|
Home > Archive > Nintendo gamecube > April 2005 > Definition of "Classic".
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Definition of "Classic".
|
|
|
| Ello again!
Been reading the post about the new revolution controller (speculation), and
I notice there is a huge debate about whether certain games can be called
"classic" or not.
Here is a definition of "classic":
1.. Belonging to the highest rank or class.
2.. Serving as the established model or standard: a classic example of
colonial architecture.
3.. Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
Lets take MARIO 64 as an example.
Definition A: criteria met.
Mario 64 is widely accepted the best 3D action adventure platformer of all
time.
Definition B: criteria met.
Mario 64 is widely accepted as a genre defining game. It is the standard
that all similar games were judged, and still are in many places.
Definition C:
Its just sold millions of copies all over again. It is also used as the
ultimate benchmark for other similar games, therefore it has huge importance
and worth. It was / is also a very enduring game.
Therefore, we can conclude and be done with the silly argument, that Mario
64 will remain a Classic [FACT] for eternity. Anyone who says "It's down to
personal opinion" is thick as shit. For example, I HATE ALL GTA games with
a passion, yet I readily accept that the original and the third games are
genre defining, very important games, which deserve the classic status they
will hold forever.
A few other games I can prove are classics:
Super Mario Brothers
Sonic the Hedgehog
Super Mario Kart
Street Fighter 2
Legend of Zelda OOT
Tetris
There are thousands of other classics, toooooo many to list.
G.
| |
|
|
"G" <G@G.com> wrote in message
news:ZAC1e.6519$Ab.2572@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
quote:
> Ello again!
>
> Been reading the post about the new revolution controller (speculation),
> and I notice there is a huge debate about whether certain games can be
> called "classic" or not.
>
> Here is a definition of "classic":
> 1.. Belonging to the highest rank or class.
> 2.. Serving as the established model or standard: a classic example of
> colonial architecture.
> 3.. Having lasting significance or worth; enduring.
It also means "having a high quality or standard against which other things
are judged"
So in effect a classic could be to one person but not to another.
| |
| Arnaldo Horta 2005-03-30, 6:35 pm |
|
"Jacob Oost" <zork@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:nWJ1e.21461$rL3.7989@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
quote:
> My own definition? I wasn't the OP. Besides, influencing other, bad
> games doesn't make something a classic, otherwise we could call Myst a
> classic when it is actually crap.
Regardless of your personal opinion of this particular game, I suspect that
most people would rate Myst as a classic. It certainly influenced other
games and was, until the Sims was released, the biggest selling computer
game of all time. It just happens to be in a genre that many diehard gamers
don't like (myself included).
| |
| Burning_Ranger 2005-04-07, 5:57 pm |
| Beck wrote:
quote:
>
> Just because one game is a classic it does not mean any clones are.
> Tetris is a classic, but Columns on the sega cd was not. Of course
> the biggest classic has to be Pong, being the first videogame.
Just because something is the first doesn't automatically make it the best.
Why does everyone think this?
Computer Space (which is the actual first ever computer game, not Pong)
backs up my point.
--
Burning_Ranger
To email: aziz@aziz1removethisbit.fsnet.co.uk
|
| |
|
|