/vr/ - Retro Games

They don't get worse over time, they get worse the more games you play.

Your fate is to turn into Christgau or Scaruffi and rate every game 5.5/10.

Games don't "age" in that sense. It cannot deteriorate or change in any way.

Opinions change. People change, they become less patient, their tastes change. Games do not change.

If you can't look at a game objectively for what it is, regardless of when it was released, why the fuck is retro gaming your hobby? Sick of this conversation.

No, it's just one more way asshats try to pass off their shit opinions as if they were something objective.

AAA games have changed definately their budgets have grown exponentially so their audience does too. Hence more generic and less risky decisions.

Theres still plenty of old school style games and unique gems out there, you just have to sift through a lot more shit these days with a billion early access titles in your face.

The context in which games are played changes, and therefore the strengths and weaknesses relative to other games change wildly.
The first Metroid was an innovator, but I'd say it aged because its sequels improved on it in many regards that make it less good from a modern perspective.

I don't think anyone actually thinks that as a game gets older it somehow deteriorates or changes. I think poorly aging can mean:

-A game was overpraised at release, either due to excessive pre-release and release time hype, reliance upon formerly cutting edge technology or mechanics, or some other reason. In short, it relied too much on trendy and flashy stuff that made it seem awesome at the time instead of using strong underlying mechanics.

-Most of the things it did well have since been expanded upon, refined, or otherwise improved either in sequels or in other franchises. As such, people don't find the original to be as great since they have since experienced what the older title lacked. As in, you've always loved spaghetti with nothing more than unseasoned tomato sauce on top, but after having the same thing with oregano or something the old dish is no longer your upper threshold for sauce-quality. You have experienced something you perceive as "better," so the original is no longer the best (and therefore not as relatively awesome) in your mind.

-You were 10 when you played it. Now you're thirty. Games don't give you the same thrill that they once did, so you take some arguments from column A, take some from column B, and a little bit from C and summarize it as "it hasn't aged well" when in actuality the best summary is it isn't the hot new thing and you're an adult whose primary focus in life isn't necessarily playing video games (and fun things in general aren't as exhilarating as they were when you were a kid).

Other times click-baiters just love the ring of "10 Games that Have Aged Terribly" paired with a screenshot of Super Mario World or something.

>>2454371
I can't comprehend how gameplay could age.

>>2454418

Summed it up better than I could, thanks.

>>2454371
I've compared checksums for game ROMs from the early 90's to now. I'm confident that nothing has changed.

>aging

fuck you faggot.

they're too slow paced and story-oriented these days
arcade games were the pinnacle of vidya

>>2454410
This guy is the only one who got closer to the correct answer. The expression is used to analise stuff regarding context, how it changed with time and how the old game stands in the new context.

>>2454418
I'll save this post, it could be useful for future threads

> -Most of the things it did well have since been expanded upon, refined, or otherwise improved either in sequels or in other franchises. As such, people don't find the original to be as great since they have since experienced what the older title lacked

Certainly, i think you nailed it, that is pretty much what everyone means when they say a book, movie, TV show or cartoon has aged

videogames are not exempt of that

They don't get worse, they get DATED.

>>2454371
If a genre turns to shit that was once good, the older entries can in fact be seen as getting better.

If an old game is made with a particular formula, then a later game does that formula better (to the point where the old attempt feels broken or empty in comparison), it can be seen as the older game aging badly.

90% of the times people tout these opinions, it's just wrong though. You know the gamer community. We do love out buzzwords and catchphrases.

So the next time someone tells you that MGS or RE or Final Fantasy 1 have "aged like milk" smack them and tell them to STFU. Because they don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

>>2454410
Yes, but to use your own example: Metroid is more open ended than it's sequels and spinoffs, has more atmosphere and is more challenging. So in many ways, it's still a better game than all of them.

The problem with games "aging" is that people focus entirely on gameplay. This IS the "gameplay" generation, after all. And I do NOT mean that in a good way at all. What I mean is that standardization has taken over to a disgusting degree, and literally everything that doesn't have the EXACT same formulas for absolutely everything are seen as bad by kids who don't understand the basic concept of variety.

In the old days, different genres and even individual games of a single genre or series having unique gameplay or elements was seen as a great thing.

These days, as long as GTA XLVII and Call of Duty 99 have graphical upgrades over past entries, people think they're "better". Even though in most cases gameplay elements were lost to time and the games were dumbed down and simplified. But they sure NAILED that standard control scheme this time! Right gais?

That's where all this is born from.

There'll be retarded assholes who will say that MGS3 is unplayable by modern standards, yet MGSV GZ is a modern classic masterpiece for the ages, because it HAS the standardization that they're looking for in it. Even though MGS3 has deeper gameplay, more content, better plot, ect, ect, ect, ect...

So fuck em. They don't know jack and or shit.

>>2454740
>These days, as long as GTA XLVII and Call of Duty 99 have graphical upgrades over past entries, people think they're "better". Even though in most cases gameplay elements were lost to time and the games were dumbed down and simplified. But they sure NAILED that standard control scheme this time! Right gais?

False. You throwing the basic of players (the shooter-only players), that indeed would be like that, into the same bin as all the players of all genres.

It's not at all true for CRPGs:
Divinity: OS got praised for interactivity and variety of its system, while PoE got bashed for following Baldur's Gate too closely.

I think I'm starting to suck at games and therefore not enjoying them as much as I would like to. I'm only 21 but it's like my brain isn't as fast as it used to be.

I think it's an invalid concept. It assumes things about experiences people have had. I saw lots of people people online stating that once they've seen HD (including tv), that they could "never go back" to watching SD because it looks like "shit" by comparison. You really have to wonder about the intelligence of that type of person.

>>2454418
This. Is why Phantasy Star 2 is still a great game thats memory of beating in middle school I treasure, but I will never play again. And why Phantasy Star 4 is a game I play through about every 5 years or so.

>>2454774
Personally I think that was a bullshit response and that gaming always gave me the same thrill, though less time and more choice now, but w/e.

Nah, games don't actually get better or worse, peoples perceptions and expectations change.

It's also not really an objective thing. For instance, one of my friends absolutely can't stand Zelda 2, and says that it's aged terribly, while I think it's still an amazing game and my favorite Zelda. Inversely, I can't stand Sonic Adventure and other earlier 3D games for more than 10 minutes, while a lot of my friends still really love them.

>>2454757

>PoE got bashed for following Baldur's Gate too closely
>PoE, by the guys who worked with Baldur's Gate, advertized as a spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, made for fans of Baldur's Gate with an emphasis on appealing to people who have heard of the standards set by Baldur's Gate

... Buh?

>>2454761

Are you working/in school? At 30 I find that I can game as well as I ever could in my youth, the big difference is whether or not I can actually plug time into a game. The difference between slamming a game for hours a day every day vs hours a week is huge.

You do also eventually realize your actual skill limit and whether or not you want to grind past that. It's why I usually can't get into Fighting Games these days and stopped playing Starcraft 2 unless with friends. I can hit the level of competitive, but it's such a god damn investment for something I do to relax.

>>2454761
When you grow out of your drug habit you'll git gud again

>>2454771
If you wonder about the intelligence of someone who would rather watch a higher quality video you should be seriously concerned about your own. This isn't the same as preferring an HD colorized version of Casablanca that has CGI effects added. It's just wanting the picture to not look shitty.

>>2454847
>in school

Yeah.

>the big difference is whether or not I can actually plug time into a game

I dunno man, I think it's different for me. After some hours I feel like I'm not learning anything anymore so I start a game up and end up getting stuck on missions I used to be able to beat and get fucked on stages I've completed a trillion times.

I start getting frustrated and quit

I mean I used to do this stuff backwards before so I think I fully understand what I'm supposed to do, but then something happens that was completely unexpected and I lose and feel like I'm getting randomly fucked by the game, I start getting impatient and end up making mistakes

I assume I'm just starting to suck in general, I want to enjoy games but I can't

>I usually can't get into Fighting Games these days

Yeah me neither. I like street fighter and SNK games but my friends only like smash bros. Now that's one unending fountain of frustration. With "traditional" fighting games I at least understand what is going on and feel like I lost because I was outguessed or his reflexes were faster. Playing smash bros with a friend was like asking to get mad as fuck. It's like the game manufactures new gameplay mechanics to fuck you with out of nothing.

>>2454867
I wish I had such an excuse.

>>2454384
>It cannot deteriorate or change in any way.
Online games can deteriorate to the point of becoming unplayable.
Other games can get better over time due to patches etc. Some of those may end up making the game worst but you normally aren't forced to use them.

