/vr/ - Retro Games

It's entirely possible, albeit it is also used as an excuse for graphics whores to dismiss a game.

So yeah, it goes both ways.

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We don't love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But if you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright, all...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright, alright

Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright
Alright, alright

Yep, totally possible.

Games don't age. People change.

Does modern gamers being ridiculously spoiled in every aspect of a game make older games "age badly"? They haven't aged, they are exactly as they were when they came out. We have changed. For the better or the worse? You decide.

yes, its mostly the case with things that were revolutionary back then but have since far been surpassed and improved by time.

Depends. Some games can be quite timeless (16-bit Sonic), others are just too dated to still be enjoyable (The Incredible Machine_

It's possible, though the way in which a game dates itself tends to vary between people. Unfortunately, it's largely an issue of graphics, which is only one aspect of the game.

Look at some of the early NES titles.

Graphically, the system has the same capability between games, but companies used this in different ways. Compare SMB to Kirby's Adventure, for example. While the limits of the NES were unchanged between the two, the scenery and characters in Kirby tend to appear much more vibrant. Even without knowing release dates, it would be apparent which title is older.

I don't think so. Nothing changes about the game.

Yes its entirely possible, and I bring Turok 1 and 2 as proof

>>546324

Close. It's gaming itself that has changed. If the N64 and PS1 were the absolute limits of power and were still around as the 'current' consoles, nobody would say Ocarina of Time has 'blocky graphics' because they simply wouldn't know of anything better. But of course technology moves on. Some games have the benefit of having a sort of timeless look that pretty much transcends their original platform, but others really do look like a product of their time (especially Goldeneye)

>>546338
>While the limits of the NES were unchanged between the two, the scenery and characters in Kirby tend to appear much more vibrant

They were changed though because early NES games had no mapper chips and were limited to 40k. Kirby is 768k and uses an MMC3 mapper to swap tile data on the fly+provide a scanline interrupt counter.

Aging badly is always in comparison to modern games and especially on a board like this, not always relevant.

I hate it when people think they're being so objective labelling games how they want.

Like in films, Battleship Potemkin or Seven Samurai have "aged badly" but they still influence directors to this day and are still enjoyed by new audiences.

I often see this term being used as an excuse for having a very short attention span. It's like a modern Zelda fan trying out the original Zelda, they rarely play for more than 15 minutes before giving up.

It's quite understandable though, with all the instant gratification in games today, it's hard to go back unless you can get into the right mindset for it.

You know how Toy Story blew everyone's minds in 1995 and it made Pocahontas and other 2D Disney films look 'old hat', but nowadays Pocahontas is clearly the much better looking film and Toy Story has been completely outdone by nearly every other CGI film since (visually of course) so it looks really primitive in comparison? It's like that. Every product made on the outset of a technological revolution is bound to look ropey/awkward after even 5 years.

I interpret "aging badly" as being a game which was great at the time but did not include features which are so good that they eventually became obligatory in the genre after they were introduced in other games.

An example which comes to mind for me is Civilization 2. By all means a fantastic game, and still certainly playable, but the genre of strategy game it occupies (hell, arguably created) includes a lot of upgrades to the user interface and various concepts which are marked improvements, like culture borders and separating workers from settlers, or streamlining the technology tree. This was a huge problem for me when Civ3 was released, because Civ3 improved so much on the mechanics of the game in all of these ways, but the combat mechanics removed the firepower modifier, which turned it to shit where spearmen destroyed tanks. But if I wanted to go back to Civ2, I had to lose all the improvements that had been made to the entire game. Civ2 did one thing better, but as a whole, it hadn't aged well.

I solved the problem with the map editor by altering the combat strength values of all the units in the game with multipliers based on their technological era. It went a long way in normalizing combat. Thus I said my goodbye to a brilliant game whose time had passed.

>>546309

You silly fucker, what are you even talking about?

Yes. But not graphically. (Unless it's amazingly ugly, but was once the peak of tech - see most mid 90's FMV's)

>>546364
To be fair, I still think Toy Story looks damn good to this day,(Save for the human faces) but that may be because I saw it in theaters when it came out.

This is unlike games like Goldeneye 007 or FFVII which were amazing when they first came out, but now are a deterring factor when playing the game.

There are some 2D games that have the same problem though.(Pilotwings being a notable example)

>>546350
My point being that the system itself remained the same, however. Companies developed better ways to manipulate the data on the cartridge as time passed, sure, but the NES couldn't process more than it was designed to.

It's the players that change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrcFKLwhfbI

it's possible but people abuse the term so much it's ridiculous

Can be both depending on how it's used. The games are obviously still the same, but people lack the proper context to appreciate them. Games that were very refreshing and unique back in the day may seem generic and boring. It's not really a fault of the games, but rather the different standards the players have.

>>546394
>Games that were very refreshing and unique back in the day may seem generic and boring.

kinda reminds me of seinfeld

>>546389
>but the NES couldn't process more than it was designed to

Unless the Konami mappers or MMC5 were used. These even had their own coprocessor.

