What is a ‘classic’ videogame?

Trying to provide a novel and ‘objective’ definition for a classic videogame

Introduction

A while ago I had a discussion about which videogames can be considered classics. Lists vary wildly and are highly subjective. Yet there is a growing body of work for what makes a ‘good’ game: Game Design. I thought it would be an interesting idea to explore a more rigid definition to identify a ‘classic’ game.

I found but a few online articles attempting find factors that are indicative of being a ‘classic’ game.

Patrick Scott Patterson mused on the difference between retro and classic games. To me it seems pretty clear that retro simply denotes a game released long ago and/or played on retro hardware.

A reader on GameCentral, TheTruthSoul, listed a few qualities required for a game being classic.

It was Mike Jones’ article that held a very interesting factor: being timeless is critical for a game to be considered classic.

This seems to be true in other media as well. After all, why bother reading Bram Stoker’s Dracula if it was completely uninteresting in this day and age? Or listening to a classic composition from the romantic period?

…What is timeless

Unlike the definitions in the earlier discussed articles, I will present a classic game as being defined by a single dimension: timelessness.

I see three factors that make up ‘timelessness’. These three are connected as well.

• Universally human
• — The universal themes
• — Providing a ‘primitive’ feeling
• The general opinion
• — Perception
• — Inheritability
• Quality
• — Good game design
• — Accessibility
• — Visuals
• — Sound

As this list indicates, I think it’s quality that makes a videogame timeless. This is slightly different from when timelessness and quality contribute both to being a classic videogame. With these I am also assuming that infamous games such as Shaq-fu or Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing are not Classic Videogames.

In the next paragraphs I will further explain how these traits can be identified in a game.

A ‘universally human’ work

Any timeless piece of work will have to relate to the ‘human condition’. Something that really touches the emotional side of most humans. Love, death, strive and exploring the unknown. These are themes essential and recurrent in human lives. Some titles such as The Last of Us (try) to present all these themes at once even.

Florence is a game trying almost the opposite, only really having a theme about love and daily life.

A more esoteric theme is the problem of our psyche: having both a rational and emotional side that clash often. As with other media, broad political themes can also form a solid foundation for a game to be considered classic. Dark Souls has sometimes been interpreted as carrying a theme of the weak layers of society overturning the rigid and conservatist rulers.

Despite great game design, the emotions a player gets from a game are very important. Unlike other media, the player has a lot of influence in the media and can be strongly (emotionally) connected to it. I would argue that this connection is often stronger than other media. Regardless, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2’s “No Russian” mission is an infamous example of a large emotional impact on players. Emotional affects like this, heavily contribute to players remembering a game. In turn, the public will remember it more as well.

How does this apply to more ‘primitive’ or simplistic games? This often comes in the form of the nature of the game. To take Doom as an example… Doom portrays strive and exploration. More importantly, the visceral nature of it also touches something universal and deep in humans.

This means that some traditionally simple classic games such as Tetris or Pacman will be left out according to this definition. Competitive games then do meet the definition. (friendly) Competition within a species is common and humans are no exception. Fall Guys or Among Us carry little to nothing in theming. Solely the multiplayer competition appeals the competitive nature many humans have.

The general opinion

The perception of a work is undoubtedly important for whether it is timeless or not. [I was unfortunately unable to find any concrete information on this topic. The best I can then refer to is ‘priming’ from Social Psychology ]

This also comes with the ‘inheritability’ of the work: a work that is (in)famous will be more likely to be delivered to the next generation. A game only 100 people know about and should be otherwise considered a classic… well I don’t even know about it, so how can I consider it?

Some games are famous but simply considered bad. A bad reputation is not what makes a classic. In recent years, two good examples are Yooka-Laylee and No Man’s Sky.

These two games were considered either very bad or disappointing, shortly after their releases. This initial perception is likely to continue existing for a long time: even though both games have received patches and do not contain a lot of bad game design. Not all gamers will hear about a major patch, especially if they do not care about a game anymore. There are more reasons as to why a game may be perceived as being bad, valid or not, this removes the games ability to be considered a classic. A negative perception detracts new players from trying it out. When the perception is not extreme, that the game is pulled into infamy, the inheritability also decreases. From this, it is likely that Yooka-Laylee and No Man’s Sky are going to stay cult classics instead, with small followings.

Quality

The quality of a videogame is correlated to the fun a player has playing it. I decided on 4 indicators of quality, listed below. I do take in consideration to compare only media from the same medium. Example: cutscene quality, comparing to movies, seems counterproductive to me. Instead, good cutscenes will shine in the ‘universally human’ factor, making the player feel involved/connected.

Good game design

While game design can be considered a catch-all for the other factors and indicators, I have decided to take it in isolation. This indicator is met when there are for instance, good-working game loops in place, or controls being responsive.

Game Design as is, is a theory still being developed, though a few key points seem to stay consistent. Controls that make the player not feel in control detract from the quality in general. Variety is important, as is a good balance between randomness against logic.

