What would a game need to do to get a 100/100? 2.0
Posted: Posted September 10th, 2018 by I killed Mufasa
So the general consensus on this site seems to be that classic games that achieved near perfect marks have their greatness deteriorate over time just because newer games are built on top of their systems and ideas and done better thanks to new technology and hardware. Completely forgetting that the newer game would be nothing if it didn't have the ideas of it's predecessor.
We aren't holding Super Mario World (which still looks great by the way) to the same level of timeless praise, as we hold Beethoven or Mozart in music. In fact, if people remixed Beethoven today with dubstep or rock they would be considered either unoriginal, or making a mockery of classic music. There is a double standard it seems with video games.
Pioneering excellence and genre defining brilliance both receive an unceremonious "meh" even though they are the foundations of the modern pretty games we enjoy today. Not enough respect at all is shown to the process. We all want the shiny new puppy rather than the old loyal dog who has served us faithfully our whole lives. We're entitled.
Technology moves and advances so quickly that we don't even get to master it anymore. I can make powerpoint on windows 98 dance, literally, but it's a useless skill. It's almost pointless to try to get good at anything technological in a specific regard because in 3 or 4 years it will be completely obsolete.
By contrast I have been playing chess since I was 7 and I'm quite good at it. It's a skill that will be useful and amusing for me my entire life. Knowing how to work through windows XP, not so much.
It makes it difficult to even know what you should try to be good at.
There are 87 Replies
Reply to: What would a game need to do to get a 100/100? 2.0