What makes a classic?

An interesting question that was sort of raised in the VGM thread earlier. In your opinion, what makes a game a classic? Is there a difference between a classic and a game that was popular?

to me, a "classic" is basically a game that lotsa people loved in their youth, and thus collectively agree on calling it so. what sets it apart from a game that was merely "popular" solely depends on the demographic who played it. simply put, if you were younger and you love the game, you'll look back on it as a classic. if you were older and loved the game, you'd probably look back on it as something that was just popular. kinda like me towards my first ever pokemon game, diamond, versus an older title that i never played until recently, yellow.

am i making sense?

"Classic" is another buzzword that people use in a futile effort to validate their opinion on an older video game that they have fond memories of, and there is no objectivity to it whether you use it as a noun or an adjective. Majority does not make absolute right, so it's simply another hollow descriptor in a long line of them which people throw around because they want to invalidate the opinion of people who criticise their favourites. Usually people who use this word to describe games take an attack on said game as an attack on themselves...which I suppose to be fair, it usually is, because people just love to throw inflammatory statements around on the internet for no other reason than that they can and not face any repercussions for it.

Maybe that's a cynical perspective, but as someone who played a lot of titles that are regarded as "classic" later in life and didn't see the appeal to them, and a few at the time which I later went back to only to find that my opinion had changed (both for better and for worse!) that is my observation on it. Video games have progressed significantly over the last 25 years in particular, and a lot of games haven't withstood the test of time as well as they might have when compared to more modern titles. Ideas are expanded upon (whether they are improved or not is subject to debate, but they are definitely expanded upon) and there's no denying that technology has improved in leaps and bounds. That doesn't necessarily mean that games have gotten better - hell, I've had more fun on low-spec indies than I have on big budget AAA titles with all the 4K HD 60fps/1080p bells and whistles attached - but there is a noticeable improvement in performance across generations: as the easiest example, compare the gameplay of the core Pokemon titles across consoles and see how much smoother the gameplay generally is.

How to defend against this? Call the old game a classic! Thus, you have an instant defence against any and all criticism...or so many like to think. There is definitely merit to the argument that older games should not be compared to newer ones and found lacking in some departments, because you can hardly fault an old game for being on hardware that cannot capture the intended gameplay experience as well as newer hardware could, but to put it on a pedestal and label it as a "classic" is the height of farce. It's because of things like this that we have series that recycle gameplay over and over and never really improve the way they could if not bound by the idea that they need to copy this "classic" title to be given the time of day, and why new ideas are shunned, or laughed at, or outright hated by many. Nostalgia drives this industry, and the attitude behind calling an old game a "classic" and refusing to hear any more on the matter is at the heart of it. Opinions are opinions. "Classic" is not some magical shield you can use to label differing perspectives as objectively wrong. Good lord.

So, yes. What makes a game a classic is nothing more or less than your personal opinion. And other people sharing it or not sharing it does not change that in any objective way, although it does seem to be that a prerequsite for calling a game this and not being verbally crucified everywhere you go is if the place you go has people who share that opinion. But it's just another opinion the same as anything else, albeit one heavily rooted in nostalgia.

... My approach to a what I call a classic is a game that you can re-approach and still have fun with; no matter it's age, format or platform. The Atari 2600 is a classic platform because even though the console is old enough to be a living fossil, it's game's can still be re-approached and still enjoyed at any level of skill or any type of player. Such as Adventure or Breakout. The Atari's asthetics or mood it set's when playing them, even due to lack of certain features such as GAME MUSIC are often ignored because it's something that 'grows' on you... Even today, people still make games for the 2600.

Games I define as classic, because I return to them constantly is the original Ratchet and Clank Games, not the future series, but the series that released on PS2; especially deadlocked which they've revived it's online capabilities. Why do I return to these? Well, sorry to say for and R&C fan, but the rest of the FUTURE series has lost it's zeal to me; coming out on PS5, I'm unsure if it will be just the one game like the 1 R&C title on PS4 or if they'll just finish it and put a plasma bullet in the Lombax's head before the NEXT Playstation device and get Insomniac to push the corpse along... I still replay the original PS2 titles because, even for the more cynical, refined, bullet sponge complaining gamer, it's still fun to blow sh*t up, get the R.Y.N.O, Apoctolator and Harbinger and blow the sh*t out of everything and do it in style or wacky ways... That and the cleaver way where your previous game save from the last title MEANS something if you play again on the next installment... Except Deadlocked, though I won't complain about it too much; tis fun to watch a game-show format in it's story in what was a good wrap-up for what the duo fought against in all of their adventures.

Interestingly enough, the word "classic" is actually a lot older than just a couple decades. It stems from a time where literature started looking back in time to very old writings and taking elements from them in order to create something new. This practice of remix and repackage is of course common practice in modern days and lead to the infamous phrase "everything has been done already, you can not create something new" which mostly serves as a good way to discourage people from trying something new.

But I think this old meaning is holding the key to understand what in modern times can be considered a classic: something that was good enough to be recognized and incorporated into something new. A simple example: Shovel Knight is a modern Indie title that got a hugh amount of attention due to how it wanted to revitalize the playfeel of the old Mega Man and Castlevania titles (among others). Games that are recognized by many as rememberable given the time they were made.