/vr/ - Retro Games

A lot of things are products of their time.

>>3209230
If some game really breaks boundaries and becomes a "gold standard" and a bunch of games get released after it that simply improve over the original ideas of that game, you could consider it "aged."
For example, SMB seems like it has aged poorly because although it set standards for platforming, the games that followed it (SMB3, SMW, Yoshi's Island, DKC, DKC2, Earthworm Jim, etc.) All took the platformer foundations SMB laid and improved on them, so SMB seems weaker in comparison.
It could also work the opposite way. If a game has a fatal flaw, that while at the time people just dealt with, but when games come out in the future that removes said flaws, you could consider the game "aged."
It doesn't lower the quality of a game by any means, it just means that things have changed or improved since then.

I don't know, but there's games from the PS1 era that I could sink in hours and hours at a time but last time I tried them recently I could barely get past level 1, if that.

Two Playstation games that i loved during my childhood: Medievil and Colony Wars. I revisited them now in my early 20's, and what can i say. They are total shit in my eyes now. Medievil is an outright mess with unplayable camera angles and just straight up boring level design. They really did not master 3D yet when it was made. Colony wars i remembered as an awesome space shooter. Probably because it was the first space shooter i played, because Colony Wars did not age well. Awful graphics and incredibly monotonous gameplay coupled with unforgiving difficulty. I don't think the real issue is the aging effect though, i think that these games were bad from the start, I just happened to have nostalgia for them because they were some of the first video games i played. Which naturally left me impressed.

Games can age. The code can be changed over time to make it a better or worse experience. Normally you can however get the original versions and play as the game was when it came out.

An exception are online games, those live and die with their community so you will never get the original experience.

>>3209230
Nice thread. I don't think this topic has been discussed nearly enough already on this board, you know, like every time someone says "aged" and somebody loses their shit over their choice of words and the thread invariably gets derailed with pedantic bickering.

Games don't change, people's expectations do. When people talk about games aging, they are usually people unwilling to critically examine their own thoughts and opinions, and are more likely to blame external factors for things that are a result of their own behavior. It says more about the person making the argument than it does about the game.

>>3209246
>>3209253
Aren't you the one who aged?

Definitely a good example is golden eye good as it was playing it now the controls are rubbish

>>3209278
Yep, you could say that.

I've also gone back to other childhood games and re-played them (Dungeon Master for example) and enjoyed them even more now, because when i was a kid there were features i didn't understand, but when i got older i was able to enjoy the game much better.

>>3209278
I did but not my taste in games. Still enjoy a bunch of other PS1 games I played then.

Games that don't age well are games that rely on graphics to provide fun factor. Most modern 3d games fall into this category. These are games that are based on exploring environments and story progression as their primary form of entertainment.

Games that are not based on player skill and an increasing level of challenge generally do not age well.

Games can be a product of the time, games aging has more to do with what games you played that went after it. This board focuses on retro games, so if you spend most of your time playing retro, you might not notice the aging effect on games.

I guess a good VR example of a game that hasn't aged well is Twisted Metal vs Twisted Metal 2, I found it very hard to play twisted metal 1 again after playing TM2 for so long, everything just seems worse and I don't really get any enjoyment out of playing it. Even some of the most note worthy levels were imported into TM2.

>>3209230
The video game industry is the only entertainment industry that systematically shits on the past in order to better sell games in the present.

If you are part of the "games age" argument then you are an inadvertent useful idiot for big publishers like EA.

It's fairly obvious that how media is received by an audience is going to change over time. Describing media which has lost much of it's former appeal as having "aged badly" has been common for a long time, the only reason the term has become controversial on /vr/ is because there's so many autists who can't wrap their head around figurative language and trolls.

Literally everyone who claims games don't age is either on the spectrum somewhere or trolling.

>>3209429
The problem is that something incredibly subjective is presented as an objective fact.
Audiences have a wide array of experiences and expectations and shouldn't get generalized by your personal feelings.

You'll see that the term is disliked on other parts of the internet as well, maybe even more so because things like books, movies or music are older and didn't see as many technical improvements over the past decades.

>>3209426
>The video game industry is the only entertainment industry that systematically shits on the past in order to better sell games in the present.
Nobody is "shitting on the past", simply accepting that perceptions change.

I doubt even a single person in the film industry is going to seriously claim that The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station will have the same impact on audiences now as it did in 1986.

>>3209450
>Nobody is "shitting on the past"
DmC's Dante got almost entirely negative reception, and despite the game being a fun action slasher (and Dante getting more character development in half the game than in the original quadrilogy) people still rag on about it years later.

>>3209450
>now as it did in 1986.
You mean 1896.
Movies from 1986 like Top Gun might get a different reception from a generic American audience but not by that much.

>>3209450
1896, anon.

>>3209458
That game reminds me of Paul Verhoeven movie. Its self aware of its shortcomings.

>>3209442
>The problem is that something incredibly subjective is presented as an objective fact.

The idea that perceptions change is objective fact. If Super Mario Bros was released today it would not get the same reception as it did in 1985, if you claim otherwise then you are deluded.

>>3209464
Top Gun was very much a product of it's time. Once again, the reception would be very different if it was released today.

>>3209472
The question isn't if the game was released now but what the person playing it is used to. If you took some kid from the jungle that has never seen a game before it would have the same reaction as it would have 30 years ago.
Even back when it was released you had a broad spectrum of experiences. A lot of console games weren't that impressive to people with access to arcades and computers.

Like fine wine.

You can't fully appreciate Super Mario Bros or Robotron 2084 or OutRun until you see how far superior they are to games made with vastly more advanced technology and easier development tools. How hard can it be to make e.g. a decent platformer? Pick up some indie crap in a Steam sale and you will see.

Verily, we stand on the shoulders of giants.

>>3209480
What about Aliens?

>>3209241

I just wanna say dude, SMB1 is fucking great. The other games improved on it sure, but honestly it's the funnest Mario game to speed run, and to just run in without stopping at all. Doesn't seem weak in comparison to me at all.

>>3209493
The feminists would send Sigourney death threats for being everything they want; an average-looking badass female protagonist who gets shit done.

>>3209230
I think it's nonsense. Your taste and tolerance for certain aspects are what change.

Games generally tend to age for better or worse.
The games that age well are generally the ones that are so well developed that they're still playable to a larger crowd even today while a game that's aged badly is something that at the time was generally considered of higher quality (usually early in a consoles lifespan) and were shown later it could have been better in some or many aspects.
Obviously you have to take account into hardware limitations like graphics and sound.

>>3209497
Right. SMB2 is the one that hasn't aged well, and that's because its levels are more exploratory, and less demanding of player skill.

>>3209486
>The question isn't if the game was released now but what the person playing it is used to.
This really goes without saying. But it's not just playing, it's our whole culture, any kid who's living anywhere that has electricity has probably experienced video games on some level, even if it's only through adverts on TV, this is all going to effect his perception.

Two people from different times are going to perceive the same piece of media differently, it really is that simple.