Yes absolutely, I know of absolutely nobody who thinks the SNES Star Fox looks good.

Depends on what the person using the term is trying to argue about. Many times it's just used if someone has no real arguments against a game besides "The graphics look bad, therefore it's unplayable."

>>546301
I agree with this. Games can age but people sometime use it as an excuse as well.

>>546415
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny

Yep.

Eh

to me most games age in graphics only.

>>546292
I'm just going to assume that you posed this question for the sake of discussion.

if something has 'aged badly', it's likely it actually didn't look very good in the first place - it was just a case of people not knowing any better. Ocarina and other n64 games demonstrated cutting edge technology that has since become commonplace

>Is it possible for games to "age badly?"

Yes, it is. In general, a game that aged badly had a mechanic or gimmick that, at the time, was really impressive but now no longer impresses because games and technology have evolved beyond it, or because a mechanic that wasn't commonplace then is now not only commonplace, but done way better.

A good example is FMV games. In their day, it was really impressive to see full motion video in a game. Now, it really isn't, and people have found a lot of those FMV games that were stunning and groundbreaking at the time are now really mediocre games (or barely games at all) when played from a modern perspective.

That said, there do exist good old FMV titles, but I recall some being praised in their time and ridiculed today.

>>546415

Except that Seinfeld is still an entertaining show that's better than 90% of modern sitcoms.

>>546434
T'm going to need you totake those gogglesoff, sir. 90% of the atari/Colecovision/Commodore library looks bad, and plays worse. This is not opinion.I fire an Atari 2600 game up all the time to test how long I can stand their Pac-Man port(an example).

>>546470

But Pac-Man on the Atari 2600 sucks. It was a horrible port, and people back then outright hated Atari for it.

>>546450
You should read some old gamer mags...most of these FMV titles were ridiculed back then,as well (especially the console-based ones).

>>546470
I'll give you Atari, but C64/Amiga? Come on, man.

Sure they can. It tends to be especially noticeable between games from the same franchise or genre. Mechanics become more polished over time, small conveniences are added to the gameplay etc. A game might have been revolutionizing when it first came out and games that were made after it would expand upon the innovations it brought, making the original game appear clunky to someone who plays it years later.

It's not possible. Games that some people say "aged badly" were in fact always shit. Games that have "aged well" (eg. Xevious) were always good.

People just had bad taste, and judged the games incorrectly, usually because they were impressed by the graphics (eg. Donkey Kong Country).

>>546292
>Is it possible for a game to "age badly"
No.

The game looks good or bad, period. Some people may get caught in hype on release and think better of the graphics because of bells and whistles, but it's the people's memory that "ages badly", not the games themselves.

The games do not change. They can not "age". Don't get caught in either hype or nostalgia, don't buy into "Blast Processing," "128 bit" or "DirectX 11" trickery. But even if you don't, the games are still teh same - either good or bad looking, both on release and 30 years later.

>>546503
Amiga was amazing. My neighbor had one, and I thought he was a castmember of "Silver Spoons".

But seriously...Atari, Colecovision, Commodore,...they were the true pioneers of "shovelware".

>>546517
>People just had bad taste, and judged the games incorrectly, usually because they were impressed by the graphics (eg. Donkey Kong Country).

what if they actually had fun with DKC though?

>>546540
>But seriously...Atari, Colecovision, Commodore,...they were the true pioneers of "shovelware".

Amiga was Commodore, silly

I don't usually take graphics into consideration when looking at say... old N64 games, because it's obvious that knowledge of how to make shit look on the system greatly differed between the release dates of SM64 and CBFD

I sometimes do say something's aged poorly if the controls are a lot shittier than I remember though. I had a good amount of PSX games that are slippery as fuck to the point of almost feeling unplayable now in my opinion. Sure I'll love the memories of them but damn it's a chore to try and make it work now. I don't know how I managed it as a kid.

>>546545
You can have fun with a bad game.

DKC isn't bad, though, but it sure is clunky, and it's graphics can be ugly as fuck indeed.

When I was 9, I thought DKC's pre-rendered 3D was fucking rad, but it actually wasn't - I was just too easily impressable. The game didn't age, I did.

>>546517
Thank you.

>>546536

As an example, Goldeneye 64 was one of the most advanced games to hit the shelves at release. It could only really be compared to PC games at the time.

It's only now that we realize it was running at 15 FPS and quite frankly looked like utter ass. If you're going to sit here and tell me one of the most popular games of that gen was always bad then my friend- you are fucking daft.

>>546550
C64 =/= Amiga

>>546552
>I don't usually take graphics into consideration when looking at say... old N64 games
>I sometimes do say something's aged poorly if the controls are a lot shittier than I remember
So, your judgement was weak back then, but now it consists of a bunch of double standards, which you reconcile with a wad of misnomers? So... it's not any better at all?

>>546562
>As an example, Goldeneye 64 was one of the most advanced games to hit the shelves at release.
The trick it, it really, REALLY wasn't. The TV told you it was, but it wasn't.

