Philosophical question: Do games become "obsolete"?

[Vindicator]

Took this from a thread at RPGnet:

The sad fact is that for some people, it *does* make a difference. There's a whole group of gamers who are obsessed with having the KEWL NEW GAME1! and who immediately describe the out-of-print game as "obsolete", as if it were an 8-track tape player or something.

Hint: Games do not become obsolete. Games are not a technology.

Interesting point. You hear gamers talk a lot about how if a new edition of their favorite game comes out they'll be worried because it will make their old stuff "obsolete." Yet as this poster indicates, games are not technologies. An 8-track tape player is obsolete because it is no longer used by anyone (well, almost anyone ) in the music field and has been replaced by newer technology that has a higher degree of sophistication.

But when we talk about *games* being obsolete, we're speaking figuratively, as games are not a technology (of course the technology used to *play* a game may become obsolete, such as an RPG played on an Apple // computer, but that's a different issue).

Some folks then respond by saying, "But the *mechanics* have improved! The game is *evolving*!" But that's another metaphor. Games do not literally evolve; they change over time. Change alone is not evolution; evolution implies progress. But whereas we can *objectively* measure the change in, say, audio or computer technology, there are no such measures for game mechanics. Sure, a person can say, "Game X has a unified mechanic, thus it is superior to Game Y with its multiple mechanics." But this is really a presupposition, a value judgment. It is not an objective fact, unlike saying, "Computer X has a faster processor than Computer Y. Thus it is superior."

So why *do* we talk about games becoming "obsolete"? Is it just because we are so brainwashed by our infatuation with technology? Or is it just clever marketing?

 

[Torm]

I think it has to do with societal standards for play of a particular game. Of course you're right that a bunch of friends could get together with OD&D 1974 materials and play a game and have a good time, and in that sense that version isn't obsolete. But most people want to be able to look at new materials, and be able to walk into a gaming store in a strange town and find people playing what they play. And in THAT sense, games obsolesce. It's like an old CP/M word processing program - if you've got a printer that works with it, you can word process just fine. But if you want to email that file to a friend or get tech support or any of a number of other things, you'll find it very obsolete.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I have a few thoughts from both sides of the fence. Apologies in advance if this is a bit disorganized.

There's a certain mindset that I've noticed in 3rd edition die-hards. It isn't an absolute, but there are many who say that anything 3e is good, and everything that came before it was just "junk". Yet people enjoyed role-playing in 1st and 2nd edition, so this isn't true.

At the same time, there's no reason why a person couldn't use a prior edition's rules to play a game. Though rules have are important, they should come secondary to role-playing. The adventure is what matters.

Clever marketing does come into play to a degree here. The OGL and d20 licenses are great marketing tools, which support the idea that the "one true game" is d20. There aren't as many third party systems as there used to be.

Now, settings can become somewhat obsolete, as we've seen with the Cybertech genre. Shadowrun came to terms with this when the decker became the hacker. Eventually, I think we'll view Cyberpunk games as we do Steampunk games.

I think there's an evolution in game development. 3rd edition seems to take not only from classic D&D, but also from other systems. Skills are a good example of taking ideas from other systems.

The difference is that technology is reliant upon current industry standards. Why have a record player when nobody makes records anymore?

Role-playing games, though, don't have this problem. You may have game systems that no longer have materials made for them, but we have imagination. Plus, there always seems to be fan sites out there that can enhance the experience. For those who play 1st and 2nd edition, there's 3rd party resources, such as with Hackmaster and C&C.

Long story short, I don't think RPG's become obsolete. They may not be supported as much and there may be the Next Big Thing that is "better" (which is subjective), but you can still play in any edition of D&D, or with RPG's that are no longer produced.

 

[trancejeremy]

I think games do become obsolete. You can still play them, obviously, but many had problems that weren't apparent at time, but did become apparent and were fixed in later editions.

For instance, many early RPGs have no real rules for non-combat skills. Or poor ones, which rely solely (or too heavily) on attributes. (That is my main problem with earlier versions of D&D).

You could say that is objective, but then I could say your statement about music technology is objective as well. Many, many people prefer the sound of music on vinyl as opposed to digital forms like cds.