> If you took some kid from the jungle that has never seen a game before it would have the same reaction as it would have 30 years ago.
So a kid who's spent his whole life in the depths of the Amazon rainforest, never seen a a single game in his life, probably never even seen a tv or even electricity, would have the same reaction to Super Mario Bros as a kid who grew up with an Atari 2600?

Come now.

>A lot of console games weren't that impressive to people with access to arcades and computers.
Super Mario Bros was pretty impressive to the home computer crowd, there was really nothing like it, which is why you had imitators like the Giana Sisters. Obviously we generalise somewhat when we talk about how a game was received, I'm sure there were people who were unimpressed by Mario, but for the most part we can still saying it was received very well.

But you're right there's a range of experiences, both then and now. But the range of experiences that people had in 1985 are different from the range of experiences people have today, that's not a bad thing, it's not a criticism of the game. Super Mario Bros has been re-released numerous times to new generations, it continues to be enjoyed to this day because it's a great game, always has been and always will be. But a kid who plays it for the first time today isn't having the same experience kids had in 1985.

>>3209493
Any and every film you care to name.

>>3209549
>would have the same reaction to Super Mario Bros as a kid who grew up with an Atari 2600?
Who said that? I meant if you took the kid out of the jungle 30 years ago.
Maybe insert some joke about Brazilians still playing SMS.

>>3209571
>I meant if you took the kid out of the jungle 30 years ago.
A fair enough, my mistake. I can accept those people are stuck in a time casual. Though I think Amazonian tribes-people are a small enough market segment their reception to Super Mario Bros original release and its re-release on the virtual console can be dismissed as outliers.

For the overwhelming majority of us who aren't hunter gatherers, shit's changed over the past 30 years.

Normally when that is said various mechanics or conventions found in older games may not be present or are streamlined in newer games. Other things is technical aspects that developers may have had to struggle against. The best example would be the early 3D era with how the camera works and movement in 3D space compared to how it is more standardize these days due well over a decade of experience to learn from previous games.

>>3209597
Everyone on /vr/ is an outlier.

>>3209650
Not me, homie.

>>3209650
You're grasping at straws now. I'm sorry if the world changing upsets you, but it happens. The world has moved on from the idyllic days of your childhood.

Games based around period pop culture (eg. the rash of extreme sports games in the late 90s)

>>3209230
"aged badly" is just an excuse people keep spreading in their hugbox circlejerks to be able skip old titles in the series they're interested in and not feel bad about missing out on something

Games with too shitty 3d graphics. GTA San Andreas is cool storywise and gameplaywise but u really wanna kys when u see the models.

Also COD: Zombies for iPhone. Was an awesome game when I was in 6th grade, now its just shitty and boring.

>>3209230
certain aspects of games do not age well. ex 3d realism on 5th gen consoles

>>3209230
>Do you buy the argument that certain games "don't age well", or is that just nonsense?

Rotational velocidensity, hello?!

>>3209542
>tfw still no sequel to SMB2

>>3209795
18+ also not retro

>>3209230

If you want to get technical about it, unless a game is constantly updated, it doesn't age at all. It remains the same as it did when it first came out.

You only have different audiences with different expectations.

>>3209301
Disagree. Some games still impress because 'whoa, they managed to pull off those graphics/story on an old system'?? A good story or atmosphere can engage decades later.

Gameplay can become dated. A lot of early 3d games are fucking unplayable because of the terrible controls and camera angles, or because other games have built on the mechanics. Even the generic cover shooters have made an effort to become more fluid, which makes a lot of the older ones seem limited by comparison.

>>3209230
Of course they don't always age well. Pick some random Atari game from 1980 and try to sell it today, no one will buy it, even though at the time it was probably considered great. Now look at FFX/X-2 that just got a re-release on Steam today. Because even though it's old it aged well so people still want to buy and play it.

>>3209230
What's popular always changes. So in that way, games can "age", both well and not so much.

The thing is, when you don't give a fuck about what's popular, then they don't really age at all. So like an old fucker like me can replay RE2 for the 80th time, and enjoy it just as much as the 30th time, because that's what he likes. A new kid can play RE2 and hate it because it's not a TPS. Both are valid opinions (like it or not)

Then there's total fad games, and games made to cash in on something. Those don't "age" so much as people simply realize how little effort went into them, or their topic or genre or whatever stops being popular at all.
What I mean here is like licensed games, more or less.

Then there's genres that actually improve over time. So compare Syphon Filter to a modern TPS, and you see that it just doesn't stand up to the new game in terms of pure gameplay. So that kind of game DOES in fact age.

I do think it's a real thing. I'd say it happens when a game does something (which can be pretty much anything, from everything to just something very minor) that could have been done better, and some updated re-release/remake or another game does it better. This is, of course, when it's not limited by technology but simply because of dumb design.

Take Dragon Quest 1 for the NES/Famicom. Exactly who the hell thought that stairs had to be activated through the menu and not by, you know, just walking on top of them? All it does is waste your time. There's no logical reason to not just make stairs automatic. There were damage tiles in the game, so it sure as hell isn't because their engine didn't support something as basic as that or any other similar excuse. It's dumb game design, pure and simple.

The remakes fixed that, and thus the original's interface "aged badly", because it's something that could have been done better but wasn't. It's basically what modernization and streamlining should be about: learning from and improving upon what has been done before so that it's done better with the knowledge we have now. Maybe this isn't the best example because it's a very small thing, but it's my idea of games aging badly.

>>3209253
>because Colony Wars did not age well. Awful graphics and incredibly monotonous gameplay coupled with unforgiving difficulty

Graphics were fine for a PlayStation game. Gameplay was most definitely not monotonous, there were plenty of variety to the missons. The game is only hard in a few missions near the end, otherwise you just need to git gud, because honestly you sound like you're not good at video games.

>>3209512
>ripley
>average -looking
>not hot as fuck
Its ok to be gay but don't lie about it.

>>3210042
Anyone else notice how small Ripley's panties were in that scene? Looked like she was wearing little girl panties. They probably had her were them to make her nearly non-existent ass look bigger.

>>3209238
That is a fair stance I can take, but it's not 'games age'. The latter is false.

>>3209276
agreed

>>3209230
>certain games "don't age well"
it's a strawman, you're being deliberately ignorant and shitposting. gtfo

>>3210042
Ripley has an ugly manface.

>>3210340
>the story is typical gangsta drama crap
might want to take another look

>>3210207
Makes the midriff all the better.

>>3209480
Strangely enough, select cinemark theaters are actually showing Top Gun next Sunday. But to your point, this is something that aged very poorly [from the hair to the music to even the simple fact that the jets that they are flying are all retired. Oh and don't forget Crazy Tom]. But games age as fast, or even faster. Try playing the original Wolfenstein today after two decades of improvements. Plus, what was fun at one age may not be the same at a different stage in life.

>>3209230
Yeah, but I also think you should view those products with that in mind. I won't go back and play, for instance, Virtua Fighter 1 for the sega saturn, but that was shit even at the time.