Games don't age obviously, and it's a stupid expression, but everybody knows what people mean when they use that expression. People acting autistic over it is worst than the expression itself.

>>2454371
>Is the concept of games aging well or not aging well legitimate?
yes

>Do games actually get better or worse over time?
That's not the implication of aging well or not well

>>2454371
So do, some don't.

A game like Top Gear on NES has aged like milk. It was well regarded during its time, but now it's clear that the game was poor.

Most 2D racing games have aged HORRIBLY.

Early Final Fantasy was a super small niche thing, but looking back now we can see that those were solid games.

>>2455287
>A game like Top Gear on NES has aged like milk
a search comes up with nothing for me. I see one for the SNES, which seems to be a solid line scroller. It's not 2D either.

>Early Final Fantasy was a super small niche thing, but looking back now we can see that those were solid games.
So you think a current days player could get into it? Why? Why not?

>>2454371
some games age badly ... ie 5th gen 3D graphics aiming for realism.

some genres age badly .. ie 5th gen console FPS

some genres only improve with tech - ie Realistic racing


most genres don't age - any type of sidescroller, RPGs, vertical shooters, puzzle, tabletop, turned based strategy...

it's all subjective

>>2455496
>most genres don't age

>any type of sidescroller
"Why can't I go left? This is stupid"

>RPGs
"Where's the quest marker?"

Your "most" list is also conveniently biased.

Games are very reliant on technology in a way that board games and movies for example are not, and technology is rendered obsolete by newer and better technologies (though obsolete doesn't necessarily equal bad, and sometimes the superiority of the new technology can be just marketing and ignorance).

Game design that was good decades ago can be seen as bad today because the science of game design has marched on (in some respects, anyway) and better designs have been developed. Some of it is just preferences changing with the times.

We also can't overlook presentation. If you identically remake an Atari 2600 game but with modern, high quality graphics and sound, people are going to choose the remake every time. You can talk all day about how Daggerfall has better mechanics than Skyrim, but the latter is far more immersive and life-like which is important in a first person RPG, and which developers of such games have been going for since as early as 1979 (Akalabeth, with its first person view).

>>2455542
>Games are very reliant on technology in a way that board games and movies for example are not
Go watch a black and white silent movie, or introduce casual cinema audience to stop motion special effects in 1950s blockbusters.

>Game design that was good decades ago can be seen as bad today because the science of game design has marched on (in some respects, anyway) and better designs have been developed
Funny enough, THAT aspect of games is almost entirely independent of technology

>We also can't overlook presentation.
To a degree we can. The problem with games aging is usually in expectations (player intelligence, reading the manual, difficulty through repetition) and not so much in the presentation. That's why text adventures and tiled sprite graphics can still be quite entertaining. People can tolerate a lot if the underlying game is good.

>people are going to choose the remake every time
With everything else being equal, the unimportant parts affect the decision. That does not mean that they are relevant for the core subject.

>the latter is far more immersive and life-like
On a visual level, maybe. Give an open minded player enough time with both, have them PLAY it, and they may discover that graphics are just the first aspect they see, but gameplay is what affects them more.

>which is important in a first person RPG
Subjective. The purpose of the first person view is most of the time a picture telling more than a thousand words.

>which developers of such games have been going for since as early as 1979
I'd need a citation for that motivation. photorealism was unattainable. It was more about the game being a better gm, painting the world in a more accessible way.
The demand for life-like-ness sounds more like your own.

>>2455551
Half of your response is misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I said and the other half is denial and delusion as if there could never be anything wrong with old games ever and nobody really cares about presentation and if they do then clearly they're just stupid. My diagnosis is that you're an underage poser who's trying way, way too hard.

>The demand for life-like-ness sounds more like your own.
Oh, of course. You're right. It's not like developers have been constantly pushing for more and more realistic and impressive presentation since the 1970s.

Fuck off.

>>2455561
>Half of your response is misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I said
Which?

>the other half is denial and delusion as if there could never be anything wrong with old games ever
Wrong. Games can age, quite harshly, if player expectations (or expectations from the game towards the player) change. That you fail to read that in my statement though, is telling.

>nobody really cares about presentation and if they do then clearly they're just stupid
You yourself proposed a remake with everything else being equal.
When given the choice between original gameplay with original graphics, and modernized gameplay with modern graphics, the decision is not as simple, and there is a non-trivial number of players that will tolerate older presentation to get the better game.

>My diagnosis is that you're an underage poser who's trying way, way too hard.
Started gaming on an 8086 and currently mostly play games from the 80s and 90s. Your move.

>It's not like developers have been constantly pushing for more and more realistic and impressive presentation since the 1970s.
You were talking about RPGs, and you were making the claim that for some reason that realism is crucial. I simply reject that claim in the realm of RPGs. The history of tile based top down RPGs, text based RPGs, tabletop RPGs and iso RPGs even in the modern days is way too vast to give your claim much credit. Graphics in an RPG are first and foremost a shorthand for the computer to act like a GM and establish the setting. Photorealism is not necessary, and occasionally hurts the game. Ironically, the games where the devs have been "pushing" for photorealism, are among the ones that have the biggest issues with aging, because there's little saving grace in terms of gameplay, and once technology outpaced these visuals, it becomes obvious how it's all shine and non substance.

>>2455568
>You were talking about RPGs, and you were making the claim that for some reason that realism is crucial.
I was very specifically talking about first person RPGs. This is what I meant by you misunderstanding or misrepresenting things.

You're obviously intent on arguing in bad faith. So, again, fuck off.

>>2455578
Also in that sentence you quoted I was talking about games in general and not just RPGs (of any kind).

>>2455578
>I was very specifically talking about first person RPGs
Which are still RPGs, and the same limitations apply. Quite a few Dungeon crawlers don't have free form movement and are pretty successful. Meanwhile sandbox RPGs are often a generation or two behind on the technology front. It only changed a bit recently, with Bethesda and the Witcher. In the case of Bethesda their commitment to RPGs is questionable.

>>2455579
Yeah, suddently talking about all kinds of games. I'm not interested in moving the goal posts. That said, I stick to my point, that the technologically pushing games are usually the ones aging quite badly, because they tend to put technology above gameplay and being genuinely good games.

>>2454384
Consider this. In 1996 the tank controls in Resident Evil were fine.

Now the tank controls today feel clunky and awkward.

Games do age.

>>2455586
Holy shit just go away already.

>>2455593
They always were clunky and awkward, and intentionally so. It's just that people nowadays are less tolerant of different types of control schemes for various reasons even if they add to the games.

>>2455624
>and intentionally so
explain
Lara Croft, for example, had tank controls, and she was supposed to be agile and athletic

The idea seems to be that games don't "age" but rather get outclassed by newer games taking ideas it pioneered and refining, building upon, or rendering them obsolete.

So when you play an older game, it no longer feels as effective as what it did originally.

>>2455630
The turning worked really well with the static camera angles. You wouldn't suddenly change your movement direction because the game switched to a different camera angle. The slower speed and lack of strafing make navigating rooms filled with zombies much more difficult. Having more free controls would make it far too easy which you can see for yourself if you play the REmake with the alternate control scheme. I'm not a fan of Tomb Raider but I assume they wanted to make it feel more realistic.

>>2455643
>You wouldn't suddenly change your movement direction because the game switched to a different camera angle.
The normal solution is to not change movement direction while input doesn't change, even if the camera angle does.

>The slower speed and lack of strafing make navigating rooms filled with zombies much more difficult
It also made the movement much harder to believe. Especially in tight rooms a human does not act "rigid". It becomes normal to move and look in independent directions, and to quickly change focus.

>I'm not a fan of Tomb Raider but I assume they wanted to make it feel more realistic.
Agility would be more realistic. The Tomb Raider controls are known to be lackluster.
The motivation behind tank controls, at least in games like Tomb Raider, was the lack of player control for the camera, simple as that. Realism was not in the picture. Limited input (one d-pad and a bunch of face buttons) was. Can't comment about the motivation in RE, but given its similarity to Alone in the Dark, I doubt there was much intentional design behind that decision, and certainly not in terms of agility or suspense.

>>2455652
>The normal solution is to not change movement direction while input doesn't change, even if the camera angle does.

That's far more disorienting than how RE does it

>It also made the movement much harder to believe

And? It served a gameplay purpose, which helped the game's tone. You're supposed to feel limited in your abilities and again, REmake clearly demonstrated that a free control scheme would destroy all of the game's balance.

>>2455658
>That's far more disorienting than how RE does it
how so? You keep pressing forward, your character moves forward, regardless of where the camera is.

