How much of a gamer are you?

Oops, I double posted...

Remind me again why you don't play Dota 2.

It's not Quake, what other reasons do I need?

Touché.

Exactly.

I absolutely hate this argument in any form of media.

"It's good because it was the best when it came out, and whether or not better things have come out since then doesn't matter because it was first."

Gameplay>Graphics is a legitimate argument.
Better narrative is a legitimate argument.
Older is always best is not a legitimate argument.

The only thing that makes something is more original, and originality does not translate to quality.

Please refrain from using this broken style of nostalgia-fueled thinking and go back to making sensible arguments.

You still haven't explained your signature to me. WHAT IS IT!?

It's not easy to explain an artwork of such grandiosity.

Oh, you PA kids.

I most certainly will not. If you refuse to take the work within the context of its creation, then you are woefully missing out on much of what there is to appreciate in that work. This applies across all genres, not just games.

Take, for example, the movie Star Wars. If you watch the movie today, only taking into consideration more contemporary movies, one would consider much of it woefully outdated, with a simple story, sub-par special effects, music that's certainly not in style today, weird hairstyles, and so forth, it's no surprise that younger audiences don't find it as compelling as, say, Inception. But if you put the movie in the context of its creation, you can ignore the sub-par effects, enjoy the music, dismiss the hairstyles, and appreciate the simplicity of the story.

The same goes for books and music. Do you think people would still enjoy Shakespeare if they didn't put his works into context? The archaic language and outdated references certainly makes it hard. What about Beethoven? In the age of Skrillex and Lady Gaga, how can one still recognize his 9th Symphony as one of the greatest pieces of music ever composed?

Likewise, it would be the height of hypocrisy to say that you don't do the same for older video games. Comparing the original Super Mario Bros (1985) to New Super Mario Bros 2 (2012), clearly the latter is superior when it comes to graphics, audio, player interactivity, etc. And yet many gamers, even the younger ones, still go back to the original, despite its "deficiencies." They are able to appreciate those deficiencies because they can put the game in its proper context.

So when it comes to appreciating a game like Deus Ex, if you can't set aside some of its deficiencies as a product of its time, then it becomes even harder to appreciate the parts of the game that hold up marvelously well, despite its age. Now of course it has faults that are faults whether the year is 2000 or 2014, but again, no game is perfect. In the proper context, enjoying a good game despite its faults is the same whether the year is 2000 or 2014.

Don't just leap to make the assumption that I'm arguing that older is better, unless I'm perhaps putting Redneck Rampage up on the same pedestal as Deus Ex.

Mastery of ones medium transcends the erosion of time.

Basically, Shakespeare and Beethoven are so damn good that the essence of their work is still not outdated and never will be. Placing their work in its context adds to understanding, not necessarily appreciation.

Not only does it add to the appreciation, but sometimes it is necessary. There are a good number of jokes, references, and plays on words in Shakespeare's works that would be completely missed in a modern context. Without putting his works into context, what makes Romeo and Juliet as good as The Vagina Monologues? (In fact, some argue that because of Shakespeare's reliance on what was effectively "pop culture" of his era, it made his works less timeless than people claim.)

With Beethoven, placing his works into context is less of a practical necessity, and more of an aesthetic one. The truth is that the arts evolve, and music perhaps the most rapidly. (Especially in the 20th century.) People tend to appreciate the music they associate with, or grew up with. For them, appreciating the works of Beethoven when they grew up in an environment unassociated with the style, surrounded by music that is completely different, is difficult without setting aside their preconceptions and listening to the music in its proper context.

For some people, putting those works in the proper context is hard, or not worth their time, and so they may never be able to appreciate the works at their fullest, if at all.

Well I don't agree, you don't need to know all the references to appreciate the wordplay or masterful use of metre in Shakespeare, or more importantly, the essence of his plays (eg. Romeo and Juliet: star-crossed lovers). Good art conveys emotion in a clear manner and emotion is universal. As for Beethoven, I don't see why you need to have any knowledge of other composers of his time to hear his music and enjoy it.

Edit: I agree that you do need to be open-minded, but I don't consider that placing something in its context

I think Shakespeare should be tried for the torture of students worldwide. Yes, I know he's dead. But it should still be on record.

WELL I THINK YOU HAVE A SMELLY DOODOO FACE

In a lot of those cases the older games are legitimately better in several ways. In other cases, they can be historically significant without being better.

Take Super Metroid for example.

Metroid Zero Mission and Fusion have better engines, more power ups, and more coherent controls. What makes Super arguably the "best" is the abundance of sequence breaks. It is the best in the series at open ended gameplay. It has flaws, but they are made up for with the things that it did better than anything that came after it.

Something that is the best remains the best until something does it better, then it is given its contextual place in history as "first of its kind".

If you want to call something among the best at ANYTHING, you need to include modern works. If you need to include context, then I consider that a fault of the work unless the work is specifically referencing real world people and places. Even then it needs to be compared to other social commentary regardless of era.

Lets go to books. The Hobbit is still one of the best fantasy books out there because it was written perfectly for rambling old men to read to children. The world is still among the best fantasy realms out there because of the ABSURD amount of research that went into creating it. The LotR books have fallen in favor because of how wordy they are. The entire series retains a following not because it revolutionized the way fantasy races were depicted(which it did), but because it is legitimately better than a lot of what came later.

Historical significance does not dictate quality.

Then how do you explain gen 1 being the worst, yet still the best?

Missingno.

There is nothing that can be said that can express the admiration of your dedication. You have found the Tri-Force. You’re awesome. I am MASTER
(You’re awesome) More like, you’re a loser. hehe