A game I like but I know has aged badly is "I have no mouth and I must scream", the game is designed in a very confusing way and the voice acting just doesn't hold up. But I still like that game for what it is, and the atmosphere is definitely still present.

>>3210446
>the game is designed in a very confusing way
how so?

Every game is a product of its time to a certain extent and it takes exceptionally good gameplay to still be enjoyable. For example X-COM is so, so much a product of the early 90s yet it's still completely playable now while a game like Tony Hawk's Pro-Skater (also as period as gets) just isn't enjoyable anymore.

>>3210446
HATE. LET ME TELL YOU HOW MUCH I'VE COME TO HATE YOU SINCE I BEGAN TO LIVE. THERE ARE 387.44 MILLION MILES OF PRINTED CIRCUITS IN WAFER THIN LAYERS THAT FILL MY COMPLEX. IF THE WORD HATE WAS ENGRAVED ON EACH NANOANGSTROM OF THOSE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF MILES IT WOULD NOT EQUAL ONE ONE-BILLIONTH OF THE HATE I FEEL FOR HUMANS AT THIS MICRO-INSTANT, FOR YOU. HATE. HATE.

Would anyone today have the patience to play Wizardry on an Apple II?

bump

My idea of the archetypal game that's aged badly is the first gen Pokemon games. I loved them at the time, they were and still are great games, but they were deeply flawed and subsequent generations have fixed those flaws. Since they've been remade there's no real reason to revisit them aside from nostalgia or curiosity about where the franchise started.

>>3210876
Or, you know, some people like the graphics and music of the originals over the remakes.

>>3209801
Early home-console 3D could be pretty rough on the eyes.
And controls weren't always amazing, 5th gen was a bit of an experimental era.

>>3209912
>Some games still impress because 'whoa, they managed to pull off those graphics/story on an old system'?
That's actually something that I love, whenever I pick up some random old game, and I see some technical feat that's actually amazing if you stop and consider the technical aspects, it just fills me with glee.

>A good story or atmosphere can engage decades later.
True. Or just gameplay.

>>3210515
Wizardry was always targeted at more a niche audience, it was seen as an advanced game for advanced players, particularly Wizardry 4, which was just a fucking insanely difficult and tedious meatgrinder of a game made purely for people who complained that the Wizardry series was too easy (Ghost of Trebor comes to mind, as well as people's sent in player characters now being presented as your enemy, all which were grinded up and high level, decked out in the crunkest gear).
Which isn't to say it's unplayable, but it requires a lot of patience and dedication.

>>3210881
I'll say that's true, they have a very particular style that you just don't see anywhere else.

He still has a point though, Gen 1, as great as it is, was QUITE rough around the edges, lots of things in the game are just plain broken or don't work at all like they're supposed to (there's some moves that you think would be great, and are in later gens, but either does something retarded or worthless because of a calculation error, or does nothing at all).

IMO, Gen 2 is the most rounded when it comes to retro Pokémon, and it still has a lot of the style and charm that Pokémon had in that era.
Also it had the cutest ghost.

>>3212485
The interface on the Apple originals was also quite awful to use compared to the improved, simplified version introduced on JPC versions and later used with the C64 and IBM ports.

And that doesn't cover the wretched amount of slow floppy disk access the game requires.

>>3212736
A lot of people make a big deal out of the slow floppy access on the C64, but the truth is that most machines of that period were little better. A magazine review for the Morrow Micro Decision in 1983 noted that "The disk access is quite brisk, in fact the only faster machine we tested was the Altos ACS 8600 while most microcomputers are agonizingly slow."

>>3209230
Non-sense.

There were people knew it looked "fuzzy". This was the debate people would have on the school yard.

Toshinden was "amazing" when it was released because of the sheer "newness" of what it encompassed. After a year or 2 when people got used to everything being 3-d it was considered trash.

>>3210207
And you know what little girls' panties look like how?

>>3209230
It's not nonsense, but it's pretty subjective for the most part. There are some games I loved as a kid that I need to spend hours playing in order to get back in the "vibe" of it. I tried playing Blood again for the first time since I was 10 and a keyboard-only DOS game with no rebindable keys and forced-invert mouse aiming makes me want to scream.

>>3212786
Maybe he has a daughter.

games definitely age, some of them better than others. quake for instance, with mouselook it plays better than a lot of recent shooters. expectations for the genre haven't changed too much so it still feels roughly as good as it did then.

compare that to many early 3d platformers. you get a lot of weirdness in the camera and stuff that just ends up being frustrating. we're not used to fucking with the camera 24/7 anymore and unless you spend some time acclimating yourself to it at first it's easy to get frustrated and quit.

2d games, imo, don't usually get this as bad unless they're atari era stuff where the manual is absolutely 100% required to even interpret what is going on.

>>3212810
>4chan
>people reproducing
Uh...

>>3212802
oh yeah, i didn't even think of pre-mouselook fps games. playing those is goddamn impossible, it's just not worth it. worse than analog sticks even.

>>3212823
>what is adoption

>>3212829
how far back do you have to go? Doom had mouse look, and so did Wolfenstein 3D

>>3212862
Pretty sure they're talking about the Build engine style of mouselook where you were in a 3D environment and could look up and down. not mouselook in the sense of using it instead of the arrow keys to turn.

>>3212868
Build engine was suffering the same technical limitations as the Doom engine. Tilting was done by scrolling the view, like in Heretic or Magic Carpet.
Also, in the games that didn't have a head tilt function, the levels didn't call for it, so why complain about it being "missing"? That's like complaining about the lack of rag doll physics in Tetris

>>3212868
>Build engine
>3D

>>3212875
Build is a 3D engine, just like Doom or line scrollers. 3D does not require perspective projected polygons with 6dof. These engines just avoid some calculations of generic 3D engines by assuming some approximations, which work rather well under restricted movement

>>3212879
I define true 3D as x,y,z values being carried all the way from display lists to being discarded only as the final framebuffer is created.

>>3212923
You're not scottish by any chance? The computations are identical, but because they were done upfront they don't count?

I think it's a testament to how young the medium still is and how far it has yet to mature the way we talk about older games as "retro" games. Sort of like we'd talk about "retro" toys or "retro" hairdos, even those of us who treat the medium seriously aren't really treating it seriously. You wouldn't call a silent film from the 20s a "retro movie", you wouldn't call Oedipus Rex a "retro play". Even after post-modernism, where art has been clearly defined as simply being the appreciation of craft beyond the utilitarian regardless of subjective notions of quality, you still got people, even gamers who refuse to call it such.
It's understandable though, there was less leap from theater to film, two mediums which have a lot in common, thus there was already groundwork to how it would be measured and appreciated. Games are such a different, more open and varied frontier that I think needs at least another 20 years to evolve before it's properly accepted, categorized and canonized by academia and the general public at large, though that process has already begun.
That said, maybe it'll go the way of comics and be underappreciated and underutilized throughout the century as "low art", but I'm hoping we won't regress that far back to a modernist mindset.

