作者：Leigh Harrison

玩家抛弃电子游戏后，通常不会再次拾起，而且最终会遗忘。游戏是一种短暂的艺术形式。游戏发行后，玩家只能享受一小段时间。一旦玩家认为游戏不是新作，他们便会疏远这款游戏，并将它遗弃在历史的长河中。虽然游戏领域存在一些例外情况，但是随着时间的流逝，许多产品的影响力终将显著减弱。

从这一层面上看，游戏不同于雕塑、油画、电影和音乐。因为支撑游戏的技术发展更为明显，所以游戏旧作很快就会进入过时行列。只要设计稍加领先，跑和跳这类简单的机制很容易被归为老套动作。

tom braider anniversary(from venturebeat)

玩家和评论家纷纷赞美《古墓丽影》中的游戏设置和画面质量。虽然时间会改变这些观点，但这款游戏并未过时。Crystal Dynamics重新制作了原版《古墓丽影》，在游戏中增添了更多现代化的机制，并于2007年以《古墓丽影：周年纪念》之名发行。该公司通过技术极大地完善了基本动作，突出了原作在精确度和控制方面的缺失。然而在我看来，无论是原作还是翻版，它们都应为玩家体验提供有效的选择。这次发行呈现出游戏领域的某些时代特点，反映出各个时期有限的技术能力。

就像1998年电影《精神病患者》的翻拍版，而《古墓丽影：周年纪念》更像是一次休假调养后的重新出发，它遵从了原作的精髓。虽然《精神病患者》表明任何电影都可以翻拍出几乎相同的作品，但是《古墓丽影：周年纪念》却展现出重制游戏所带来的巨大变化。

逐个镜头地重拍电影可能会更换演员阵容，比如《精神病患者》在引入色彩方面的改变——但是重拍电影可以保持图像和表演的整体唯美度。然而，重制游戏意味着几乎改变原作的每个部分。而《古墓丽影：周年纪念》与其说是一幕创造性的展览，倒不如说是再造想象的产物。它重新包装了游戏的名称，引入现代模版，基本上是让旧版游戏焕然一新。《周年纪念》绝不是原作《古墓丽影》。它是一部完全不同的作品。

我不觉得这是消极的做法。此现象突出游戏保持相关性的问题。《精神病患者》几乎是在40年后才被翻拍，而《古墓丽影》只需10年。我想，技术必然会继续改进，而游戏会更快进入过时行列。这是否意味着我们应该忘记或者简单地改造老式游戏，重写过去？我认为这两种方法都不可取。

比起任何其它的流行媒介，游戏更多源于迭代产物。提到依赖技术的平台，我们就不难发现游戏的改进是不可避免的趋势，但也不应该彻底摒弃过去。比如，虽然原作《刺客信条》因重复本质和乏味的故事情节受到评论的炮轰，但它却为优质的续作奠定了基础。难道我们可以因为《刺客信条》的不足之处而忽略并且遗忘它吗？当然不行。

这些游戏都是因它们同前代作品破碎且错综复杂的联系而让人着迷。忘记游戏的过去就是忽略目前我们所拥有的一切。停止游戏会让我们失去当下的存在感。如果我们过长时间不去体验游戏，我们会失去所有过去的感觉，而这会对我们产生深远的影响。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Forgetting about older, classic titles could undermine the future of gaming

by Leigh Harrison

Against our best intentions, video games that get left by the wayside often stay unplayed and are ultimately forgotten. Games are a temporal art form. They can only be fully enjoyed within a short period of time after their release. Once a title is no longer considered new, many players distance themselves from it and discard it into the annals of history. Albeit with a few exceptions, many offerings’ influence wane significantly over time.

Games differ from sculpture, painting, film, and music in this sense. Because the evolving technology powering them is more apparent, titles can quickly appear outdated. Simple mechanics like running and jumping can be easily rendered archaic through minor advances in design.

Gamers and critics lauded the early Tomb Raider entries for both their gameplay and graphical quality. Time colored these opinions, but this does not render them obsolete. Crystal Dynamics remade the original Tomb Raider with more-modern mechanics, releasing it as Tomb Raider: Anniversary in 2007. The company vastly improved basic movement through technology and highlighted the lack of precision and control in the original game. I feel both the original and remake, however, should be considered valid options to play. The releases represent certain periods in gaming and reflect the limitations technology imposed during their respective eras.

Much like the 1998 remake of the film Psycho, TR: Anniversary is as much an exercise in clinical recreation as it is a fully formed game. Its reverence to the past is astonishing, and its adherence to the original admirable. While Psycho is a statement that any film can be remade into an almost identical product, Anniversary shows that remaking a game inherently brings massive changes.

Remaking a film shot for shot might include a change of cast — and, in the case of Psycho, the introduction of color — but the overall aesthetic of both image and performance can be retained.

Remaking a game, however, changes almost every aspect. TR: Anniversary, then, was less an act of creative curation and more one of reimagination. It repackaged a name and template for a modern era, essentially making the old new again. Anniversary is by no means the original Tomb Raider, though. It is a completely different entity.

I don’t feel this is necessarily negative. The phenomenon does highlight the problem of games maintaining their relevance. It took almost 40 years for Psycho to be remade yet only 10 for Tomb Raider. Technology will inevitably continue to improve, leading games to appear old much more quickly than other pieces of art. Does this mean that aging titles should be forgotten or simply rehashed, overwriting the past? I think neither option is sustainable.

Games are built on iteration more so than any other popular medium. Progress is inevitable when it comes to a technology-dependent platform, but it should not constrain the past. The original Assassin’s Creed, for example, faced criticism for its repetitive nature and generally bland storytelling, but it paved the way for a vastly superior sequel. Should the game be disregarded or forgotten because of its shortcomings? No.

These titles are fascinating because of their fractured and intricate lineages. Forgetting gaming’s past disregards everything that has brought us to this moment. Leaving games unplayed makes us lose all sense of the present. If we leave them alone for too long, we’ll lose all sense of the past, which has further-reaching implications. (source:venturebeat)