Accessibility

This topic became recently more talked about. In this article we will use a broad definition of accessibility, going beyond design for (partially) disabled players.

An easy example of accessibility is language. Especially story based games such as RPG’s require language comprehension to convey themes and be enjoyable. Closely related with Inheritability is how easy the game is to pick up for players. Games like Europa Universalis 4 are notoriously difficult to be understood and played.

A certain degree of customization, including for disabled people, goes a long way. Difficulty often comes up as an customization option that increases accessibility. The Civilization games with their many settings are fairly accessible, not to mention being published in many languages.

Visuals

Quality of visuals is hard to measure. Rather this indicator has a focus on how well they convey the themes and gameplay, are they unique and only then, how pleasing they look. This last point is dependent on the first: great horror games often have gross or disturbing looking scenes, yet this was the intention and players do not complain. A unique look is important for a classic game. It is hard to distinguish any Call of Duty game from another ‘realistic’ modern-era First-person shooter to the untrained eye. A lot of gamers (and even non-gamers) however, will instantly recognize Dragon Quest with it’s unique visuals.

Sound

Great videogame soundtracks boost perception of a game and in general make it more fun to play. A game can be great without using any sound, but it is still a boon to have it. Games that try to immerse a player or present an intricate story almost always require sound to make them better. So in short, having good sounds and nice music, that fits the game, contributes to a videogame becoming a classic. When a game lacks sound, it can still be compensated in other places.

While quality can be measured to a certain degree, it is important to remember its relativity. At any point a new design idea might be discovered or lost, changing the overall quality of the medium at that point.

Why not other factors

There a few factors that seem to be coming back for labelling something as a classic.

• Effort: this one is easily dismissed. Effort is seldom a good indication of quality. Effort without direction often leads to nowhere. This is true in gaming as well. Many AAA game franchises have large labour forces behind them, yet scarcely do we see these games being praised as classics.
• Replayability: A few games out there are really only fun one time. The recent Outer Wilds is an example of this. Replayability is an optional, though often desirable, design goal. The same is seen in other media: some movies and books are nice to watch/read a second time, but it is not required to be considered a classic.
• Age: When an older game is still considered good and popular, there are good chances it is timeless. However, not all old games are good. Many arcade games have already been forgotten over the years. Age rather sets one up for a sort of worship of retro videogames, instead of analysing which games are good and why.
• Addictive: While a videogame that is hard to put down often displays good game design, this tells us nothing about other factors that make something a classic. Many mobile games are addictive, but I have yet to see them in listings.
• [insert specific quality here]: Immersion, Thrill, tragic, multiplayer and other specific traits contribute little to a rigid definition. Different players often have differing preferences. These qualities should rather be seen as required for the themes they serve. While some may prefer it, classic games listings often do not exclusively contain deep sandbox games for instance. Lacking any quality will make for a poor game, unworthy of being called a classic. To require a specific quality however, will make for a poor definition.

Having a go at making my own list

I will present now what I think are some ‘classic’ videogames. Most games on this list I have played myself. Some I have not (yet) played, but from reviews and previews I can be pretty certain of that they meet the definition.

• Xenoblade Chronicles
• Doom (both old and new)
• Halo series (not all games though)
• Spyro Trilogy
• Super Mario 64
• Mario Galaxy 2
• Many Legend of Zelda games
• Iconoclasts
• CrossCode
• Final Fantasy 9
• Earthbound
• Mother 3
• Dark Souls
• Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
• Super Metroid
• Age of Wonders 3
• Megaman games (MMZ games in particular)
• Civilization games
• Anodyne
• Dragon Quest games
• Terraria
• Lego Star Wars: the Complete Saga

What I noticed, going through my list of games, is that a lot of games just don’t feel like they will really stick in the ‘mainstream’ consciousness. Either because they already were more of a cult hit or simply because they aren’t preserved well. Some of you might have already raised an eyebrow at Earthbound and Mother 3. Those are examples that are really on the fence. They are pretty popular, but their availability is pretty low. Amazing games like Banjo-Kazooie I can’t include because of the same reason. They are slightly old games by now, not readily available to the public.

Possible improvements

So far, the definition I presented still has inter-related factors. What also follows, is that games lay on a spectrum. One end being a terrible game forgotten before it even released, the other the best game that a lot of people will remember. If one applies grades to plot games on this spectrum, we could think of some threshold. This minimum would divide the ‘Classic Videogame’ and the ‘regular’ ones. Interestingly, even a rigid listing like that would be in constant change as perception changes, updates happen or otherwise. Finally, more concrete indicators would be helpful.

Afterword

This article was fun to write, a nice change of pace from complex musings on game design. I would have compared definitions and articles from the other media, but still felt games differ in a few key areas. Still I extrapolated inheritability from other media, knowing about old manuscripts and hand-copying of ancient books. I do think that this definition has a few indicators that fit other media as well. I would be interested in seeing them. I hope this has been interesting and thank you for reading.