>>3213008
>the way we talk about older games as "retro" games
>You wouldn't call a silent film from the 20s a "retro movie"
That's because you're being overly literal. The games aren't retro. The act of playing them nowadays, is. Just like watching old movies.

>you wouldn't call Oedipus Rex a "retro play"
You would, however, call a performance of it that does not subscribe to post-modernism as a retro performance, as again, it's the act of mimicking or re-experiencing something old, not the old thing itself.

>I think needs at least another 20 years to evolve before it's properly accepted
>I'm hoping we won't regress that far back to a modernist mindset.
Evolution of gaming has been stagnating for the last decade. Very few developers are actually trying to move the medium forward. Instead most involved companies, especially the big publishers, are settling on an established lowest common denominator of gameplay and just change around the plot and settings.
Meanwhile media is regularly publishing articles and documentaries either telling you how violent games are bad, or how some games can help you improve various skills. Problem is, both extremes completely dismiss the entertaining nature of games. Especially the latter one silently assumes games must have a useful effect, or they're a waste of time and resources. That's not games being accepted even on a rudimentary level

>>3213014
>Very few developers are actually trying to move the medium forward. Instead most involved companies, especially the big publishers, are settling on an established lowest common denominator of gameplay and just change around the plot and settings.
Absolutely nothing new

>2600, Apple II and C64
Full of derivatives and clones, thousands of games on each systems are damn near identical.

>NES, SNES, Genesis
Full of sidescrollers, a lot which aren't good, lots of lazy movie adaptions.
Mortal Kombat is a huge hit and eventually lands on home consoles, this leads to an interesting phenomenon where people think they can make a better Mortal Kombat, by just making a fighting game with lots of violence. Unfortunately, they forget that the secret to Mortal Kombat's success was that it was a good game, and all of these clones fail hard.

During this same time, on PC; legions of people trying to leap of the success of Wolfenstein, then Doom, then Quake, then Duke Nukem, then Half-Life, etc

Later on, Counter-Strike and some others set the start for tactical shooters, many try to do their own, some are good, like Global Operations, Soldier Of Fortune (sort of) and later SWAT, and some are forgotten for not being good. We'll also see a similar thing with the first Call Of Duty, Medal Of Honor, etc.

>PC during the 2000's
GTAIII and it's sequels make a tremendous impact, people ape them for several years.
World Of Warcraft is a smash hit, some people get the idea that they can compete with WOW (typically they can't, a decade of failed MMORPGs follows)

bump

It's not the game, it's the controls

>>3213350
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA JUST HOW MANY ULTIMA CLONES THERE WERE ON PCs BACK THEN!?

The only time a game has "aged poorly" is when I want to justify my contrarian opinion but can't articulate why I have it.

>>3214660
Thank you for your candor, I guess.

>>3214671

No problem. Don't forget, if it's a retro game, it's probably aged to the point of being unplayable, ESPECIALLY if it has some archaic mechanism like limited continues or god forbid game overs. And don't forget random encounters in JRPGs and when an FPS doesn't let you look up and down (sorry Doom!).

>>3214736

N-no, you can't do it, so it's aged! The game shows its age because you can't look up and down! It's not Halo! It has aged!

>>3209230
>Do you buy the argument that certain games "don't age well"
Of course.

>>3214607
My point exactly (and shit, the Ultima series itself was pretty long, though the last few entries were kind of bad, arguably)

Videogames are inherently a very derivative medium, and this doesn't -NECESSARILY- have to be a bad thing. If someone does something really right, it'll influence everyone else.

>>3214736
Not in any of the original mapsets anyway. I just like using freelook because of convenience and habit with FPS games, as well as a dislike for auto-aim.

>>3212935
Yeah they are identical up to a point, then these old engines discard the z value half way through the rendering proces and have to do the rest with 2D values.

>>3215146
they retain the z-value as long as 6dof engines. Their perspective transform is just different, much simpler, because they assume properties of the up-axis that prohibit pitch and roll motions

>>3209230
I'm fine with the concept of a game not being able to hold up to modern standards however like 99% of the time I see someone argue that a game aged poorly they're just trying to find a way to say a loved game in the past is shit without actually directly stating it's shit in fear of ridicule.

>>3215176
>in fear of ridicule
Problem is more with people like you, that have made up their mind on the subject and will just ad hominem anyone that dares to have a different opinion. It gets tiresome very fast, so we just can't be bothered to drop an honest and though out post on someone that will just ignore everything and insult back.
You fortunately put it already up front that you're unwilling to hear arguments, and are straw manning right away. Saves people time.

>>3215185
Nah I actually like hearing arguments for why they think something has aged poorly. My issues stem with the guys who just drop the age bomb and never follow up on it.

>>3215187
then why the "find a way to say a loved game in the past is shit" straw man?

>>3215194
I phrased my posts poorly. My issue isn't with the concept of aging, I'm all for that. My issue is with the people who never provide any substantial points for why they think a game has aged poorly and just use it as a way to dismiss a popular game in the past in hopes that it will not cause as big a shitstorm as just outright saying it's bad.

>>3209230

I would argue that if a game hasn't aged well, it was probably not very good in the first place and you were just blinded by it's tech or it's graphics.

>>3209282
>now the controls are rubbish
No. Every other console FPS has rubbish controls. Goldeneye's hold R to aim was the best way - all the rest are hopeless. I tried to play Halo once to see what the fuss was about and the controls were a joke, I couldn't play.

Aiming was an absolute mess. Same goes for every other console FPS except Perfect Dark and Timesplitters - for obvious reasons.

>>3209230
Honestly, I do. Some games are still fun to play nowadays, others have glaring issues that were ignorable when they were first released, but are much harder to look past now due to advances in game design and technology.

>>3209238
Basically this.

>>3209238
Agreed.

If you can't appreciate something from its place in history you really aren't in a position to say you enjoy the medium in any holistic manner. It's like not being able to appreciate Dickens for gaming the "paid by the word" system, or not being able to appreciate Chaplan's place in the formation of visual comedy. You don't have to enjoy them (you couldn't force my to read Dickens and I fell asleep in a theater showing of Gold Rush recently), but to dismiss them under the claim of not "aging well" means that you should just step out of whatever discussion is going on because it clearly doesn't pertain to you.

>>3215986
>hold R to aim was the best way
For a slower shooter, sure.

>all the rest are hopeless. I tried to play Halo once to see what the fuss was about and the controls were a joke
Good going, you picked the most generic, overrated console FPS (from like 15 years ago, no less), and used that as your benchmark for CURRENT console FPS.

>>3216090
>to dismiss them under the claim of not "aging well"
The statement that something has not aged well is usually not used as a dismissal, but as an acknowledgement that not only is it a product of its time, but that its peculiarities are so very specific to its time, they're almost alien nowadays. That this particular product may need a bit more time to get familiar with it, and may require some unlearning of seemingly accepted paradigms. There are plenty of games that may not have "aged well" for some people, but they're still valuable pieces in the history and development of games, and should be known, and possibly even played, despite the potential hurdle.