>It served a gameplay purpose
And it kills the expectations of the player. Gameplay does not exist in isolation. If there's a disconnect between what the player considers "common sense", and what the character does, it becomes a frustrating exercise.

>You're supposed to feel limited in your abilities
No matter how much of a weak person I am, I can look behind me almost instantly, and only need a little less longer to aim. The slow movement is an "arbitrary" limitation, which makes it difficult to accept.

>REmake clearly demonstrated that a free control scheme would destroy all of the game's balance.
No question there. The game as it is designed, relies in part on the slow movement. I am argueing that this design is problematic, because it clashes with player expectation and requires a willful suspense of disbelief to "tolerate" that gameplay. The player is unlikely to embrace it. That's not good game design.

>>2455664

It's more disorienting because of the visual disconnect between where you're pressing and where you're going. I can't think of why I would want to be pressing up to go down or diagonal

>>2455671
>It's more disorienting because of the visual disconnect between where you're pressing and where you're going
Debatable. If you align yourself to go towards a door, then press forward to go, you can expect your character to keep going towards that door even if the view changes a few times on the way.

>It's more disorienting because of the visual disconnect between where you're pressing and where you're going
Isn't that precisely what tank controls are about? That you navigate in character space, instead of screen space. So I'm quite sure you are familiar with pressing directions that do not match screen space directions.

>>2455664
>You keep pressing forward
There's no such thing as "forward" if the movement is relative to camera position. You could be holding down right while walking up. Resident Evil's control scheme does have a forward button no matter what, though.
>If there's a disconnect between what the player considers "common sense", and what the character does, it becomes a frustrating exercise.
Video game movement is often about breaking common sense and logic, it's just that usually games do that for the player's benefit rather than against them. How well someone can suspend their disbelief varies from person to person. I had no issue getting immersed in Resident Evil, and neither did many other people. In my mind it doesn't really matter whether or not the controls were realistic, because they made me feel vulnerable.

>>2455684
>There's no such thing as "forward" if the movement is relative to camera position
Correct, I got confused there for a moment, sorry.

>Video game movement is often about breaking common sense and logic
Got any more examples? Because that strikes me as a bit of a bold statement.

>it's just that usually games do that for the player's benefit rather than against them
Out of necessity. Player input is highly limited, so games need to "overcome" that limitation and still give the player the sense of control. Few things frustrate more than player characters not, or slowly, reacting to input. Because that input is almost the only way a player can actually interact with that world.

>In my mind it doesn't really matter whether or not the controls were realistic, because they made me feel vulnerable.
That's a bit of a nostalgia statement to me. There are ways to make a character vulnerable without giving them the agility of a log.

Mind you, tank controls make sense when you have no control over the camera. I just believe the lack of camera control is the actual shortcoming. The perception of "sluggish" tank controls is just a consequence (in part because there's no sane way to control turning speed without sacrificing speed, precision or both)

>>2454371
Yes, the code rot gnome makes the game gradually become worse with the years.

It's a sad universe, the one we live in.

>>2455708
>There are ways to make a character vulnerable without giving them the agility of a log.
I'd go one step further. If your character feels vulnerable DESPITE being quite agile, the sense of dread and fear is much stronger, because you feel at mercy of the evil lurking, instead of the control scheme.

>>2454371
I dont think so

The nostalgia goggle debate is a compelling one and I sometimes think its true. But then again ive played a lot of retro games recently that i never laid my hands or eyes on before and have enjoyed them thoroughly.
Then there are games that I go back to play and I wondered how they were even playable (ie Twisted Metal 2), sometimes I wished they woluldve remained a memory.

>>2455724
>But then again ive played a lot of retro games recently that i never laid my hands or eyes on before and have enjoyed them thoroughly.
>Then there are games that I go back to play and I wondered how they were even playable

That there, is precisely what the "aging" thing is about. When nostalgia goggles aren't involved, because you're playing something for the first time, you can still distinguish between accessible and enjoyable games, and those that feel like constant torture.

>>2455708
>Got any more examples?
Mid air control, double jump, instantenous turning, etc.
>Few things frustrate more than player characters not, or slowly, reacting to input.
Maybe, but Resident Evil doesn't slowly react to your inputs in the frustrating way. The game reacts to even tiny taps on the dpad, so you get that visual feedback confirming that your inputs matter. I don't know about you but I never got the feeling that the game wasn't listening to my inputs. But if you're against sluggish movement in general then ask yourself if something like Resident Evil 4 would be even half as tense as it is if the player was always aware of their surroundings.

>>2455735
>but Resident Evil doesn't slowly react to your inputs in the frustrating way
"turn turn turn! dammit, I need to do something turn!" Even if the game reacts to your input right away, if that reaction is a too slow change, it's frustrating.

>I don't know about you but I never got the feeling that the game wasn't listening to my inputs
It reacts, but oh so slow, especially when you're under pressure.

>if you're against sluggish movement in general
Yes, very much so

>ask yourself if something like Resident Evil 4 would be even half as tense as it is if the player was always aware of their surroundings
False dichotomy. You can be agile with your head, and still fumble with your gun, or be subject to off-balance movements (good luck changing movement direction when you're stumbling or slipping). It's a very different kind of fear if you're able to move fast, and yet feel helpless.
Also, fast movement does not mean full awareness. If stuff goes to hell behind you, you still need a moment to react and realize what's going on. But it's very different when it's YOU (the player) dealing with the confusion, instead of going "oh, ok, something happened, now let me turn, and wait, and wait, until I can actually react to it". Sluggish movement conveys none of the dread, and just leaves the player frustrated.

Unlike other forms of media that are aesthetic/storytelling first, games can certainly "age" as their successors undergo particular gameplay refinements that are just sensibly "better" (better is obviously subjective, but I think there are some design choices and technological improvements that have evolved throughout the years that 100% of sane gamers would agree are better. Ex. reduced load times, improved physics in racing sims, 60FPS in fighting games, etc ).

Sports are good analogue to use here. Think how basketball evolved from throwing a ball into a peach basket to the game it is today. While some might argue the "purity" of the game's mechanics was "better" in the early 1900s (and their opinion could be justified), I don't think anyone, even a staunch traditionalist, would argue that not cutting the bottom off the basket wasn't the superior design choice instead of having to get a ladder and retrieve the ball every time a basket is made.

Videogames see similar refinements throughout the years. Refinements that are just so sensible, other games that lack them seem "aged."

Guys, my SNES and Genesis games are starting to age.

Should I buy adult diapers for them?

>>2455743
>"turn turn turn! dammit, I need to do something turn!"
That sounds very much like mechanics-induced tension to me. I mean, even if you feel that it's frustrating and "invalid", you can't really deny that it's a very specific kind of tension.
>You can be agile with your head, and still fumble with your gun, or be subject to off-balance movements (good luck changing movement direction when you're stumbling or slipping). It's a very different kind of fear if you're able to move fast, and yet feel helpless.
But you're still be relying on either limiting the player's controls or introducing unintuitive, complex mechanics to produce that feeling of vulnerability.
>Also, fast movement does not mean full awareness
It sort of does. There aren't many good ways to reduce the player's awareness of their surroundings when they can do a 360 degree look any time they want.

>>2455771
>That sounds very much like mechanics-induced tension to me
It does. Only it's aggression/anger, not fear. The result is usually the player turning off the game. Frustration is not fun.

>you can't really deny that it's a very specific kind of tension.
I strongly suspect the intention of the game designer is to anger the player, in particular anger them about a mechanic, instead of anything in the narrative.

>But you're still be relying on either limiting the player's controls or introducing unintuitive, complex mechanics to produce that feeling of vulnerability.
That's a false dichotomy, because it implies you either get slow and simple, or quick and complex. Quick and simple is the solution.

>It sort of does
Disagreed. Have the character's mind play tricks on them, use the environment to better hide scares, rely on scares that are not visual.

>look any time they want.
Looking's one thing, reacting another. And again, of course you got to shape the game's environment to work with the player's abilities, or even to take advantage of them.
Sure, you can turn your head in an instant, but what good does it do if you stare into something blindingly bright and are lost for a couple moments? Make it risky for the player to look around, scare them into wanting to use the input given to them, instead of denying them input.

>>2455586
Back to >>>/v/.