I.e., it didn't "age badly", you were just a dumb fucking kid.

>>546570
If you meant C64, you should have said so

>>546562
But no one says GoldenEye is/was bad...they just say it looks bad.

>>546545
Kids have low standards. I had genuine fun with lots of shitty games. I'm not some nostalgic fanboy pretending they were good.

Sure. Look at Final Fantasy 1, for example.

All of it's mechanics are atrocious by modern standards. Shit like the character attacking an empty space instead of moving onto the next enemy is completely inexcusable in RPGs these days. It was perfectly understandable at the time of it's release, but the genre has come a long way and it's shit unless you play it with its historical context in mind.

Other games, like the original Super Mario Bros, hold up well either due to the simplicity of the gameplay or because there hasn't been a radical shift in the genre since its release. You could fairly compare it to a 2D platformer just released last year.

Who the fuck cares about graphics?

>>546578
Heck, Ultima 1-3 are a joke by modern RPG standards

>>546582
Framerate is an essential part of game controls. It's not possible for a real-time game running at 15fps to be good.

>>546591
No modern RPG can even compare to the original fucking Ultima in the sheer number of features. What are you, stupid?

As for the interface and presentation, it was always pants-shittingly retarded. It is in the emulator now, and it was on Apple 2, too.

>>546578
Precisely this. When I say that something has aged badly, I mean it is mechanically inferior to similar games which came after it. Couldn't care less about graphics.

>>546578
I recently played SMB1 no warp, no continue, no 1UP farming. I had more fun than with any other Mario game I've played. Mario game mechanics have barely changed at all since SMB1, but the challenge was removed making the games worse.

>>546610
SMB is still one of the best.

I mean, among the great ones. There's also incomparable shit that doesn't even compete, like the NSMB subseries.

Pretty much every modernized RPG is featureless compared to western rogue-likes. I'm not being cutesy or whatever, it's just a fact. over 300 classes and they're all boring. Features don't make a game.

>>546605
you're stupid. try and play an ascii game and you'll be crying for graphics.

>>546656
My first Nethack ascension was one of the most exciting moments of gaming I've experienced. Only thing I can think of that competes is when I 1cced Perfect Cherry Blossom on Lunatic.

>>546661
>nethack
>not dorf forchress

try again

Myst aged badly. All it is is a bunch of boring puzzles separated by pretty pictures. Only thing it that the pictures SUCK by todays standards so we can see the game was just a fad.

>>546672
Dwarf Fortress isn't a game, it's a toy.

Media are influenced by their generation.
Newer generations have different mindsets, likes and dislikes than older ones.

Older movies for example have very slow pacing compared to newer ones.
That's why they tend to be less accessible to younger people
and visa versa older people may have problems getting into more recent movies.

There are always exceptions of course and in most cases the people who complain simply don't invest enough time and attention into what they criticise.

Ocarina of Time is, in my opinion, a game that has aged well.
The controls are good and intuitive, the world is interesting and well designed, there are many things to do besides the main story and its not repetetive as every new area introduces new ideas and fresh designs.
The graphics obviously don't hold up today, but that should be a minor concern.
It's still a very well made and enjoyable game.

If you ask me, the reason why people think it didn't age well is because they are spoiled.
Obviously there have been countless follow-ups and clones over the years some of which also improved the gameplay. They were bound to.
The games today are more sophisticated because the technology is as well.

You can't really compare 10 or more year old games with recent ones.
At least not in terms of graphics and gameplay.

>>546691
OoT runs at 20fps maximum in the NTSC version, meaning you get at least 50ms of control jitter just from the framerate. That's highly noticeable and prevents the controls from being "good".

>>546691
It's still a shallow imitation of a better Zelda game.

>>546697
You're too obsessed with numbers.
I never had a problem with the controls.

Games are good by the standard of their time. As videogames get more complex old games show their age. In theory anyway. I can't believe people enjoyed those Atari games or whatever back when, and many NES games are still great, though they aren't anymore the best ones.

>>546698
You mean A Link to the Past? They're both great games, sure.
But keep in mind that 3d was fairly new and I think they did an amazing job introducing the series to 3d.

>>546716
Pitfall! is still kind of fun.

>>546716
Actually I take that back about the Atari era games. I think there were decent ones like Karateka and some ninja one called Ninja or something. The era before that with the looping games like Space Invader, that era can't ever have been good.

>>546731
Karateka was for the Apple II

>>546502
I do, and a lot of games that are ridiculed today were praised in their day.

People hate on Sewer Shark today, and rightfully so, but in its time, it was critically acclaimed.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=v0ciAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-6wFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1334%2C682957

>>546731
Defender
Robotron: 2084

Those too games alone are enough for Eugene Jarvis to be greatest American game designer of the 80s, even if he did make NARC.

Man, chess aged like shit.
Look at those pieces? That's supposed to be a king?
And you don't use dice or stats? What shit gameplay is this?
And don't tell me using a chess clock makes the game better.
that's just artificial difficulty.

