Canadian doesn't understand video games.

Some dude at the Globe and Mail wrote an Op Ed piece about how video games will not be an enduring art form because unlike other forms of art, like paintings, sculptures and movies, video game technology advances and once they are past their prime they do not have a lasting effect on a new gamer. Meaning that if someone played Super Mario Brothers today for the first time would it have the same impact as if someone played it back in 1985. Obviously not, because the video games today have more in-depth stories and game play and the graphics are so much better now. The writer says that if people who don't have the emotional and nostalgic attachment to these old games no one would think it would be worth the time.

He uses Halo as an example too.

The original Halo was rightly considered one of the greatest shooters ever made when it was first released. However it simply doesn't compare with the series' latest incarnation, Halo 3, which has undeniably improved upon the franchise's formula by offering a deeper multiplayer experience, a greater variety of game possibilities (by virtue of new and more interesting enemies, weapons, and vehicles), and a more cinematic presentation.

Of course, it can be difficult to get past our rosy recollections. My memories of Halo outstrip those I have of playing either of its sequels. But that matters little in the matter of timelessness. The question is whether players who are new to an older game will be affected by it in the same way and to the same degree as those who played it when it was first released.

Will the person who views The Godfather for the first time today enjoy it as much as its original 1972 audience? Probably. Hence, it is timeless, insofar as it appeals equally to at least two or three generations of moviegoers.

Will Halo or either of its sequels be as compelling to players who encounter it for the first time 15 or 20 years from now as it was for us? I have my doubts.

This logic seems so flawed to me. I guarantee once movies started having dialog and a diverse soundtrack, silent movies didn't mean shit to the youngsters at the theater. See the problem with this movie/video game analogy is you can't compare these two very different mediums during the era. Let's say you find someone who has never seen The Godfather before and you make them watch the classic film, they will probably find it to be a very good movie. But let's say you show someone a silent film from beginning of the cinema area that they have never seen before and see what they think of it. I bet it won't have the same impression as it had on th audience in the late 1800s.

Yes, the article makes a point about how video games are judged not only on characters, storyline, game play but also on technological innovations, but so do blockbusters featuring special effects.

Most people won't find old sci-fi movies to be entertaining unless they have a nostalgic relationship with the paper plates being held up by string.

Video games are still in their infancy if you look at the big picture. Every year video games are getting "better" but they are improving at a far less dramatic pace every day. The difference between Halo 2 and Halo 3 is not as big as between Super Mario World and Super Mario 64. Sounds very similar to the beginning of the movie industry.