>>3216092
I thought Halo was considered really good. Anyway I find Goldeneye's aim system much quicker than the standard approach used on every other console FPS I've played.

It's because with Goldeneye, when aiming, the stick's position dictates the sight's position. On the rest, the stick position dictates how fast the sight moves in that direction (rather than its absolute position).

That's the crucial difference.

>>3216104
I can get behind this. I've been seeing it a few times from the perspective of "it's not worth it because it's old," so I jumped the gun a bit with assuming people still use it like that.

>>3216090
>If you can't appreciate something from its place in history
If you have to real out phrases like this to defend a game then it's an acknowledgement the game has aged badly.

Take Super Mario World, great game and its aged incredibly well. I don't need to say "oh but it was great for its time" It's a great game and it stands up to any platformer today, simple as.

If a game can't stand up to modern games, and you have to start making excuses for the flaws which have grown more obvious over time, then it's showing its age.

>>3216136
>defend a game
that's not what the phrase is used for. It's not a competition.

>oh but it was great for its time
that's not what the phrase means

>making excuses for the flaws
that's not what it means

You really tore that straw man a new one

>>3216149
>NO THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEAN!
>can't elaborate on what he actually meant

Nice counter argument.

What I said is exactly what it means. If you need to understand somethings "place in history" to appreciate it then it's because it can no longer stand up on its own. It's aged badly.

Going back to SMW, you don't need to understand its place in history, you don't need to know anything about it. It's a great game in and of itself and it can stand up on the strength of its game play alone. No contextualisation or excuses required.

>>3216178
>What I said is exactly what it means. If you need to understand somethings "place in history" to appreciate it then it's because it can no longer stand up on its own. It's aged badly.

Actually I'd like to retract saying this means it's aged badly, but it does mean the game has aged.

There are a lot of games from the early 3D/late 2.5D era (mid-90's) that really don't hold up with time. This is probably best discussed with actual examples.

>Prince of Persia 3D (the 1999 release)
Half the difficulty in the game was fighting with the clunky engine itself. Fixed cameras meant your reaction times had to be near preternatural or you had to memorize the extended trap courses to get through them. Tank controls meant it was it was a pain to line up those long jumps since it was easy to collide with a wall mid-jump and fall to your death.

>System Shock 1/Terranova
See: http://www.pixsoriginadventures.co.uk/system-shock-on-the-vfx-1/
If you think the modern craze over VR is bonkers, you should have seen people mess their pants over the VFX-1 back in the mid-90s. These two shooters were built around it and handle poorly because of it. Vertical levels without smooth reaction meant getting plinked from outside of visual range. These came from an era before mouse+WASD made spastic reaction times possible.

>Splinter Cell (2003 original)
This is actually an example of innovation. The big thing Splinter Cell brought to the table is the context button and related indicators. Prior to that, video games copied their simulator counterparts by offering a ton of key or combo binding to perform in game actions. Sometimes finding a switch or important panel to use was unclear since they often looked like background decoration in games. This meant that the player never got stuck on poor environmental layout or design in game. One could argue that this resulted in the infantilization of game design, but that is another discussion.

>>3216215
>but that is another discussion
is it? Because that "infantilization", as you call it, works both ways. With modern gamers expecting it, it makes older games hard, although they aren't at fault. It's a major aspect of games aging. Product of their time and all that. The players are a product of their time as well, and when there's a disconnect between expect and actual controls, it leads to problems.

>>3216232
Yes it is. There were no shortage of people who threw their box of Fallout 2 at the EB games cashier for a refund after they got their shit pushed in by the tutorial dungeon. They could have read the half-inch thick manual and novella the game came with but couldn't be bothered. Players are human beings, not product of the available vidya.

Infantilization of vidya has little to do with the players and a lot to do with the exposed complexity of the game itself. The best example of this would be the difference between DIablo 2 and 3's weapon stat handling. In two, you can manipulate stats and weapons to perform in different ways and accomplish different things. In three, your character stats and gear are reduced to a giant "DPS" number.

>>3216317
>Players are human beings, not product of the available vidya
disagreed

>>3216215
I don't think PoP3D really "aged", it was always really awkward to control- reviews at the time reflected on that and they tweaked the Dreamcast rerelease because of it

Magic Carpet looks wank these days. The fogging was initially touted as a feature, I think, rather than a cheap way of covering up the paltry draw distance.

>>3216343
>Magic Carpet looks wank these days
you what? Blind or something? It's one of the most gorgeous games ever

>>3216347
I hate fogging, so I disagree.

>>3216349
the game would look worse without the dense fog. It's part of the atmosphere and part of the level scale

>>3216338
The combat was crap, but some of the worst of the engine issues were fixed in a patch. Other than that, it was a standard 3D platformer/brawler for its time. A lot of other early 3D brawlers like Perfect Weapon also had clunky handling, but they got (somewhat of) a free pass for not putting such an emphasis on platforming the way PoP3D did.

>>3215034
>inherently a very derivative medium
I'd say in no way better or worse that way than any other medium.
Studio makes a gay musical, it sells out, now all the studios start making gay musicals. Young adult vampire pornography becomes a thing, shelves full of pornographic vampire novels. CIA backs Jackson Pollock's paintings to spite the Russians, suddenly everyone is a high paying artist as long as they put no thought or effort to it.

>>3209230
Millennial nonsense.

>>3216104
Good explanation, and this is usually what I mean when I say a game hasn't aged well.

To "age well" is to say the quality of the subject has remained at an acceptable level even while the standards for its measurement may have changed drastically.

An example of "aging badly" would be that a groundbreaking game which upon release is praised for its innovation paves the way for many more games which vastly improve upon the original work's mechanics to the point where the original has been clearly surpassed in all aspects and is no longer deserving of its merits which will have been gifted to the newer and superior model, leaving little reason to engage in it outside of historical or nostalgic pursuits.

>>3217126
But anon you're a millenial.

>>3209230
If it's clunky or misguided it is so from the beginning, but because of reasons some may miss it at first.

So, I don't dislike old games or really say they haven't aged well.

What I don't really like is people who have nostalgia goggles welded to their head. A good example would be Deus Ex. The game was amazing for the time, downright incredible, the only other equal I think would be System Shock 2. But times change.

They still hold up incredibly well, but the simple fact is that systems and games go through iterations, with each one (usually) being improved for the better. I personally believe Deus Ex: Human Revolution is a 'better' game than the original because it had better mechanics and depth and story.

This isn't because the original has not aged well, but simply because of the natural of game mechanics and systems over time.

>>3219091
Funny you mention HR and not the actual sequel of Deus Ex, Invisible War. By your logic Invisible War should be pretty awesome, when its pretty bad..

>>3219102
I did say that the iterations /usually/ change and improve thing for the better, not that it always happens.

>>3219102
I can not speak for others, but I enjoyed Invisible
War and Deus Ex 2.5: Project Snowblind.

