoW, it's ok. You don't have to like it, but to deny it's impact is stupid.

 

@Boo: Halo is not going anywhere hype or no. It's pretty much THE console FPS and it's not some horrible abomination. It's a fun game with high production values and a good multplayer(minus the screechy kids on Live). It's just not a PC game.

Edited September 1, 2009 by Purkake

[entrerix]

fair enough then (<--to wrath of dagon)

 

how about if a suggestion a person is making is more "cult" then it be nominated as "cult classic"

 

while baldurs gate is probably a normal classic, something more obscure from the time period that was also really good could be a cult classic.

 

neverhood compared to myst for example? (i dont know adventure games so that could be way off)

 

 

I loved chronicles of riddick, but don't think it will be viewed as a true classic in ten years. great game though

Edited September 1, 2009 by entrerix

[Purkake]

Basically the formula is: popular game today -> classic in the future. It's as simple as that.

[RPGmasterBoo]

@Boo: Halo is not going anywhere hype or no. It's pretty much THE console FPS and it's not some horrible abomination. It's a fun game with high production values and a good multplayer(minus the screechy kids on Live). It's just not a PC game.

 

Something wrong right there.

 

But I understand what you're trying to say.

[alanschu]

I was thinking Batman as well, but I think it needs more time. Classics tend to be games that I desire to replay a few years down the road. It's hard to judge just what that may be right now.

 

Of course. It's just that this thread is about making predictions about it. Though I agree it is VERY early. I'm sure many were declaring Oblivion a classic this soon after release.

 

 

I just think that, so far, Batman is a game that could stand that test of time. I know I plan on replaying it!

[cronicler]

Not really purk. Oblivion was a very popular game. Can you call it a classic?

[entrerix]

Otoh, some classic games like System SHock never had mass appeal. Yet, over the years, they continued to endure and gained the respect and admiration of many.

 

 

I don't think mass appeal is neccessary or even required for a game to be a classic. Nor does a game with mass appeal have less chance to be a classic.

 

 

That's why it takes a while to really evaluate the lasting impact of a game. ALl the dust needs to settle out.

 

 

I totally agree with these statements! A low profile game that really has the stuff that counts could later be considered a classic, so maybe riddick might make a better suggestion than I previously thought...

 

the whole "knock out the lights" thing was done well here, and the combination of mild rpg elements and miniquests mixed into the fps gameplay really was very outstanding in that game.

 

maybe years from now it will be remembered a bit like system shock? I think it is possible.

 

 

and though Ive neither played, nor seen anyone else play, wow, I can imagine it being considered a classic for having essentially built an entire legion of new game players

[entrerix]

Basically the formula is: popular game today -> classic in the future. It's as simple as that.

 

 

no way! seriously you're not thinking that logic through! in ten years will the gaming community be praising nintendogs as a true classic worthy of being put alongside metroid zelda system shock or baldurs gate?

 

what about wii play? its not even really a game, but its popular as all hell. or even better madden 2008 - millions of copies sold, yet Im pretty sure in ten years you wont see this bad boy in any top 100 games of all time lists...

 

popular DOES NOT EQUAL FUTURE CLASSIC.

 

though to be a future classic it REALLY helps to have been popular on release. but slowtrains example of system shock 1 shows that its not required.

Edited September 1, 2009 by entrerix