>>2455778
>Only it's aggression/anger, not fear.
It's stress. The same kind of stress you'd feel while failing to open a locked door while a group of zombies was heading right towards you.
>Quick and simple is the solution.
How do you intend to make the player feel vulnerable short of removing their offensive capabilities, then? Most of the suggestions you posted took control away from the player or added complexity where it wasn't needed. Is there just no room for vulnerability that stems from a lack of controls in video games? Furthermore, how do you intend to capture the kind of slow, looming tension that's characteristic to zombie movies? The faster your character can react, the faster and more aggressive both the enemies and the scares have to be.

>>2455795
>It's stress. The same kind of stress (...)
Sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree here.
Few things frustrate me more in games, or programs, when I feel limited by the interface.

>How do you intend to make the player feel vulnerable short of removing their offensive capabilities, then?
Limited supplies, penalties

>took control away from the player
Within the context of an action. Much more believable than permanently gimped controls.

>added complexity where it wasn't needed
I'd argue it is helpful, considering that the alternative is an exercise in frustration.

>Is there just no room for vulnerability that stems from a lack of controls in video games?
Lots of room, as long as it's believable to the player trapped in the action. I'm perfectly fine with my player character being shock paralyzed and not reacting to input. I'm absolutely not cool with a seemingly calm and rational character being openly slow. It clashes with what I want to do and what's going on.

>how do you intend to capture the kind of slow, looming tension that's characteristic to zombie movies?
Capture the other aspects of zombie movies. The overwhelming masses, the lack of retreats.

>The faster your character can react, the faster and more aggressive both the enemies and the scares have to be.
Wrong. A high number of time consuming enemies can pose severe problems for an agile character. An agile character can be vulnerable if they're easily hurt or incapitated (have your character start to limp and slow movement becomes at least believable). You mentioned zombie movies. You know how their scare works. Numbers, and seemingly hard to stop. The characters in these movies are all but slow, and yet, they have serious troubles with the threat.
And as said, you can seriously scare a fast character/player by taking away crucial senses. Knock them off balance, blind them, muffle their hearing, you name it. Few things are scarier than losing your senses when you rely on them.

>>2455819
>Limited supplies, penalties
You're not making the player feel vulnerable in individual encounters then, instead you're making the player feel vulnerable in the long term. Something is lost there.
>Within the context of an action. Much more believable than permanently gimped controls.
Pretty sure most people would prefer consistent tank controls over arbitrary fumbling or slipping, especially considering that it's familliar.
>considering that the alternative is an exercise in frustration.
If it's frustration, then it's the enjoyable kind of frustration. Resident Evil has gotten a massive fanbase, and even the recent games in the series are pretty damn restrictive.
>Capture the other aspects of zombie movies. The overwhelming masses, the lack of retreats.
By focusing on those you're already changing things like scope and pace. In RE a single zombie is a threat, there is a very strong sense of isolation and loneliness. You can't exactly get very lonely with massive crowds of zombies coming out of every crevice. Games which take the route you're suggesting are everywhere these days, and none of them even come close to capturing the atmosphere of Living Dead movies.

>>2454371

If a game is basically designed to impress players with graphics capacity it is bound to be less impressive with time. The most extreme example is nineties FMV games.

>>2455874
>Something is lost there.
Probably. I thought the goal was the make the player feel vulnerable. That's a long term thing. Vulnerability is not something suddently cropping up. It's effective as "knowledge", or fear.

>especially considering that it's familliar.
Familiar for players of the 90s, probably. Beyond that, not so much.

>then it's the enjoyable kind of frustration
For you, maybe. For me it's enough to stay very very far away from such games. Broken controls are one of the few reasons that will make me stop playing games entirely.

>In RE a single zombie is a threat
I think we established at this point that The whole setup of RE relies on its controls. So naturally changing them would turn it into a different game. We probably also established that I've had very little interest in RE games in the past, because they rely on things that I find revolting on a gameplay level. So you are free to say the reason I don't warm up to RE is simply that it's not my kind of game, and you'd be correct. My goal was merely to lay out why I consider it a bad game design. You're of course free to disagree with me.

>You can't exactly get very lonely with massive crowds of zombies coming out of every crevice
Sounds like zombies were a bad decision for these games.

>Games which take the route you're suggesting are everywhere these days
I'm not aware of too many. The ones I am aware of give the player enough firepower that they turn into slaughter fests, instead of dread and panic.

>>2454371
No, it's not legitimate. Most people just have a really hard time taking anything old for what it is and are too small minded to leave their comfort zone relative to the activity/product. It's like how most people won't watch an old movie or read an old book simply because it's old and takes them out of their modern sensibilities. Basically, it's an argument used by idiots where they project their own mental limits onto whatever they are talking about.

>>2454867
480p doesn't look "shitty" and it never will. It looks fine. 1080p is more detailed and to be preferred, but it will never magically change the experience you have watching 480p.

If that were the case, then it would be logical to avoid every single HD picture, so that it wouldn't "spoil" any future 480p picture you want to view.

>>2455908

>480p doesn't look "shitty" and it never will.
It does if you're not looking at it on a display made for it.

>>2455910
lol.... no it doesn't fuckwad.

>>2455914

Looking at 480p on a HDTV is hell on the eyes because of the scaling. Now if you're talking about a good CRT it's a different story.

>>2455886
>Broken controls
Now that's just entering shitposting territory. Don't like them? Fine. Calling them "broken" is nonsense when they work quite well for everything the game throws at you. My point is that the control scheme helps create a pretty unique style of horror that free controls would not be able to replicate. That's why I disagree with what you seem to be saying which is that limited/tank controls have no place in games.

>>2455924
>Calling them "broken" is nonsense when they work quite well for everything the game throws at you
I think I expressed clear enough why I consider them broken. They interfere, instead of support.

>My point is that the control scheme helps create a pretty unique style
That it does, somewhat, together with the entire Alone in the Dark series. Though I'd say it's not the good kind of unique.

>you seem to be saying which is that limited/tank controls have no place in games.
limited controls have a lot of use. My suggestions limit player controls quite considerably, when the player character stumbles or otherwise can't react as it wishes.

Tank controls are very useful if they are consistent within the game world. It's a good idea to use tank controls for heavy characters or mechanical characters (mechs, for example). I'm saying it's a bad idea to use tank controls when the character is inherently agile and only limited by the control scheme, because then the game does not use the control scheme to give the player control over the action, it uses it to constantly remind the player that they're interacting through a throttled or limited interface, the interface is getting in the way of the game.
Simply put, in a good control scheme, the interface enables the player to control the character, transparently. The player can relate to the character. In a bad control scheme, the interface gets in the way of the player, establishing a border between player and character that constantly reminds the player that they're not really involved and just playing a game, and are at the mercy of the whims of this interface, not in control. This is not tank control specific. You can find the same problem in other games. If the controls stand out in front of the game, that's a problem.

>>2455921
Not on a good HDTV. I'm in europe and our SD is always 576, which looks fine on our HDTV. In fact motion blur has always been much more of a difficulty on tvs, it's just not in the media and not hyped because there was no motion blur on the CRTs while there was horrendous on LCDs for many years. It's often telling to follow the money.

>>2455946
>while there was horrendous on LCDs for many years
You're talking about ghosting. Motion blur is part of the signal

>>2455942
Why is it a problem? Games work on several levels. Fear of things like getting hit, losing control/resources and dying aren't tied to how much you relate to the characters you're playing as because they mean something to you outside of the context of the game. On that level things like sluggish controls and other inconvenient systems are not detracting from the game because they pretty much are the game.

>>2455989
>Why is it a problem?
It's a problem because the player is not playing the game but the controls. Controls should NEVER be in the way of the game.

>Fear of things like getting hit, losing control/resources and dying aren't tied to how much you relate to the characters you're playing
Oh, but they are very much related to it. Nobody's gonna hit the player, nobody's gonna hurt the player. The negative consequences and worry related are precisely because the player is relating to the character and game, instead of acting disconnected as if observing something. You probably know the feeling when you're experienced in a game, that you aren't manipulating the controls, you are controlling your character. The controls disappear or become intuitive, the "barrier" disappears.

>On that level things like sluggish controls and other inconvenient systems are not detracting from the game because they pretty much are the game.
If the inconvenience or limitation of the system enters the mind of the player, the game has lost. From that point on they aren't involved in the game, they're involved in metagaming, in struggling to force the controls into playing the game. The game itself just becomes a feedback mechanism for whether the player managed to con the controls into doing something. If you consider that enjoyable, that's your choice. I consider it bankruptcy of interface design.

I suppose the fundamental difference is that I do not consider the controls a direct part of the game, but just a necessity to translate human intention into something the game can process. Its sole task is to be as intermediate and non-interfering as possible.
Meanwhile you seem to consider bad controls a layer of gameplay, adding a challenge of their own. We probably won't see eye-to-eye on that one, and I won't make a claim on who of us is "correct". That stuff's way too subjective for that.