Warhammer is the chess of today. Have fun with your shitty wooden rooks.
I'll be playing with my awsome orcs and knights.

>>546752
Hunh? Arcade N.A.R.C. was a glorious piece of hyperviolent, over-the-top, '90s action/cop movie trashy goodness.

>>546949
*late 80's. Mea culpa.

>>546356
>Seven Samurai
>aged badly
Are you trying to make a joke here? Because Seven Samurai hasn't "aged badly" at all.

>>546356
>Battleship Potemkin or Seven Samurai have "aged badly"
Go back to your superhero movies
and never mention these films ever again, please.
Actually, I think you should never talk of movies again at all.

>>546457
You seem to have forgotten Sturgeon's Law.

Modern sitcoms he says.

90% of everything is garbage.

>>546576
But at the time it was. At the time it was extremely advanced compared to everything else that existed. That is a fact and not an opinion. This is not a hard concept to wrap your head around.

When the T-Ford came out, it was a marvel of engineering, it was truly an innovative way of transporting yourself. Are you going to tell me that the T-Ford hasn't aged? How many people still drive around in T-Fords? All kinds of things age, why would videogames be the sole exception? This topic is more retarded than ZSNES and filter discussion combined.

>>546292
Some people are casuals who can't handle old game mechanics like "dying" and "enemies that attack the player"

>>547182
i think the scare quotes around "aged badly" are supposed to signify that that anon doesn't agree

>>546292

Some games had wow and pizzaz that has faded as technology and expectations have moved on. Not all games, of course, but some games (FFVII)

>>546975
It's still good, but the pacing is too slow, it's black and white, it's 4:3, and the audio and video quality is terrible even in restored versions. It can't compete with the best of modern movies.

>>547219
The Model T was a piece of shit, it was just easy to produce.

>>547345
>awful pacing
>instant hipster artistic cred excuse for every poor director.
Fuck off kubrik.

the only thing i can consider to age bladly are cameras
the gameplay doesnt age and the graphics are used by stupid people to dismiss games

>Is it possible for a game to "age badly", or is it just an excuse pulled out of people's asses to dismiss old games?
My, what a carefully worded and unbiased question.

But yeah, I do think a game can age badly in the sense that standards (personal, general, whatever) in both graphics and gameplay can change to such a degree that certain titles simply lose appeal by comparison to their successors.

>>547406
What you don't like loaded false dichotomies?

>>546292

Bad controls

I think a game that was once the pioneer of it's day can now have considered to have "aged badly" in a sense there are so many better alternatives. An example that I know will probably make some upset is Dragon Quest 1 (Dragonwarrior). It was pretty much the first real JRPG and at the time it was amazing, but now it's so bare-bones and nothing but grinding, there was hardly any story at all, etc. Now you have all kinds of JRPG games to choose from which just have so much better and refine the experience of how an RPG is played and experienced.

So I'm not saying Dragon Quest 1 is a bad game because for it's time it was the shit. But it has aged badly since the time it was released and can hardly hold a candle to most any RPG games that came after it. There's almost literally no reason to go back and play it other than to relive those fond memories because of how outclassed it is by other RPG games and it's sequels. It has aged badly.

A lot of the time we forgive games for shit because that's just how things are right now, gameplay as much as graphics. Any JRPG with random battles, 3D games with fiddly or crude camera controls, arcade-derived limits on lives, leaps of faith, rubbish dialogue options, draw distance. Pretty much any classic game (not Tetris) is theoretically improvable, it's just that we are all damn PhD's in enjoying stuff anyway.

>>546372
its the beatles.

who knows why, though

>>547805

A lot of those issues could be improved, but are minor and don't really hamper your playing of the game.

Also some people like random battles.

A car without a park assist system can still be a perfectly fine car. Strictly speaking, it'd be better with it, but not having it doesn't make the car difficult to drive.

>>546292

I really don't understand why OoT seems to be the posterchild for a game having aged badly. I don't think it's aged badly at all..

>>547974

This, FFVII is a much better example of a AAA game that's aged like a dairy product.

I think its a rather silly thing to say concerning most video games. When you say a game "aged badly" you sound like you're judging a game as a product, like a teacher grading a paper and not because you actually enjoy videogames or get anything out of it. As if all you care about is winning arguments on message boards. where is the appreciation for games, the individual response?

only games you can say really "aged badly" are games that relied purely on content. most often fighting or sports games. games that are less about how fun they are to play and more about being able to play AS something.

>>546450
FMVs was praised, but not for the use they ended up being used for. Full FMV games where mostly a gimmick, but some aged well because they where not bad in the first place.
A better example would be earlier RPGs. A lot of stuff like commandos went away for a context senstive action button. Inventories was a mess and sometimes even painful. Etc.

>>546450
>A good example is FMV games. In their day, it was really impressive to see full motion video in a game. Now, it really isn't, and people have found a lot of those FMV games that were stunning and groundbreaking at the time are now really mediocre games (or barely games at all) when played from a modern perspective.

People thought those were mostly terrible from the day the Sega CD was released.

And Dragon's Lair is still being ported to everything ever released.

