There is a huge classic gaming community out there.
They love the old stand up games like Pac Man, Centipede, Tempest, Defender, Donkey Kong and so forth. What they love is the gameplay, not the graphics.
The nature of the arcade game is more competitive. You put in your quarter, play for as long as you can and then when you’re done, you step aside for the person waiting behind you. When gaming migrated from the arcades to the home, the focus on gaming changed.
On the home systems that competitive element suddenly went away. You could play as much as you wanted so long as you had the free time. Mastering a video was no longer as much of an accomplishment as it was before. Games also got easier. Who wants to play $50 for a video game that’s just going to beat you into submission?
So which genre is better? Tough call.
The early classic games were far more challenging but the games of today are far more immersive. It depends on what you’re looking for when you play.
As for the old school consoles, Nintendo had it all locked down. They have consistently made games that are just fun to play. When I got my NES system, I couldn’t play Super Mario Bros. enough. It had a simple yet wildly successful formula that was fun for hours on end.
There’s always going to be nostalgia for the older games. I think part of their appeal was with the low resolution graphics of the time you were forced to use your imagination more. I think another reason people say vintage gaming was better is because video games are a much larger market now and there are just so many bad games out there. I think ultimately what draws a person to a game is how it plays, which is something Blizzard understands implicitly. Now if they’d just release Starcraft II already.
If you’re looking for a short answer, I think the comparison is too much of an apples v. oranges comparison. Ultimately it’s the gameplay that determines a game’s success and there are fantastic entries from both genres.