Did black and white movies age badly? Maybe.

I still enjoyed the shit out of 12 Angry Man the other day.

>>2456035
that sounds like you were in the vip room of some gay club

>>2455895
Not every old game is Super Mario.

>>2456035
>>2456041

>>2456006
What the fuck does this even mean? The game is the controls.

>>2456006
>I do not consider the controls a direct part of the game, but just a necessity to translate human intention into something the game can process. Its sole task is to be as intermediate and non-interfering as possible.
Using this logic you can say that all fighting games have bad controls.

>>2456265
And not every post is good.

>>2455643
Difficulty isn't the only measure of a good game. They can adapt the A.I. to accomodate the new controls anyway.

A lot of fairly common things in games are now considered archaic.

A lot of early 3D games for instance had really shit camera controls but we tolerated it back then because there was nothing else. Once we got to having 2 analog sticks it suddenly made a shitload of sense to have 1 dedicated stick for camera movement, which was simply a blatant oversight by people developing the PS1 and N64 which was remedied late in the PS1's life, and by both companies in the next generation.

A lot of modern design decisions are also fucking retarded because they believe they can have one hit kills or near one hit kills simply because you have shitloads of checkpoints which is something that never really happened in earlier games because checkpoints were a shitload fewer (if at all, lots of PS1 style games are restart at last save).

Its a mixed bag. The fact is, the good games are still good. The bad games are still bad. If your tastes change the good games may be less good. I personally can't tolerate trying to get through Ninja Gaiden or Castlevania anymore when I would spent hours as a kid. Or trying to deal with Tomb Raiders control scheme when I would rather play the 2013 one or whatever which has a lot of other stuff I hate but its genuinely more enjoyable.

>>2455542
>the latter is far more immersive and life-like which is important in a first person RPG, and which developers of such games have been going for since as early as 1979 (Akalabeth, with its first person view).
Wizardry clones are still going pretty strong, and they've been technologically behind the curve since the mid 80s. They're not AAA titles but they obviously have an audience with people who weren't even born when that kind of gameplay was cutting edge. In fact when the franchise got around to adding free movement etc all the imitators just ignored it.

>>2455708
>Mind you, tank controls make sense when you have no control over the camera. I just believe the lack of camera control is the actual shortcoming.
The fixed camera came about because of tech limitations but it had the strength of enforcing horror movie cinematography. It did for the atmosphere of RE, Silent Hill, etc than the action did, and I miss it, but nobody figured out how to mix it with action very well, and moving around really was a bit of a pain.

Incidentally, RE4's controls still pretty much suck.

>>2456752
RE4's controls are not bad by any stretch. I can see you having some issues (such as quick turn being assigned to 2 inputs) but to say the controls suck basically kills any arguments you have regarding control scheme.

>>2454384

>Opinions change. People change, they become less patient, their tastes change. Games do not change.

>didn't even say war never changes.
>pleb

>>2456779
>this minor disagreement basically kills any arguments you have
Well, ok dude. Digital tank controls when you've got an analog stick is pretty damn silly.

>>2454371
It's just ADD/ADHD.

Good games stay the same. Bad games get worse.

Simple.

>>2456416
What does that have to do with anything?

>>2456035
Of course they didn't. I saw a skit a few years ago where the point was this girl was so dumb that she was complaining about having to watch something in black and white. It's so clueless and nonsensical that you just have to laugh.

>>2456314
If you want to say that, that is your choice.
I would disagree, and here's why:
Yes, in a fighting game you have all kinds of button combos and indirect action, however, there's a pretty clear mapping from intention to actual action. Muscle memory at some point kicks in, and the controls become second nature. On top of that, I believe, though that's pushing it in a way, that the way combos and counters are performed in fighting games, reminds me a little bit of rhythm games. Fighting is in a faint way like improvised dancing. Reading the opponent, performing moves out of motions and in a flow. The controls in fighting games capture that aspect rather well, making the player do the same kind of reading and flow, just with their fingers, instead of the whole body. In that regard, good fighting games represent an example of well done controls, that don't hinder the player, but allow them to interact with the game.
And to stick a bit with the original subject: fighters in these games tend to be very agile, yet nobody's dominating. It's still easy to get your health bar drained in an instant. But yeah, it's a different kind of vibe, no question there.

Fighting games are subject to the same issues regarding good and bad controls. Good controls in a fighting game end up "transparent", and you just will the characters into the motions you desire, as described above. Bad fighting games push seemingly arbitrary combos onto the player (where the buttons pressed are in no relation to the motions performed, unintuitive), or force a timing that is inconsistent with what is on screen. That is, the player can not get into the flow visually presented, but is instead reminded that the controls need a certain arbitrary timing.

I think most people judge a game's controls a bit too fast. I'm born in 1995 and have been used to non-/vr/ controls but have no problems playing games like RE2 or RE (the GC remake) after 1 or 2 hours into the game. It takes time to get used to some of the /vr/ control schemes. I played Shenmue for the 1st time last friday, and at 1st I was like "c'mon those controls suck" but after playing for half an hour they felt pretty natural.

I think Dragon Warrior is a good example of a game aging poorly.

In that game, any time you want to interact with anything in the game, you have to go into the menu, and select the appropriate option.

Unlike just about every RPG after that where interacting with anything was done with a single button press, and stuff like walking through doors or going up stairs was automatic.

For the time, it was okay. There wasn't much out there to say "this is dumb".

But now? There's just no way I'm putting up with that. So you can argue that games don't change, peoples sensibilities change.

When something better exists, you get used to that thing, and its hard to go back to the old thing. It's like going back to a walkman after using portable mp3 players for years. The walkman isn't "bad", you're just used to things that do the same exact thing, only better.

Granted, I do believe some people are bit too quick to say a game hasn't aged well. Some people say Deus Ex has really clunky controls for a FPS, and personally, I say that Deus Ex isn't really a FPS and the controls are acceptable for what the game is.

There's also the argument that a game that "aged poorly" was never all that great at all, you just liked it because you were a kid and didn't know better. Which was absolutely the case for me with many of my childhood games.

>>2457807
No, it was dumb back then too.

>>2457819
Well, my point and metaphor remain.

But the game was successful enough in spite of that, so people were willing to deal with it.

A game's aging depends entirely on how well presented it was. Yes, gamers' sensibilities may change within a generation, but the fundamentals are still there. It all depends on what the game's selling point back then was. A game rich with gameplay, mechanics and story will age well. A Link to the Past and Ocarina of Time are just as playable now as they were then, and new generations of fans can readily pick them up without a complaint.

On the other hand, some games' lose their appeal because the style went out of vogue, especially those bolstered by strong marketing. FMV games were, with minor exception, little more than low grade movies dressed up in trend, so save for seeking (un)intentional humor, gamers have 0 motivation to ever revisit them. Other games selling points were their graphics. Kenji Eno's D series comes to mind. While the last installment wasn't horrible, D was painful to play. Not only are the graphics dated, the game itself features the tired point-and-click mechanics everyone's accustomed to.

Games based on a pop culture fad or tie in tend to age the worst. This is especially true of the 4th and 5th gen - a game like Rap Jam is almost comical today.

80s computer RPGs like Ultima...god, I wouldn't wish those things on anyone. Nobody alive today has the patience to play through a whole game of Wizardry. Stuff like the NES standards (SMB, Zelda, Mega Man, etc) are as good today as they were when they were new.

I love Day of the Tentacle but dear god is it ever dated. Monkey Island is still awesome though.

>>2458328
>80s computer RPGs like Ultima...god, I wouldn't wish those things on anyone. Nobody alive today has the patience to play through a whole game of Wizardry.
I will smack you with a stack of graph paper

>>2458332
Ok, adventure games. Let's talk about Sierra ones. King's Quest doesn't feel as dated because of the abstract fantasy setting, even though the series does reflect certain aspects of the 80s. Leisure Suit Larry is more dated because it takes place (presumably) in the year the games were released. So you have a lot of dated technology references in them and other things.

>>2458328
Most shitty NES games are shovelware like Hi Tech Expressions shit that's a licensing tie-in to some late 80s-early 90s movie or TV show so those have dated badly. I mean, not all of them are bad, but games like The Goonies assume you saw the movie first.

Games like Myst which were just glorified multimedia demos (remember when the word "multimedia" was cool?)

Lot of old strategy games are dated because (at least 80s stuff) takes place in a Cold War setting.

>>2458349
Myst actually had some good puzzles though.