>>546309
lel

>ctrl+f "pokemon"
>0 of 0

Red and Blue are the only examples you need of something that's aged horribly. Seriously, try playing them now and try to claim that they're still good. Every little thing that happens causes a glitch.

Pokemon Red/Blue have not aged well.

They...are...just...so...slow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Hxq9oMEMw

I don't think it's fair to say at all. I've never gone back and played a game and thought "Wow. This was great for its era, but it sucks now." If I play a game I enjoyed in the past, but not now it's pretty much almost always because of one or more of the following reasons:

1. Gimmicks.
2. Memories of it with parents/friends.
3. Shit that appeals to kids.

And sometimes when people say that games aged poorly it just boggles my mind. Like I heard a couple people saying that Super Mario 64 aged poorly. I played Super Mario 64 last year and it was outstanding.

It's like "nostalgia goggles." One of those things that people talk about constantly that doesn't actually exist.

I played final fantasy x before ix

I found ix unplayable due to the horrible graphics as a result.

Really, anything on the PS1 is unplayable due to graphics in my opinion

>>548231
IX isn't unplayable because of the graphics. It's because it's slow as shit, even on the fastest settings.

>>548202
That guy is just terrible. I can beat the game in under 3 hours easily nowadays.

>>548231
>unplayable because of graphics
Why are you even here then?
You don't belong here.
Back to /v/ with you.

Some games hold historical importance but many are no longer relevant to play except those not solved. For instance, chess continues to be fun because we can't completely solve it whereas tic-tac-toe is fun until you figure out either player can force the game into a draw. Likewise many video games lose their enjoyability once they are solved.

Casual gamers and kids are incapable of robustly solving games thus can enjoy simpler ones that are trivially solved by their hardcore counterparts. Of course, there's a whole spectrum there from kids to mathematicians. Mathematicians can solve many games hardcore gamers enjoy. Does that make hardcore games bad too? Not at all.

People are here to have fun, not write proofs. A solved game does not make it bad for everyone. Moreover, solved games can still be enjoyable if they are played with someone who has not solved it.

>>548203
>I've never gone back and played a game and thought "Wow. This was great for its era, but it sucks now."
I have. Lots of nes RPGs make me feel that way. Also games that were once praised for their graphics, which are now outdated.

>>548231
pls get lost and never come back

Graphically? Yes
mechanically? Not really, the game is either intuitive or it isn't.

Some artstyles do not age well, see your picture. However some artstyles age very slow or will never age at all.

See
>Quake 3
>Wind waker

And to clarify i'm talking about artstyle not graphic quality and polycount.

(I guess this applies to sound as well but i'm in no position to discuss that)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T6IAHWMd2I

>>548172

Not only are they astoundingly buggy, the gameplay, as >>548202 states, is mind-numbingly drawn-out and tedious, and the graphics are some of the ugliest I've ever laid eyes upon for a first party Nintendo product.

It's funny how there's very little difference between GSC designs and the designs in BW over a decade later, and yet the original RG sprites look like something you'd smother with a pillow at birth.

>>546562
Goldeneye was only good if you'd literally never played a multiplayer FPS before.

It was a good party game when you had friends over, but everything about it just made me wish Turok had multiplayer.

>>547219
>implying games are a craft and not an art

ya done goofed

>>546562
Actually back when Goldeneye came out, all the PC guys laughed at it because they had Quake II. I don't really see what's so awful about Goldeneye, though. I played it a couple years ago and its still fun.

>>548348
You don't know shit kid...you don't know shit...

>>548413
It was one of the first games to do many things I believe, one of them being transparent shaders like glass.

As a PC player, it's a very impressive game for it's time.

Also Carmack and id mainly focused on lighting and particle effects.

>>546517
This is what I always say about Half-Life 2

>UNDERAGEB& DETECTED, YOU HAD TO PLAY IT WHEN IT WAS NEW

Translation:
>YOU HAD TO PLAY IT WHEN YOU WERE YOUNG ENOUGH FOR YOUR OPINION TO BE DICTATED BY GAMING JOURNALISTS

>>548427
Quake 2 had transparent glass and water.

>>548428

I still enjoy Half-Life 2, and I do think that it's aged poorly.
It's an awkward transitional stage between modern set-piece shooters and Quake-style shooters.

>>548425

What?

>>548441
Sorry, I meant on consoles

>>548449
Half-Life 1 is still amazing though. It's pretty much perfect.

>>546324
This nigga knows what's up.

>>548468

I agree, I like Half-Life 1 much more than Half-Life 2.
I still don't think Half-Life 2 is not enjoyable or a bad game in any way, though.

>>548413
But Goldeneye came out before Quake II... /vr/ - Revisionist History.

As someone who was actually a PC gamer back then the cry was: "B-b-but Outlaws did sniper rifles first!" or "B-b-but Strife did mission objectives!" and other head-burying efforts to pretend Goldeneye wasn't revolutionary in its approach.

why the picture OP

oot still looks great

Something ages about as badly as you want it to. Here on 4chan though, normally it's a /v/ buzzword unless it pertains to something that was extremely early in a transitional period like say... very early PS1 when the graphics were made out of very few Polygons.