Some games simply also have rules that weren't playtested enough. The first edition of Shadowrun sold well, but after only a couple years it became apparent there were problems and they put out a 2nd edition fixing most of them. While from then on the fan base seems to have splintered, with some prefering 2nd edition, 3rd or 4th edition over the others, I don't think anyone preferred 1st edition. Cause it was just too wonky.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

It's because games do become obsolete...in exactly the same way that, say, computers do.

Do they become instantly obsolete? Overnight? No. Just because a new game (or new edition of a game) comes out, that doesn't mean the old game is no longer playable or worthwhile...and the same is true of my old computer. It can still run programs, connect to the Internet, etc.

But at some point, the rest of the world moves on. And if you're still playing with the old system (whether it be game or computer), you are indeed going to be "behind the times" and almost certainly using an inferior product.

3e is orders of magnitude better than 1e, just like my current Dell Dimension XXXX is orders of magnitude better than the TI-99/4a I had as a kid. It might amuse me for a (very) short while to play one of the lame games I remember from those TI days, but who would deny that the computer is obsolete? The market knows that it is, which is why you don't find any new products for TI's on the shelves at Circuit City.

 

[adwyn]

I have shelves full of games that are obsolete, at least in the sense that what they try to do has since (or sometimes even previously) been done better. Sure different isn't better and we've all seen revisions and 2nd (or 3rd/4th) editions that miss the boat completely, but for every "classic" there are dozens of games with nostalgia being their only strong suit.

Look at TSR's Top Secret. When it came out we played it to exhaustion, but when I looked back at it recently as an alternative to Spycraft I cringed. The system was erratic and by modern standards unplayable.

 

[trancejeremy]

The difference is that technology is reliant upon current industry standards. Why have a record player when nobody makes records anymore?

Actually, quite a few people still make records and record players. There's probably a 100 releases a week on vinyl.

I don't know why this surprises people - you see them in commercials all the time. (Not commercials for them, but marketing people like to use people/things DJing a lot.)

 

[Vindicator]

I think games do become obsolete. You can still play them, obviously, but many had problems that weren't apparent at time, but did become apparent and were fixed in later editions.

For instance, many early RPGs have no real rules for non-combat skills. Or poor ones, which rely solely (or too heavily) on attributes. (That is my main problem with earlier versions of D&D).

I see what you're saying, but once again, it seems more like a value judgement. You go over to dragonsfoot and you'll find scores of die-hard 1e'ers who swear up and down that "the game is better without a skill system." Not saying they're right (or wrong), just saying that what constitutes a "problem" (to use your word) in a game is often a matter of opinion. In my opinion.

Example: In 3.0 we had "Wilderness Lore". In 3.5 it was changed to "Survival." Was this a "fix"? Some fans have said so. But what, exactly, was "broken"? (And there's another loaded metaphor that we toss around all the time in RPG circles--this or that game is "broken").

I remember a buddy of mine reading a thread on RPGnet last year in which the posters were going on and on about how AD&D 1e was "broken" and he just scratched his head and said, "That's funny. It seems to work fine for me."

 

[Vindicator]

3e is orders of magnitude better than 1e, just like my current Dell Dimension XXXX is orders of magnitude better than the TI-99/4a I had as a kid. It might amuse me for a (very) short while to play one of the lame games I remember from those TI days, but who would deny that the computer is obsolete? The market knows that it is, which is why you don't find any new products for TI's on the shelves at Circuit City.

But there's a difference: by objective, scientific, mathematical standards your Dell *is* in fact superior to the old TI-99. It has a faster CPU, higher resolution, blah blah blah. No one would debate its superiority.

But in the 1e vs. 3e question (or any "old vs. new game" question) there are no such objective standards. There are only preferences and prejudices. Are all the die-hard 1e fans at dragonsfoot "wrong" in their belief that 1e is a superb game, every bit as good as 3e?

That's my point.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But there's a difference: by objective, scientific, mathematical standards your Dell *is* in fact superior to the old TI-99. It has a faster CPU, higher resolution, blah blah blah. No one would debate its superiority.

Yeah, but my hat of Dell know no limit.