Which you had to solve through logic and just problem solving rather than trying to figure out which item to use with which prompt on which pixel on the screen.

>>2456752
>Wizardry clones are still going pretty strong
Mostly because the Japanese are massively autistic and worship Wizardry - Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest exist in the first place because some nip saw Wizardry running on an Apple II or something and decided "Hey, I can do that..."

>>2454371
Games can be received differently based on other experience with games, which changes with the times. These experiences can make certain older games appear better or worse.

For instance, a game that aimed for realistic graphics in its time can age poorly because of the much higher bar established, or it can age well with a unique artstyle. Gameplay-wise, a game can age poorly if its core mechanics have been repeated and refined in later games, or age well if it's from a neglected genre.

It's kinda like how books and movies that pioneered genre conventions can seem trite to people used to their influence through later works.

>>2459476
Books that pioneer genres remain good long after the genre is established. So no.

Because the medium excells at interactivity I'd say It primarily depends on how your own expectations and taste develop over time. On your established over time view of the hobby too. The objective parameters are there and should be taken into consideration, but they take a backseat to the former..

>>2455630
Don't confuse what a character can do in a cutscene with actual gameplay, otherwise code Veronica would have been as stylish as DMC.

The original tomb raider games were an attempt at bringing prince of Persia's mechanics to a 3 environment. Resident evil's controls were following the standards set PC games like alone in the dark. The controls are supposed to make the game harder in RE. The controls in tomb raider are almost like a puzzle.

>>2458357
I think the traditional JRPGs such as Final Fantasy were actually more influenced by Ultima IV

Why is it that this is a discussion here and not in /tv/?

Why is it that they can accept that their media has dated aspects that cause shows/films to age like milk?

>>2454371
I'm fine with people claiming a game hasn't "aged" well if they actually bring up reasons for why they think so which sadly isn't the case most of the time. Usually whenever I see someone using aging as an argument it's just someone who wants to shit on a game that used to be popular.

>>2459625
>Why is it that this is a discussion here and not in /tv/?

Have you been to /tv/ in the past three years? It's probably one of the worst boards on this site now excluding /b/.

>>2459703
That was a rhetorical question. Any kind of medium ages as more things come out that do what previous things did better, why is it only an issue in video games.

>>2459625
>>2459704
Are you retarded? Great old movies are still just as great as ever. Art media isn't linear like technology.

>>2459709
So Mario 64 wouldn't be better with a more modern camera system?

Silent movies wouldn't be better if they had been made with sound?

Black and white movies wouldn't be better if they were in color?

>>2459731
>So Mario 64 wouldn't be better with a more modern camera system?
That would imply that Mario 64 is perfect. What would a "modern" camera system do differently? Fact is, it was just badly designed even in its time. Games that were made in the same year like Nights in Dreams, Virtual On and hell even Tomb Raider have superior camera systems. There's also a plethora of games made around the same that have better camera systems, like Ocarina of Time.

>Silent movies wouldn't be better if they had been made with sound?
No, they'd be a different movie. A lack of sound isn't a flaw, it's a style of film. These films are created to best suit their medium. In fact, there were people who vastly enjoyed silent films compared to talkies even when they first came out.

>Black and white movies wouldn't be better if they were in color?
No, they wouldn't. The cinematography used wouldn't work if they were in color. And you're honestly trying to assert that film noir would look better in color? There was a massive backlash in the 90s when they tried to colorize older films because it actually ruins them.

Use your brain and stop talking about subjects which you obviously have no idea about. Shit, when's the last time you watched a silent film?

>>2459731
>Silent movies wouldn't be better if they had been made with sound?
Go watch DW Griffith's 1916 epic Intolerance and you tell me if it'd be better with sound.

>Black and white movies wouldn't be better if they were in color?
Are you for real?

>>2459746
And oh, here's a smug image to illustrate how stupid I think you are. I bet you even think older cartoons are inherently worse than newer ones because you are that much of an unthinking clod.

>>2459746
>>2459751
IF THEY WERE MADE TO USE THOSE THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WORKING WITHIN YOUR LIMITATIONS AND USING YOUR LIMITATIONS TO YOUR ADVANTAGE. MOST PEOPLE WERE DOING THE LATTER.

>>2459760
>IF THEY WERE MADE TO USE THOSE THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.
No they wouldn't. You're a colossal moron.

>B-B-B-B-BUT THE MONA LISA WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER IN PHOTOSHOP!!!!11

>>2459709
>Art media isn't linear like technology.
By trying to sound clever you only showed you're not.

>>2454371
It is an extremely stupid thing to say. It is not that the game aged. It is that people's tastes change. What they might have tolerated in the past might not be what they tolerate now in a game. What is stupid about saying a game aged is that a person is deflecting all blame for THEIR TASTES changing on to the game. As if it is somehow the game's fault.

>>2459823
By shitposting you only showed that your posts are shit.

>>2459545
>Don't confuse what a character can do in a cutscene with actual gameplay
Lara Croft had her own gym hall and did various special moves that clearly indicated she was supposed to be quite agile.

>The controls are supposed to make the game harder in RE
No question there. As a nasty side effect though, they pull me out of the game, enough that I don't want to play with them.

>The controls in tomb raider are almost like a puzzle.
Just the result of lack of camera control. And at the time current assumptions that 3D needs to be controlled in character space.

>>2454761
Damn, really? I'm almost 24 and I feel like I'm a better player now than I ever have been. Sure, I don't have endless hours to become machine perfect like I had in middle school, but I find that my general ability to play stuff has increased significantly, specifically in the last 6 months. I don't know what caused it, maybe my stricter adherence to old hard games. Either way, I'm enjoying it.

>>2454942
>smash bros

Which games, and what rules? That changes things a lot for smash.

An analogy that I like is this: Traditional fighters are like classical music. In every fight there is a certain structure which can be understood and a logical conclusion of sorts that can be seen before the ending (more clearly if you're more skilled/familiar with it). Smash Bros. is better compared to a jazz performance. You sort of know what to expect going in, but you never quite know where it's going to end up until you get there.

>>2455221
that's an interesting point, I never really think about how online-era games age because they're still so very young.

>>2460717
That's the worst and most inaccurate analogy I have ever heard. Smash bros is just a really shitty pseudo fighter where whoever can spam the most inputs will probably win.

If a game relies on having a "brand new" concept to it without much sustenance, sure.

Most games fall into one of two camps:

1. Hated since release (See: Shovelware)

2. Loved since release (See: OoT)

The latter can be split into two more categories:

2.1. Ages well (See: OoT)
2.2. Doesn't age well

2.2 is defined by games that were original upon release and had appeal for people who had never seen game concepts used in a specific way before, but those concepts have since been exploited in new and more interesting ways, which takes the original interest away.

This isn't really a fault of the game itself. If you rely on something being new for the game to be good, then it'll fail once it's not new anymore. If you leave something there to enjoy beyond the new factor, then the game will age well.

>>2461094
English isn't your first language and your post is nonsensical/has no basis in reality.

>>2461101
Alrighty then, check basically every other media industry ever and see that this takes place everywhere.

You have shit that's shit from the start, shit that's loved for awhile but doesn't age well because it quits being new and original, and shit that's always adored because it doesn't rely on new gimmicks to be enjoyable.

>>2461112
>shit that's loved for awhile but doesn't age well because it quits being new and original
This doesn't happen. Also those are all opinions and have nothing to do with aging.

>>2461119
>This doesn't happen

What the fuck are you saying? Of course it does.

Look at Blaire Witch Project. People liked it when it came out because Found Footage hadn't been done before in that way. But then other people used the same technique but better and in more creative ways. Same movie, but now that audiences have been exposed to better techniques, they don't like the original as much.

>>2461134
Prove it.

>>2461167
Do you still think that baby food is the best tasting meal you've ever had?

>>2461169
>implying babies think it's the best tasting thing
Your argument just gets weaker by the post.

>>2461175
That's a decent example of my argument. Not me there, but it lends truth to it.

Baby food was perfectly fine when you were a baby. But now that you're exposed to other shit, you'd probably never eat baby food again.

>>2461180
>Not me there
Sure, buddy.
>Baby food was perfectly fine when you were a baby
No it wasn't. Anyway, it's literally just mashed up vegetables and fruit. You're still retarded.

>>2461175
And yeah, I should have clarified that I'm not the one you replied to.