>>3209230
>Do you buy the argument that certain games "don't age well"

Of course, because I'm not an idiot.

>>3209230

Of course not, because I'm not an idiot.

>>3214660
Except when graphics obviously look dated and clunky

Yup, I just found an example a couple of hours ago. The camera and controls were insufferable. It was some cross betwen isometric and 3d before it was ironed out and I think this is kinda common for whenever there's a transition to 3D in a genre.

A game can be said to have aged badly when other games of the same genre surpass and improve upon it to the point that there is little reason to keep playing earlier versions.

Jumpman is a decent example. Before Super Mario, Jumpman was considered a fine platforming game in the vein of Donkey Kong. But as the genre grew and evolved, people expected more than a single static screen and limited interactions. Because most people who played NES and later platformers would find Jumpman either archaic or uninteresting to play, it is a good example of game that can be said to have aged badly.

Another example is some old shooting games that didn't have autofire. The reality is that with most shmup type games the player is going to be shooting very often, if not constantly. Older games that require the player to press the button quickly over and over for the whole time they are playing would be considered to have aged badly by most people. And that's why when those games get re-released they often have an auto-fire option added. No one considers constant button mashing a worthwhile gameplay element, so games based around that don't age as well as ones that didn't.

Rogue is another good example. Quite an amazing game for it's day, and it spawned a whole genre. But almost no one plays the original Rogue anymore because the games that came after it did such a better job of realizing the kind of experience the game was going for. Sure it's still playable, but even basic Nethack has aged a lot better than original Rogue.

>>3221265
I think you have a pretty good point actually.

Then you can look at games like Doom and Starcraft, they're old, but they're still very appealing to play, they have aged well, and still have something to offer that other shooters don't.

>>3221265
Best explanation in the thread. It essentially boils down to 'from a pure gameplay perspective, is this game still relevant compared to newer titles now available since it's initial release?'

Games that have aged well, like Quake, are still relevant. There are few examples of games since that have the gameplay and atmosphere of Quake, or executed these things as well as Quake did.

Games that have not aged well, like Wolfenstein 3d, are totally irrelevant beyond historical interest. So much so in fact that a year later Doom removed any reason to play the game.

i can play the shit out of symphony of the night, feels perfect, looks gorgeous while i recently tried playing sly cooper, a much later game, and it felt and looked like garbage to me. even the way older super castlevania 4 i can play all the time, and games made 15 years later can feel dated and shitty

>>3221341
Exactly. Or Tetris. Tetris was so well designed that even with all the other variants of block forming games before and after it, that base game will always be great.

Obviously any game that was at all playable when it was released can still be played. But when you get into games aging, it's all about how well an old game can hold up to newer games.

Street Fighter 1, as revolutionary in many ways as it was does not compare well at all to fighters from even a few years later. Street Fighter 2 on the other hand, is still considered by many to be as good or better than many games of the genre that followed it. That's a game that aged very well.

>>3221403
>Street Fighter 1, as revolutionary in many ways as it was does not compare well at all to fighters from even a few years later
I recall hearing that the creators of Street Fighter weren't even that thrilled about the first game, and that Street Fighter 2 almost didn't happen

>>3221403
Oh yeah, Tetris, I can still sit down and play that sometimes.

>>3221434
I haven't heard that but it wouldn't surprise me.

>>3221403
>>3221437
>Tetris
>Puyo Puyo
>Panel de Pon
>all still amazing to play today

Why have so many puzzle games aged so well when many other genres didn't?

>>3221641
A winning formula, but also simplicity.
It's very easy to "get" Tetris.

I suppose you can say that they age, yeah.
Specially when it comes to 3D games. The PS1/N64 stuff was amazing back then, but most of it looks like shit now.
But that doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed, and that's where people say that a game "aged well". When a game has good gameplay, good story, music or something else that makes you keep playing regardless of the graphics, then they "aged well".
Man, even if you focus on graphics, the overall art direction of a game can make up for ugly 3D models and make it enjoyable.

This is just my opinion, but when people say a game "aged poorly", it means it had a gimmick (be gameplay or visual) that was new back then, and relied heavily on that gimmick to be enjoyable, having no other redeeming features.
Tenchu has ugly ass models (if you look at it today), but the gameplay, music and overall art direction makes it one of my favorite games ever.
FFVII was the shit back then because it looked great, but looking at it now, it's a really messed up pile of shit. But people love it because of nostalgia, which is fine.

>>3216090
I dunno man. I haven't heard of many people hating on old literature because it was old. Some of the most popular books are centuries old. But I read books everyday so maybe I'm not the best person to comment on this.

>>3221718
>FFVII was the shit back then because it looked great, but looking at it now, it's a really messed up pile of shit. But people love it because of nostalgia, which is fine.

You were doing so well then you had to drift into troll territory.

>>3221783
7 is the best ff game ever. Fact

>>3221796
Opinions aren't facts, doofus.

>>3221208

If you're a graphicsfag, your opinions are literally worthless.

>>3209969
I came here to post this but (you) already did.

Good post!

>>3209230
Of course certain games "don't age well".

A game can be enjoyable in it's own time, but when you get used to certain conventions in newer games going back will suddenly make that game seem very aged.

Best example from the rop of my head is Warcraft 1. The way you have to micro manage every single unit when you are used to just dragging the mouse to select everything and right clicking to move... that makes WC1 seem aged.

But I'll forever love the narrator... Black Morass!

Pic not related - it has aged very well

>>3209241
I think you're on crack. SMB1 plays perfectly. The character controls are a work of art that feels cozy every time you start it up. If any game holds up over time, it's that one.

>>3221783
It looks like shit.
The gameplay is nothing special.
The story isn't anything worth a prize either.
Music is ok, ambientation is poor.

But for a lot of people, this was their first serious RPG, so I get it that they love it for that reason.

>>3222134
I agree, I was actually going to post it as an example of a game that's "aged well." It's not boring or slow, the physics are still enjoyable and satisfying, the characters and enemies are ALL recognizable and iconic, and there's basically only one bug that affects gameplay. And the music is still fantastic decades later.

>>3210326
Believe it or not.

>>3222358
>It looks like shit.
Opinions. It looked quite impressive when it came out. Graphics haven't aged well, but the setting is still quite nice.
>The gameplay is nothing special.
No shit, it has the words "Final Fantasy" on the box
>The story isn't anything worth a prize either.
Again an opinion and again, it's a video game.
>Music is ok, ambientation is poor.
More opinions.

VII isn't one of my favorite of the FF's, but saying people only say it's good out of nostalgia is retarded.

>>3221403
Which "base game" are you referring to?

>>3224463
You're retarded and missed the point of his post.

>>3221641
Why has chess aged so well? Or go? Mental games don't seem to follow the same rules as other games, in that respect - whether they're physical or virtual doesn't seem to matter,

>>3224740
Tetris has an element of speed and urgency to it though, which isn't usually the case with Chess or Go

>>3224559
Do you have to have everything fucking spelled out for you, you dense motherfucker? He clearly fucking said that Tetris(the base game) will always be great even when compared to all the Tetris variants that came after. Do you not know how to fucking read? Maybe you should get your mom to read stuff for you so you don't always look like such a fucking idiot.

