A thought about classic video gaming, and how it relates to other crafts.

[homerwannabee]

Classic video gaming is special in one very important way.  It's objective.  The best player is easy to recognize.  They tend to have the highest score on any particular game.

That got me to thinking though.  Most of the very best classic video game players of any title are actually modern day players.  Almost any popular classic video game has a modern day player as the best.  By the way I am using post 2000 as modern day.

Donkey Kong- There is argument, but the handful of best are all modern day.  Billy Mitchell is not in the same league as the modern day players.
Donkey Kong Junior- Mark Kiehl (Modern Day), again Billy Mitchell is not in the same league.
Pac-man- David Race, again Billy Mitchell is not in the same league
Ms. Pac-man Junior Pac-man- Abdner Ashman
Galaxian- Aart
Dig Dug- Ken House, Donald Hayes

So the fact is a vast majority of best ever are modern day.


So now you may ask "Well what's your point?"

My point is this.   Name any musician who is regarded as the greatest, and most likely this person is from the past.  Name any artist, singer or whatever, and again they are from the past.

Could it possibly be that the actual greatest of all time are those who are walking among us,and are active today?

In my opinion a vast majority of people from the past in almost any field are probably over rated for their abilities while those of the present are the opposite.

Yes, I get I am comparing different fruit here, but I have a hunch my theory may actually hold water.  In athletics which is also more objective, a lot of the greatest ever are modern day players as well.

Maybe a better term should be used than greatest.  Perhaps the term "Most influential" should be used in regards to many artists of the past instead of the subjective term "greatest".  Because by that standard, someone like Billy Mitchell might very well be the Most Influential gamer on a lot of classic video games, and it would be a term that actually works.

[WCopeland]

I think this might be a flawed approach of looking at things. Other examples might be golf, chess, and StarCraft.

Golf:
It's easy to say Tiger Woods is the greatest player of all time, but realistically speaking, who would win in a match: Tiger in his prime, or Jack Nicklaus in his prime? No one knows the answer, because technology has changed so much in the sport that competition has been forced to evolve.

Chess:
It's easy to say Bobby Fischer is the greatest player of all time, but realistically speaking, who would win in a match: Fischer in his prime, or Kasparov in his prime? It's hard to say, because with modern computer analysis Kasparov could easily and quickly analyze every tournament game Fischer had ever played and create strategies to specifically deal with him. Fischer in his prime did not have the luxury of computer analysis.

StarCraft:
For a long time, the OSL was the most prestigious StarCraft tournament. What would happen if the winner of the 2004 OSL faced the winner of the 2010 OSL? Even though they were on the same skill level, the 2010 OSL champion would win simply due to the game being more figured out at the time of his prime.

The Point:
If time travelers visited the early 80's and delivered to Billy and Steve a video of Dean's 1.2m game, what would their PBs be today? I would venture to guess their PBs would be much higher. I would also venture to guess this applies for any competitive 80's game.

Complex games take years to figure out, and skill often goes through generations of players. Each generation figures out something new and masters what came before it.

[xelnia]

Complex games take years to figure out, and skill often goes through generations of players. Each generation figures out something new and masters what came before it.

Why do you hate The Originalsâ„¢?

[homerwannabee]

Wes, I think you hit the nail on the head.  We are better today because we build off of previous generations achievements.  Likewise the people 20 years from now will be better than what we are because they will build off of what we are learning.  That's why I think the word "Most Influential" is a better term than greatest of all time for those back in the day for most crafts. 
So saying the past people are not the greatest is not a disrespect to them.  It's just nearly impossible to be the greatest for an extended period because people are constantly building off of each other.

[Xermon54]

Everything that can be improved with knowledge will be improved overtime.