My personal opinion is that, as I kinda implied in some tl;dr post toward the beginning of the thread, is that games that "age poorly" or whatever can sometimes be something that relied too much on something that was flashy and new. People didn't know the better use of said flashy thing and became enamored with it, thus being blinded to the averageness (or even poor quality) of the thing. As time goes on, the highest draw of the thing has become outdated. The thing is now forced to rely upon itself as it is, as a whole product, and not just upon a once flashy gimmick. I guess you could say I think of it as the gaming equivalent of "looks fade." If a game is well-made overall, it will still seem good many years into the future because it was always good and not just a turd propped up on a fad, a gimmick, or something that was simply new.

>>2461184
Why would I lie about my identity for one post and make that the post I defend. Goddamn.

And steak and hamburger are made of the same type of meat but prepared differently. Go back to downy school.

>>2461180
>Baby food was perfectly fine when you were a baby. But now that you're exposed to other shit, you'd probably never eat baby food again.

Nice fallacy. This does not apply to the argument.

>>2461228
K.

Explain how that's fallacious and I'll leave you alone.

This is shit you see in every fucking media form, bar none. You do something new and cool, people appreciate it. But if your whole success is on doing something no one had seen before, then you'll fail.

Let's say I go and make a game that has dragons. First game to have dragons. People fuckin love it because dragons. They've never seen dragons in a video game. They have no basis of comparing my dragons with others.

A year or two rolls around, other devs see that gamers like dragons. So they make dragons better. They put better textures on them, give them more functions, etc.

Since my game's pivotal function is having dragons and has no other redeeming value, people start to hate the dragons in my game. Yeah they were innovative at the time, but people have found much better ways to do them, so my ways seem old. It could be absolute shit AI with them that looked impressive at the time, it could be some other bullshit.

The important part is that I made a game that solely relies on me doing something that no one else had done before. And that was it. I didn't focus on making the game good in any other way, other than including new shit. Everything else was cookie cutter. How can you sit here and say that my game will age as well as one where the developers took the time to make their game stand out by planning out every detail as best they could and putting in new elements that were well thought out and didn't solely rely on the new factor?

The only things that changes over time with games are:

-Graphics
-Expectations

So, when going back to older games, SOME people might take contemporary standards and project them back -- say, "I don't remember the game being this bad [graphically]."

But, I don't think games age well or bad. A game still is what it was; it's not like wine, where the chemical composition actually changes over time.

I think it'd be more apt to say "This game isn't as good as I remembered it" when someone says it's aged poorly, rather than that it's actually changed.

In the beginning games were made by gamers for gamers.
The people that played them were the same one who made them: geeks and freaks.

Now it's cool and everybody does it.
Save anywhere instead of limited chdckpoints, gps automaps in a medievil fantasy setting, even when your inventory lacks a compass. All in the interest of saving time for normies who are only playing to kill time to go do foo with fah.

Since normies outnumber the geeks and freaks, game co's cater to the masses for more $$$ and the ppl who Are gaming no have to sift through dime a dozen eyecandy games to find a Real Game.

What's happened to games would be like if the geeks and freaks were the majority and made the NBA lower the goal and shorten the distance of the free throw just so they can play ball too.

Fuck you normies.
You've ruined my hobby because you were too much of a bitch to gid good.

This is Our court, playa and filthy casuals got no game here.

>>2459760
>IF THEY WERE MADE TO USE THOSE THINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER.

Then they wouldn't even be those same things anymore. Silent movies used a totally different form of acting and storytelling than ones with sound so you'd pretty much have to change everything from the ground up to accommodate for that.

>>2461134
>Look at Blaire Witch Project. People liked it when it came out because Found Footage hadn't been done before in that way.
It wasn't the first found footage horror movie. It caught on largely because the marketing made it out to be completely real.

>But then other people used the same technique but better and in more creative ways.
Yeah, no. Other movies tried to copy BW in the wake of its success, but there was no way to make the trick work twice, since everybody already knew of BW.

Found footage apparently made a comeback with the rise of cheap digital effects/ video editing and the new ubiquity of video recording. Maybe other reasons. At any rate, generic teen slash gore, presented clearly as fiction and filmed through le spooky filter, is by no means as creative as what BW did.

>Same movie, but now that audiences have been exposed to better techniques, they don't like the original as much.
BW was a divisive movie at the time. That said, millennial filth don't like anything over ten years old anyway.

This is a uniquely terrible example to use, incidentally: BW was made with dated technology, minimal technique, and totally standard plot ideas.

>>2454740
NES Metroid being more atmospheric and challenging is subjective however. Personally, I don't think any game will get as close as to being as atmospheric as Super Metroid due to the diverse color pallete.

I think games can age if you have things to compare them to, but I also don't view aging as a "better or worse" thing exclusive since context is important. I think a lot of folk agrees that, on a fundamental gameplay level, Sonic 1 and Megaman 1 are wholly outclassed by direct successors, and you could say those games aged badly.

>>2461297
You can't deny that this is a trend, though, regardless of whether this specific example is bad. Just fucking logic through it, damn.

>>2461359
You're not using logic whatsoever.

>>2454757

First of all:
>GTA
>shooter

Yeah, OK...

Also, my generalizations really DO cover 90% of modern gamers AND modern games. They may be mainstream casual scum, but they're still most of the market. Sorry.

And look at GTA San Andreas' level of customization, options, variety in it's missions, ect. Then play GTAV, and tell me it's better in any way other than the additions of heists (which it underused) and graphically. Oh, and all the shit that they didn't bother doing again, because it would have taken effort. THAT'S what the fuck I'm talking about.

I'm not talking about the handful of genres that have actually improved over the years. I'm purposefully talking about all the genres that are all now action shooters. Survival horror, "stealth", "RPG", Action/Adventure, even vehicular combat and more. They're ALL just generic FPS or TPS games now. Or follow the formulas so closely that they may as well be. Hell, look at FFXIII. It's fucking "call of duty: swords edition" from a design stand point for fuck sakes.

Stop getting butt ravaged because you don't agree with me because you play some of the only decent modern games. Look around you and realize that I'm right about most of the fucking market.

>>2454371
In general, I just can't play most NES era games, and before, any more. Most SNES+ era games I can play fine usually. Not sure why, probably because games where just better quality over all.

Computer games are more of a mixed bag, but 1996+ games seem better overall to me than those before.

There are certain games that do seems to be worse as time goes on for me, but I rarely see games getting better with time.

>>2461363
How not?

Let's break it down like this:

This is a bucket>\_/

That bucket represents everything good about a game.

If the bucket is filled with new, like this: \new/

Then everything is OK.

But once the game stops being new, then look at what the bucket looks like \_/

It's empty.

Nothing good left once the newness is gone.

>>2461348
I'm not too sure I follow your argument here anon. But from my stand point, if it's good, it's good. Period. Context and popular opinion don't really factor into anything at all. Neither does time.

Look at it like this, Megaman 1 is outclassed by Megaman 4 in every way. Right?
Oh yeah, except that they have almost entirely the same gameplay, Megaman 4's new gameplay elements can actually be ignored entirely and Megaman 1's levels and boss weapons are better in many peoples' opinions.
So your whole argument falls apart right there.

You can make any argument you want seem valid if you say things like: "well, opinions and context, anon"

Try thinking about why you actually feel the way that you do, make up your own mind, then post what you find here.
Give me an argument based on something more substantial than what you've already brought to the table.

Rather than "context" as a general statement, then a poor example, why not tell me a specific case where this is the blatant truth. And use an example of a game that people actually universally think isn't that great.

Here's an example:

Syphon filter was cutting edge when it came out, and had all the best gameplay.
Modern TPS games (IDK any by name, lol...) have better gameplay because they're smoother, more responsive, have better level layouts, more MP options, ect.
THAT'S what I'm looking for. Not "Game X had a sequel, which had arguably better gameplay, so Game X arguably aged poorly"

Grow a set, form an opinion that MATTERS and come give it to me you little punk.

And FYI, I still say Syphon filter is fun as shit, and it's only "aged" if you're a faggot for that genre and focus entirely on standard gameplay elements.

>>2461368
> may be mainstream casual scum, but their still the majority. Sorry

Using that same logic:
(In some parts pf the world)
Xrace may be privelaged cause xrace, but their still a majority.
Sorry

Ie too bad little minority go feel sorry for yourself elsewhere.

Fuck normie scum.

We ain't killing your hobby stay the fuck out of ours begging for easymode.

Git gud or get out.
Play something you're good at instead of ruining it for the rest of us.

(If it were a sport there'd be not contest)

No principles.
Honorless dogs.

>>2461385
You're not using logic whatsoever. You are not breaking down the subject.

>>2461385
True classics are timeless.