/thread

>>548521

What do you mean /thread?
I completely disagree with what you're saying.

>>548521
Oh, forgot to mention extremely buggy games like Pokemon RBY. though some say bugs are part of the experience.

>>548532
Lets run down the thread, shall we?

>OP posts OoT in hopes of trollan
>shitposts of Beatles

While yes, I do agree, I think we should stick a fork in the thread.

I think we should stick a fork in the thread.

For me things age badly when there are really outdated, not relevant things like Bill Clinton humor or when things like blood and gore that USED to be shocking end up so common place.
Like Mortal Kombat was all about OMG BLOOD so now years and years later theres just nothing about it worth a damn because the whole premise is obsolete

>>548521
>using sage as a downvote

A Link to the Past is from the SNES and if you play it today, it still looks good, plays well, and the full experience can be felt by a modern gamer.

Ocarina of Time was considered good on the basis of it being one of the first 3D massive games on the console. That gimmick along with the targeting system was what made it stand out. However, the game today looks bad, the targeting system isn't as good as it seemed along with some clunky gameplay mechanics. We can safely say the game didn't age extremely well. GoldenEye aged extremely bad and isn't fun to play at all anymore. This is because the concepts in the games were improved upon already and show that they weren't that great in the games. ALttP is still seen as good because it was strong in all aspects of its gameplay and mechanics along with visuals. OoT and GoldenEye are just praised because of the gimmicks they had.

>>546975
>>547182

I'm not saying they have. I think you have misunderstood my point. I put it in quotes because people could fling the term at it because they're in black and white or have been redone several times.

Jesus christ, I love Seven Samurai.

>>548610
I don't think a feature like the Z-targeting system can be called a "gimmick", on the basis that almost every 3D adventure game made after it is using it as well.

>>548610

I think you're completely full of shit. OoT is a great game even if you look beyond "it was the first 3D Zelda".

>>548683
No, he's calling being the most massive game on the platform a gimmick, you silly. Read again.

play a game from before your time.

>i am so bored this is stupid i don't have any interest in playing more than 3 minutes
that's because it was rendered obsolete by games that competed with and improved upon it, that were subsequently marketed to you
>wow this is really fun regardless of the fact that it is ancient
that's because it had a simple and creative enough premise to age well

I don't know how the cowadoody babbies generation are going to gauge this when they get older but this is the reason that everyone knows Frogger today and nobody gives a shit about Pengo.

OoT still has easily the best dungeons in the zelda series, so I think saying it's aged badly is silly.

>>546691
>You can't really compare 10 or more year old games with recent ones.
This sentiment is as fucked-up as it's wrong.

Gameplay from all times is easily comparable.

>>548695
Ah, I seem to have misread it. And now it makes even less sense than it already did.

>>548698
>that's because it was rendered obsolete by games that competed with and improved upon it, that were subsequently marketed to you
No good game was rendered obsolete by any of the follow-ups.

It it was so easy to 1-up it, it wasn't worth much int he first place.

>>548610
>looks bad

Under what criteria? What are you playing it on? A stretched-out emulator plastering a tiny resolution over a huge HD TV? How does LTTP look fine to you when you can see the pixels in the sprites? They're not HD sprites! Obviously this game is garbage!

Games age. Whether they do it well or not depends on how good they were in the first place.

>>548683
I didn't necessarily mean it as in how gimmicks are today, I just meant as one of the aspects of the game that people focus on of it being the first in and saying it is what made the game good.

>>548693
Yea it's a great game, but is it the best Zelda out there anymore? No. And if a game like A Link to the Past had such a bland vast area like Hyrule Field then it would be considered much worse. So yes, a lot of people look over its flaws because it was the first 3D Zelda. Plus the controls weren't even that smooth and the camera can be a bitch.

>>548705
Water Temple, Fire Temple, and Spirit Temple are the only ones really worth mentioning. Overall ALttP and LA have more consistently quality dungeons.

>>548713
>Yea it's a great game, but is it the best Zelda out there anymore? No.
The only Zelda game that tops Ocarina is Link's Awakening, which still predates it.

Later Zelda games don't even come close to any of those.

As for the "empty field" crap, yeah, it wouldn't work in a 2D game. It would and did in a fully 3D game for obvious reasons, though.

>>548718

>not liking the forest temple

what.

>>548610

I consider Ocarina of Time one of the best games ever made, and it has nothing to do with its influence or impact or what it did new. Right now, at this moment, I say it's better than almost any game that came out after it.

It's naive to think people only praise OoT because of what it did new. People praise it because the game is masterfully designed. It IS possible to be both the first grand 3D game and an incredibly designed game.

>>548726
>Right now, at this moment, I say it's better than almost any game that came out after it.
You'd be right.

I never owned a Nintendo product in my life, I emulated Ocarina for the first time in, like, 2007, when the PS2 was already dead. The game is amazing and for the most part unrivaled.