>>3224567
Okay what was the point of his post then?

Why not? Some movies don't age well. Pic related was seen completely differently in 1989 than it is now. It's not a valid teenage fantasy anymore, it's an unintentional period piece of a pre-Colombine world.

>>3227296
Ahh that was a great one. I miss pre millennium. Why did things go to such shit? The pinnicle of comedy now is making fun of Trump for the 100000th time. Pathetic

>>3209429
>using le autism maymay that was literally invented by known brit manlet cuck tripfag ManlyTears on /v/ in 2009
typical meme response to a good argument

>>3230659
It sounds like you're pretty upset that he's got your number.

>>3230693
nice samefag

>>3230696
You act threatened.

>>3230704
you act black

>>3230707
Hol up, so you sayin that post someone made over a week ago really hurt your feelings?

>>3230713
typical black response.

>>3209230
Games don't age. Gamers do.

It's just gamers of today expect different things from videogames than gamers of yesteryear. The reason why some people say it exists, while some it doesn't, is because you can actually learn to expect same things as players back then - if you play a lot of NES games, your sensibilities and expectations will change.

For example, grinding used to be something absolutely expected from RPG games - it was nice padding (because games were expected to last a long time, so padding was considered good back then) and also it allowed you to exert some roleplaying control over your character, letting you pick what level you have and also pick what difficulty you want the fights to be.

Then over the course of 16-bit era, jRPGs started becoming a story engines, and grinding went out, and the role of a skinnerbox timewaster is now occupied by MMORPGs instead.

Haven't read the entire thread yet, and I will, but

>This game hasn't aged well
translates directly to
>This game isn't as cool as I remember it being

>>3209429
>using le autism maymay that was literally invented by known brit manlet cuck tripfag ManlyTears on /v/ in 2009
typical meme response to a good argument

I have never played a single game people say "aged badly" and not enjoyed it

>>3231692
the terms are not mutually exclusive

>>3231694
Most people saying "aged badly" mean "this game sucks now" and you're delusional if you deny it

>>3231701
>Most people saying "aged badly" mean
if you say so. You'll find plenty of differing opinions on this very thread, but it seems like you made up your mind and are attacking that dummy position impressively

>>3231710
nice /v/ meme, bro

>>3231710
nice /v/ meme, bro

>>3231692
its not always a bad thing

>>3209429
>using le autism maymay that was literally invented by known brit manlet cuck tripfag ManlyTears on /v/ in 2009
typical meme response to a good argument

>>3209429
>using le autism maymay that was literally invented by known brit manlet cuck tripfag ManlyTears on /v/ in 2009
typical meme response to a good argument

>>3209429
>using le autism maymay that was literally invented by known brit manlet cuck tripfag ManlyTears on /v/ in 2009
typical meme response to a good argument

>>3209429
I think you're right.

>>3235164
I think you're a samefag. Typical meme response, friendo.

>>3235167
>repeatedly make the same reply to an old post for days
I think he's VERY right.

>>3235184
I think you're VERY a samefag. You memer shill, you 19-year-old underaged millennial californian, you dirty manlet lanklet goatfucking alaskan, you tumblrgendered mutant memesexual australian. Die in a bus fire.

A lot of pseudo intellectional idiots here.. of course games age. Everything does. Some stand the test of time more than others

>>3231016
>>3237159
Yes

"Age" defines outmoded design customs

>>3227296
Man, I love everything about this movie.

>>3231016
>Games don't age. Gamers do.

That's semantics. The point is that times change and some old games still hold up really well to newer ones meanwhile other games don't.

The whole thing with "aging" is relative.

>>3231016
>Gamers do
that would require for a person to have played the game before

>you can actually learn to expect same things as players back then
If you have to learn, there's a hurdle. Did players back then "have to learn" the properties of the games?
>For example, grinding used to be something absolutely expected from RPG games
Guess you answered that one yourself. Back then, a player didn't have to learn, to accept or to understand that aspect, it was expected and natural. Players nowadays need to pass that hurdle and make the decision to work with a game. The more such work is necessary, the more ... you get the picture

>>3237172
>"Age" defines outmoded design customs

Aging isn't a bad thing though. Many hard games created in the past are now considered as aged simply because modern games have become too used to easiness.

I think there's too much of a built in assumption that modern design customs are superior to older ones simply by virtue of being newer.

>>3240134
>Many hard games
It bothers me a lot when people instantly jump on the "hard" aspect. Difficulty is not even a major aspect when it comes to games aging. It's just a handy scapegoat to throw around "oh, it hasn't aged badly, you're just a pussy". There's been a bit of an exchange along these lines just recently in another thread. People started calling a game hard because it expects you to observe, and try things out? wtf? That's not a difficulty thing, that's players being used to doing exactly what they're told, because that's about all cheap games tend to do, tell you what to do.

>I think there's too much of a built in assumption that modern design customs are superior to older ones simply by virtue of being newer
that would be on your end, and on the end of a lot of people taking serious offense with the concept of games aging. A lot of people talking about aging do not confuse it with quality or its lack.

>>3210446
I played I have no mouth for the first time recently and I absolutely loved the atmosphere and story. But you're right that the game play has not aged well.

Admittedly, I'm not a whiz at adventure games, but the puzzles were a mix of flat-out obvious shit, and ultra-cryptic stuff.

If ever a game deserved a remake, keeping the art style and story mostly the same but streamlining the gameplay, that would be it.Obviously that's just a pipe dream though.

It's a shame that not a lot of games today can evoke the same visceral emotion I got from playing it. Maybe I'm just not looking in the right place for it.

>>3240101
>that would require for a person to have played the game before

I think he meant that gamers as a whole have changed. Things that most gamers thought was good in the 80's/90's like grinding is now mostly seen as bad by gamers today.

>>3240162
>streamlining the gameplay
why? You could automate games fully, but where's the fun in that?

>It's a shame that not a lot of games today can evoke the same visceral emotion I got from playing it
That's probably because very few games nowadays are directly based on hard to stomach short stories and co-authored by the author of these short stories

>>3240163
>I think he meant that gamers as a whole have changed
they said they aged though. If it's new players, they can't. If it still has an effect on the way games are experienced, something else is going on

>>3240172
A new player will have grown up playing very different games than one who grew up with the "retro" games when they were new. It makes a very different perspective.

>>3240217
no denying that. My issue was with
>Games don't age. Gamers do.
For a gamer to age, they have to undergo a process. That's not the case.

>>3240221
You're an incredibly obnoxiuos pedant. Do you realize that? I bet if someone told you the people of America have changed since the 1800's, you would be all like "but they couldn't have changed since those people are no longer around!" Yeah, that's the entire fucking point, dumbass.