Who was the smartest man ever? Einstein? Stephen Hawking? Stephen Hawking knows 100% of everything Einstein ever knew + a lot more, so does it mean he's brighter? Even myself knows more than Einstein knew back then, so it means I'm a fking genius 

As for sport that requires to be bigger/stronger/faster, it's unlikely for the majority in 1900s to be as good as people today, since the knowledge of supplements/drugs and training has drastically been improved. Nobody ever cracked the 10 seconds barrier in 100 meters back in the 80's, and now a lot of people crack under 10 seconds. And in the future, people will surely crack under 9 seconds, because drugs and genetically mutated people will be fast as fk 

[DiggingInNY]

Classic video gaming is special in one very important way.  It's objective.  The best player is easy to recognize.  They tend to have the highest score on any particular game.

That got me to thinking though.  Most of the very best classic video game players of any title are actually modern day players.  Almost any popular classic video game has a modern day player as the best.  By the way I am using post 2000 as modern day.

A big reason why many of the best classic video game players are modern ones is because of the advantages that they have at their disposal compared to the players of the past. You have tools like MAME, YouTube, Twitch, and save states. If the players from the past had these same opportunities, they could put up the same scores the current players are putting up today.

You can compare this to how so many quarterbacks in the NFL today throw for 4,000 and 5,000+ yards, while that was a rarity 30 years ago.. There were rule changes put into place which gives quarterbacks and receivers advantages that ones in the past didn't have and you also have the advantages of modern technology to help. If you put a young Dan Marino and Dan Fouts in his prime in todays NFL with all the rule changes, they could possibly throw for 6,000 yards.

[marinomitch13]

If you put a young Dan Marino and Dan Fouts in his prime in todays NFL with all the rule changes, they could possibly throw for 6,000 yards.

You better believe it!

[ChrisP]

Everything that Josh said... plus a lot more.

*applause*

He didn't mention, for example, the fact that we all have quarter-free, 24/7, comfortable (big screen, soft chair, precision control) access to these games, which was rare back then, not to mention peer groups like this, massive amounts of information and tips, et cetera. The playing field today is not at all comparable.

There were many, many more people playing these games back in the day then there are now (it's very much a kitsch niche  , but rest assured, if the number of enthusiastic players were the same now as then, all of the classic leaderboards would be stuffed with nosebleed/maxout scores. Nearly all of these games are about where DK was 10 years ago - with scoreboards much weaker than they should be and could be if there were more interest. DK got it, look what happened. For the rest, it's not exactly virgin territory, especially since 2009 or so, but most Top 10s (except for perhaps the top 3 spots) are artifically low, simply because there aren't that many people trying.

[Verminator]

I 100% agree with the music part. It was easier to be the Beatles because you were early in the era of rock music and one of the privileged bands in the day that got the publicity to be noticed by everyone. Now, there are so many great bands out there that not only can use technology to get their music into the public domain, but also have the increased challenge to do something original with so many years of music that have already been produced.

Also, the exchange of information is easier than ever. There is no way I could get as good at a game in the 80's as I can now because I had to figure out an optimal strategy on my own. In today's era, you can easily observe strategies on YouTube or TwitchTV to accelerate the learning curve of a game.

Finally, it is easier today to know whether or not you are the best at a particular game. Back in the day, I held a "world record" on a game but I am pretty sure there were people who were better than me at that game but just weren't aware that the TG scoreboard existed. I would bet that less than 25% were aware of Twin Galaxies in 1982 whereas any classic gaming player is aware of them now.

[ebinsugewa]

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

[TheSunshineFund]

The Beatles were doing complex stuff on 4 track recordings that other artists can never dream of.  Kind of like saying 2600 programmers had it easier back then to make something incredible like Pitfall.   If anything, I'd say it was more difficult, you had no blueprint at that point.

[stella_blue]

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

"If I have seen Furthur, it was by purchasing a ticket online."

Tell the bouncer to relax.  I was just leaving.

[f_symbols]

I saw Furthur in Philadelphia, at the Mann Center

[stella_blue]

I saw Furthur in Philadelphia, at the Mann Center

Do you remember the date?

If so, I'll have to visit the  Internet Archive  and give that show a listen.

[TheSunshineFund]

I saw Furthur in Philadelphia, at the Mann Center

Love the Mann center.  Saw a pavement reunion show and of course a steely Dan show there.  Great venue.