>>548710
A Link to the past, visually nice on your eyes no matter where. The effects in the woods are still as cool as ever as well.
http://www.technobuffalo.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/A-Link-to-the-Past.jpg

Ocarina of Time, looks very bland and the colors are all murky and blend in together. You all mock this shit in modern FPS . Not to mention link's face and everything about him looks awful.

http://images.nintendolife.com/screenshots/10981/large.jpg

http://coolrom.com/screenshots/n64/Zelda%20-%20Ocarina%20of%20Time%20Master%20Quest%20%282%29.jpg
http://coolrom.com/screenshots/n64/Zelda%20-%20Ocarina%20of%20Time%20Master%20Quest%20%282%29.jpg
http://199.101.98.242/media/shots/39915-Legend_of_Zelda,_The_-_Ocarina_of_Time_%28USA%29-52.jpg

http://www.toy-tma.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Ocarina-of-Time-great-Deku-Tree.jpg

>>548709

I think you misread what I wrote, because all you did was repeat exactly what I said but in extremely difficult-to-decipher stupidese.

>>548742
I just didn't read your post at all.

>>548743

I think OoT looks really good, artistically.

>>548743

I guess we disagree, but I honestly think LttP is the most poorly produced Zelda game. its colors are ugly, everything seems fat, the music is muted sounding

>>548743
Wow how did I fuck up that post so bad. I should've just puush'd.

>>548759
I agree about ALttP. My personal problem with it were the clunky fucking controls. It felt like a SEGA game to me, to be honest.

>>548743
OoT is supposed to be seen in motion, not ugly screenshots where yous tare at textures for lack a better thing to do.

>>548768

this

>>548768
w-woah! fuck you buddy!

>>548768
>clunky controls
>felt like a SEGA game
10/10

>>546380

I've seen that movie on a good tv and immediately afterward I saw Toy Story 3. That movie looked kinda bad, but you can get past it.

I think most of us agree that we have become a bit spoiled. I might even be the graphical thing too. Many have fond memories of the 16 bit era because it was a refinement of the 8 bit. Same how people have fond memories of 5th gen since it was a refinement of the 32 bit era.

>>548768
>game has clunk controls

Hold on guys, I think I can translate this, it sounds like he's trying to say

>I am absolute shit at the game, so much so that I'll blame the controls before I blame myself

>>548706
Sure, but it wouldn't be fair.

>this thread

>>548826
Go back to /v/.

The only games I've ever been unable to play due to age were a few Intellivision games, and Goldeneye, though the latter was only because on one level you had to find something that was supposed to fall to the ground after shooting down a helicopter, and I just couldn't find it because of the graphics. That latter is also the only non-ASCII game I couldn't play directly because of being unable to figure out graphics.

I'm going to have to try Goldeneye again, now I feel like a bitch for giving up due to graphics.

>>548857
You're the one whining about non-existant problems, I think you would enjoy /v/ more.

>>548834
Why not? Graphics can't be compared technically, but can be aesthetically. As for gameplay, top of the line game design was already possible by mid eighties.

>>548202
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Hxq9oMEMw

God, who the fuck ACTUALLY uses the 'shift' battle setting? It's just so ridiculously stupid that you can just insta-counter the pokemon they're about to send in. It makes the game easier than it already is.

>>548868
I wasn't part of your conversation. I just think you should take your strawman bullshit where it belongs.

>>548768
And all this time I'd been thinking ALttP's smooth movements were some of the best of any top-down perspective game ever made. If only I'd known they were trash, then I would've enjoyed ALttP for what it really was.

>>547219

>comparing technology to art

retarded

>>548768
I've never had this problem. I played A Link to the Past for the first time in like...2006 or something. I NEVER had a problem with the controls. I always thought they were rather tight, actually. But still...
>Felt like a sega game
I chortled

Games that age badly include: pokemon games where you can't save games anymore, (not a game but) n64 controllers which break down on their own, etc.

If the game isn't changing then it's aging just fine.

>>546335

>the incredible machine
>to dated to still be enjoyable

What the... fuck, what? Really?

>>548915
You've got to be trolling

games dont age poorly, however you can have nostaglia goggles.

like take banjo tooie on n64. have you gone back and SEEN that framerate?

>>549069
>that pic
Christ, what is that, 12fps?

>>548969
Pokémon games can be fixed. You need a special screwdriver (or you can just melt the back end of a plastic pen, put it in the screw slot, let it harden, and use that to unscrew it), but batteries can be replaced. Same with N64 control sticks, though I've never done that myself.

>>549098
Melting a pen and using that to unscrew? That's so ghetto laugh out loud

>>549081
>gauging fps off a still image

>>549113
That's the joke

>>549098
You can fix N64 controllers with a simple screwdriver and some scissors and ducttape. Just be careful, there's a lot of tiny screws in the thing, I've already lost one of them.

>>548878

It's not like set makes the game any harder

I want a pokemon game where the ai isn't fuck stupid for once.