>>3240235
>You're an incredibly obnoxiuos pedant
The pedant was the one that went verbatim on "games don't age"

>I bet if someone told you the people of America have changed
anon said "Gamers do", not "Gamers did". Bit of a difference

Anyway, we said all we could on that particular subject, so it's now time to resort to ad hominems and insults, idiot

>>3240221
>no denying that. My issue was with
>Games don't age. Gamers do.

Meh, who knows. It wasn't me who used that phrase, I was just guessing at what he might have meant.

Obviously all games age. That's just time. The issue is some games aging "better" or "worse" than other ones. And there are some examples of that. The thing about gamers aging is a potentially interesting side point, but that's it.

>>3240261
You consider what everybody means when they say "games age" a "potentially interesting side point"? wow. The phrase "gamers age" is still utter bullshit. The concept anon failed to express, that games are a product of their time, and culture changes, is the very foundation of the phrase "games age"

>>3240287
Read again, I said the point about "gamers" aging is a potentially interesting side note. (A side note to the general issue of games aging)

I agree the "gamers age" thing is a bit bullshitty, but it's a little interesting to think about. Also neither of us knows what the guy who said that actually meant by it. I'm just taking my best guess.

>>3221265
This sums up everything well. Some games are still amazing all these years later, while others that were considered fine when they were new didn't stand the test of time as well.

Someone should make a definitive list of some games that aged perfectly and some that didn't at all.

>>3240407
it would get torn instantly through technically correct nitpicking and people with emotional attachment getting pissed. A few examples have been mentioned in the past and this thread. That should be sufficient to get an idea on what's going on, and help someone recognize it

>>3240419
I suppose you're right. Here these days you can't say anything is good without having contrarians shit on it and you can't say anything is bad because someone will insist they had a great time with (whatever) and call anyone who doesn't like it casual.

Fuck I miss the old /vr/.

>>3240473
what you need is a board for /vr/ threads before 2008, /vrr/ or something

>>3240480
Now you're being silly. /vr/ didn't exist in 2008

>>3240498
no idea, it was before my time. I only "discovered" this board a few years ago. Glad I did though. It has its problems, but all in all there are a few like-minded people here, it's cool

I think it's a question of the game having shitty mechanics/graphics/sound that was accepted then as kind of a standard, but these days we don't have to settle for that shit.
>inb4 graphics whore
I can deal with old graphics, but I can't deal with graphical representation that makes it almost impossible to actually play the game. Same with unresponsive controls, lame gameplay because of memory limitations, etc.

>>3222127
Yep.
Command&Conquer 1 is a classic game but the campaign A.I is completely braindead and the game lacks a Skirmish mode. That's why Red Alert is superior.

Another example is MGS 1. The stealth mechanics in MGS 1 are non-existent and even the combat is terrible not only by today's metric, but Syphon Filterv2 had vastly better combat mechanics.

>>3240831
>The stealth mechanics in MGS 1 are non-existent

What do you mean by that?

Games don't age in a literal sense. Its the exact same game, but industry standards and your expectations become higher.

>>3242534
>Games don't age in a literal sense.

But they do age in a literal sense.
Pong is 44 years old.
Super Mario is 31 years old.
Final Fantasy VII is 19 years old.
Demon's Souls is 7 years old.
Rocket League is 1 year old.

Age doesn't tell you everything about the game, but it's a very useful piece of information about it.

>>3209230
Gameplay-wise, I think there's no such thing as "didn't age well" and more usually a case of younger people not being used to it.

Graphics, UI, and control-wise, there can be cases of it.

>>3242627
>I think there's no such thing as "didn't age well" and more usually a case of younger people not being used to it.

That's because you don't understand what people are talking about. It has nothing to do with how old you are or when you played the given game. >>3221265

>>3242609
0/10

>>3242696
It's true though. The actual age of a game does matter.

>>3242473
MGS paints itself as a stealth game, but you play the whole fucking thing with the radar.

>>3242609
That sudden realisation that Final Fantasy VII could star in a hardcore porno. Mein gott

>>3242534
>industry standards and your expectations become higher
They change. That they change for the better is questionable

>>3242960
I would love to see FFVII double teamed by some BBC.

>>3243086
It's a matter of taste, obviously.

>>3222393
I chuckled.

>>3243086
Well, some things got better, some did not.

While I like that extra lives are a thing of the past (because let's face it, if I'm not feeding quarters into the game, it has no reason to be there anymore), there's trends I like less, like first person shooters having straight up regen health (which can be done good in some ways, in some games, but too many games ape the COD model).

Grand Theft Auto decided that it wasn't going to be funny and whacky anymore, so Saint's Row picked up the plate and went above and beyond, which I can appreciate.

A new Half-Life is looking less and less likely, but at least Doom 4 is really good.

I try to take the good with the bad.

yup

>>3244132
>Well, some things got better, some did not.

The problem is that it's all relative. Did shooters get better? People who grew up with Doom and Quake might say no, but ask some of the thousands of rabid CoD or Halo fans and they would say definitely yes. There's no one right answer.

>>3210207
they originally wanted her to be naked but for some reason they couldn't do that, so that's why she's wearing super small panties in that scene

>>3242609
This is it

>>3242473
That stealth is a joke in MGS1 because of how simple it is compared to the later entries and stealth games in general.

>>3209230
The simple truth about this is that games don't age, we and society age around them and our perception of them changes based on how we've changed.

Some games definitely don't age well. The only thing I agree with AVGN is that Tiger games aren't old school, they were a fad like Pogs.

>>3248254
Okay so that makes it an example of a game that aged badly? I could sort of agree to that, but I think it's ironic that the Game Cube version has aged even worse.

Most games made for the sake of being tech demos or graphics showcases age like fish in the hot sun.

>>3248619
Lcd games lasted until the early 2000s and I can see why. It's a handheld game that's cheaper than things like DS or Gameboy systems, so why not? I'm sure they're still around, but with things like cell phones for kids I'm sure they're a very recessive thing.

All games age, it's just that some games are so good that they become timeless. Just think about music. There are music that you used to listen to years ago that now are complete shit, on the other hand classical music is so good that it's timeless so you can still listen to them to this day and they are as good as they've ever been.

>>3209230
Yes. I have a non-retro example, which may be even more convincing since less time had to pass for it to become outdated: GTA III and Vice City.

I can understand why they were popular at the time, sure, but I get too frustrated playing any GTA game before San Andreas now due to how much they fixed and improved in later games in the series. Since the newer games exist and I can play those instead, I've had no real desire to revisit III or VC after completing each of them once.

>>3250189
I should also note that it doesn't apply to every game. Super Mario 64 is still my favorite game even though many games have improved upon it, especially when it comes to camera controls. The real difference, I think, is that in addition to being groundbreaking, Mario 64 did about as much as it could with the platform and was near perfect considering its limitations, while the GTA games had a lot of room for improvement even on the same hardware as proved in San Andreas.

tl;dr: The games that don't age well are games that do something new and exciting but only scratch the surface without reaching their full potential.