>>2461402
This fact I'm not debating. The OP requested us to answer whether games aging was something that could happen with regard to their quality improving or degrading.

>>2461401
If you can't understand my argument from my previous posts, I highly doubt you ever will.

At its simplest:

OK game + good newcontent = good game

OK game + better newcontent > good game

newcontent+age & better implementations = 0

OK game + 0 = OK game.

I'm not explaining again, if you don't understand, use a better response that proves your point that my argument is bullshit.

>>2461394
>Xrace may be privelaged cause xrace, but their still a majority.SorryIe too bad little minority go feel sorry for yourself elsewhere
Not really getting this one, but let's say that a lot of white people are born rich, because their parents are rich and a lot of blacks are born poor for the same reason. So what? Either go earn some money, win it, marry into it, or go cry somewhere else. That's why the whitefags fucking did it.

>Fuck normie scum.
I'm really not following this one at all, lol. I'm assuming you're making fun of /v/?
Well it's THEIR board. Majority rules DO rule on message boards. So if you want to be a "normie" then you're going to get harassed to death.

>We ain't killing your hobby stay the fuck out of ours begging for easymode.
Your logic seems to be fairly broken, aono...
Anyway, if new people enter a hobby and make it harder or easier, but the newbies ARE the majority, then obviously the hobby is going to change to reflect their desires and preferences. That's what generates sales. Hell, that proves MY fucking point

>Git gud or get out.Play something you're good at instead of ruining it for the rest of us.
This is a problem why? Should people who are bad at a videogamne get to dictate to the rest of us how we should play it or what it should be like? No, they should go play something fucking else instead.
Should people who are bad at sports get paid millions to do so? Nope, sorry. Jesus, you're stupid...

>No principles.Honorless dogs.
Uh, huh...
People without principals ARE honorless in general. The "dogs" things is klinda harsh, but sure, we'll go with that.

My fucking point is that the mainstream portion of a medium REPRESENTS the medium. No matter what we're talking about. So modern games are TPS, FPS, sandbox and ect with fairly standard gameplay, graphical, level layout, design, concept and control elements. Fact. Sorry. Get fucked.

>>2461413
Those are all opinion based perceptions that are extremely generalized and use no real examples. Furthermore they do not assert that games get worse over time. Try again.

>>2461387
> thinking about why you actually feel the way you do

Not the anon you responded to, but I'm feeling a real lack of challenge in modern games.

Hell I never cleared Contra without The Code, never cleared Super Mario Bros. without the warps, never cleared past Bloody Malth in Ninja Gaiden without game genie, but you know what? I still emulate the hell outta those games for a challenge.
Even the NES game I cleared legit I emulate because they were challenging.

Clearing a level took skill that is lacking from games today that can be facerolled through with patience.

Even features of convenience like autosave can be overlooked if the game is legitimately challenging enough without resorting to a sliding difficulty.

Sliding difficulty really kills it because then you never know just how hard the devs Really wanted the game to be.

There's a kind of Zen to games, like in archery or golf where you play against yourself. You also play against the devs too, to some extent.

Adjustable difficulty and saveanywhere/autosave can really take from that.
Not to mention automaps when your in game character lacks any and all tools to realistically acount for one.

Permadeath has to handled carefully.
It's just that many (in-game) features of convenience in today's games strip out a level of experience that mimics life.

Primarily, meet the game on x terms. If not, die trying or admit defeat and move on.

Life is just like that: do this or die trying or admit defeat and move on.
Makes life really really entertaining at times.

Games used to do this too, but now all it takes is whiney casual masses during beta or alpha and the game becomes a cakewalk.

>>2454375
Thread should have ended here. It's obvious that once you play a better game the game you previously thought was the best no longer is. It only doesn't work like that for people with short term memory loss or the incapacity to properly criticize things.

>>2461415
The mainstream wouldn't Have the medium without the gamers who made it popular.

Now the mainstream is breaking it and joining in on saying which games suck while their suckitudeness at gaming is a big part of why they suck.

>>2461442
The best game ever was released in 1999 you fucking faggot.

>>2461415
Appaemtly I'm not in complete disagreement with you.

The comment on casuls being majority dealwithit kinda russled some jimmies.

I was a gamer before games were in.
Been told dealwithit too damn many times to dealwithit on this too.

Fuck casuals.

Still blaming casuls for state of games today. Only living an alternate timeline could convince me otherwise.

Basically it's like this.

Nerds had the final say in what makes a good game back when they caught on.

Everbody else, normies and casul alike need to back the fuk off and let nerds have the final say again so we can play some good damn games again.

Nerds gave you pcs and smartphones and when games caught fire nerds were on charge.

Back the hell off and let us nerds get back to making some good damn games like the ones that lit the indistry in the first place.
We know what the fuck were doing.

>2461501
Even if we can't spell sometimes like me, but imma gamer not a english teacher and typing on a 2x4 screen with no auto correct ain't as easy as it looks.

>>2461462
What was it you fucking whore?

>>2456797
>le Perlman line

>plebein

>>2461416
>Furthermore they do not assert that games get worse over time
If that's the argument you really think I'm trying to make, you need to offload a few chromosomes.

>>2461594
I've been pretty patient with you, but it's irrefutable at this point that you're just a moronic shitposter.
>>>/v/

>>2461601
Goddamn you sound like a euphoric piece of shit.

>>>/reddit/

>>2461601
>>2461618
The awesome thing is that you're both right about each other.

>>2454761
I'm 22 and I feel like my reflexes aren't nearly as fast as when I was 16. I can't play games for more than a couple of hours in a row, while I used to play games all day and night. Maybe I'm just not having as much fun as I used to, I don't know.

>>2462117
I feel the same way man. It's like I can't have fun anymore. It's not exhilarating anymore.

>>2455664
>>It served a gameplay purpose
>And it kills the expectations of the player. Gameplay does not exist in isolation. If there's a disconnect between what the player considers "common sense", and what the character does, it becomes a frustrating exercise.


The expectations of the player should be killed more often in games. That's part of what makes it a game. Break their expectations and test if they can learn how to interact with what they are given.

When a person first encounters chess they have basic expectations because they have never played it and may have heard things about it. They are given the rules and then they play. They have very little experience and things may go against how they think it should. Some people will pick up how to play better and adapt to the rules then succeed, some will do really well and become champions, and some will quit after the first game because they don't want to think to much.

It's the same general concept. The movement system and controls are the rules. The player either figures out how to work with them and the limitations presented or they fail. The notion that games have aged based on a control aspect is partially because modern games cater to the last player of my chess example to keep them playing while earlier games more often appealed to the first and possibly second chess player.

>>2462682
>Break their expectations and test if they can learn how to interact with what they are given
Fuck with the interface and I won't have interest to learn how to bend myself to its rules, as they seem arbitrary and meanspirited. Provide rules as a solid abstraction, and you have something interesting at hand.

>some will quit after the first game because they don't want to think to much
I strongly disagree with the implications of this statement, in respect to RE. Jumping through hoops has nothing to do with wanting to think. I'm very willing to play odd abstract puzzles, and physics games and whatever. However, I also have a personal interest in interfaces, and the moment I sense that something is simply bad interface design, it's over for me. I'm just not willing to deal with arbitrary mapping issues. There are too many good games to play, for me to waste time on the ones that have issues finding themselves. In the case of RE, I firmly believe the controls have very little to do with intentional gameplay. They're a limitation of a static camera and a single digital d-pad as directional input. The encounters in the game account for the issue, but that's just because the level designers knew what they were doing. They shaped the levels to work with the controls, not the other way round.

>The movement system and controls are the rules
And if they happen to closely mirror reality, like in RE, that comes with expectations. If they clash, it needs to be resolved. If it is a reasonable approximation, it can be chalked up as rules, and worked with. In the case of RE though it has the unfortunate side effect that it does not look like a rule but an actual limit of the controls. You can work with it, but you're forever reminded that it's just the controls getting in the way.

>The notion that games have aged based on a control aspect is partially because
And partially because developers learnt better how to control 3D motions with fundamentally 2D controllers.

they don't get worse so much as you play games that do what they tried better and you realize they were never that good to begin with.

>>2454371
The games are too easy. If they are too easy they must have some other redeeming quality like a new story or interactive environment. There must be some kind of balance of waiting to see whats next and not knowing if you can complete the level.

...I've felt like quitting games before. The only games that really knocked it out of the park were MGS4 (and even then it was kind of the same), and RE5. I think its more exciting to find a game thats 15 years old and is still fun though, and thats the only thing keeping me playing.

>>2461549
Probably Unreal Tournament.