>>549098
You can fix them but they age badly if you have to open them up and fix them without breaking them in the first place.

>>549147
Yes, but it's just the battery that doesn't age well, not the actual game, and even then my Yellow Version has lasted 15+ years without the battery dying.

>>546292
People say Punch Out! aged badly, but I think those stereotypes are funny as fuck. King Hippo the fat cocksucker, Glass Joe the pussy Frenchman, it was such a fucking awesome game. "Age well" is a subjective term as far as video games go, and I like not having cutscenes unless they're skippable. Not being able to skip cutscenes really kills a game's replay value.

>>549110
Special screws are always a pain.

>>546292
>is it just an excuse pulled out of people's asses to dismiss old games?
yes

>>547424
In the same way Castlevania 1 has "bad controls".

>>549236
Or maybe in the way Alone in the Dark 1 has """""bad controls""""""""""""""""""""""""

This has been said before, but with this Pokemon battery nonsense going on, I think it's worth repeating that some of you are falling victim to the etymological fallacy. "Aging" in the context of entertainment doesn't imply or require an actual, literal, physical deterioration of anything. It's simply about whether a piece of entertainment from the past still holds up to the standards of the present.

I really hate the term "aged badly". It just sounds like something that someone who doesn't care much or appreciates video games would say.

>>549275
So, just bad controls?

But that makes the game shitty. It aged fine - stayed shit.

>>549284
That's merely what you read into it, though.

>>549298
>So, just bad controls?
No.

>But that makes the game shitty. It aged fine - stayed shit.
AitD is a highly acclaimed classic that pioneered many elements in its genre, so whatever your personal opinion of it may be, it certainly wasn't shit by the standards of its time. It has aged badly, however, and couldn't compete with any modern action adventure or survival horror game in any regards.

I'm not even sure why this is such a taboo with some of you, *especially* when assuming that most of you know your game history.

How about the first mortal kombat? Game is a mess now by modern standards, where as SFII is still played and enjoyed in some circles.

>>546292
>excuse pulled out of people's asses to dismiss old games?

Most of the time I see someone say a game has aged badly it's this.

>>549362
It all boils down to personal preference, really. Personally, I somewhat dislike the overall slowness of (the original) SFII while I still love Mortal Kombat the same way I'd love a trashy 80's slasher movie. I do think that both games have been outshone by their respective successors and certain competitors.

When I think of a game aging badly, it's because it was praised because it did something new or revolutionary, but it didn't actually do it well. So even when it was released, it wasn't very good. I guess it didn't age badly then, because it wasn't that good to begin with.

OoT really doesn't fit at all, because, while it was revolutionary for the time, it's still a great game regardless. It is absolutely playable today, especially the adult sections.

When I think of aging I think more like GTA3, a game praised because it was really the first sandbox game of its kind, but was still pretty boring with a flat world.

Super Smash Bros (N64) aged badly I'd say. There's really no reason to play it over Melee.

>>549412

never really got the hype over GTA

too many ADHD kids getting their kicks by killing civilians and dicking around with no goal

>>548575
Pretty damn sure it wasn't in that post, FYI.

>>549412
I usually think of Dragon's Lair this way. It received so much praise for purely superficial qualities.

>>549147
EVERY cartridge game that saves aside from N64 games and GBA games has this flaw.

>>549421
Bullshit.

>>546562

But that same game you mention has been largely obsoleted by more advanced shooters and our standards have gone up in addition to that.

Goldeneye simply isn't that good or worth one's time anymore. In a sense, it has aged badly.

Games don't "age" as such, but a variety of variables change that ends up resulting in a phenomena that's easiest described as video games having an aging process.

tl;dr. Games "aging" is verbal shorthand for a more complex process that is quite real.

>>549508
Goldeneye has not changed. The games around it and, as such, peoples expectations have. What ages is the industry.

>>549517
That's kind of exactly what that guy just said.

I don't understand how you can say Goldeneye has aged badly. It's still very fun to play multiplayer and often a big hit with people in their 20s. Tons of people would rather play Goldeneye over something like halo or call of duty.

>>549526
Yeah. I was defining his "more complex process".

>>549537

I don't actually think that, I was kinda just using it as an example for the sake of making a point.

You can really just swap the names out with any old game and have it work just as well.

>>546370
>I interpret "aging badly" as being a game which was great at the time but did not include features which are so good that they eventually became obligatory in the genre after they were introduced in other games.

bingo

t can be both but OOT is not an example of aging badly

Myst aged badly. It's pretty much obvious by this point that it was just a slideshow of pretty pictures.

>>549742
I think it kinda is bro. I'm a huge Zelda fan but I think it's got to be the worst of the 3D titles...? besides maybe skyward sword...

>>549764
The only part of oot that aged was its most trivial part - the graphical presentation. The plot and pacing and dynamics are still epic as all fuck. So I don't see OoT as having aged badly. Maybe aged a little, but not badly.

The thing people always forget about "aging badly" is that is focuses entirely on gameplay and graphics. New games are generally just better in both those areas, so it's easy to lose sight os certian things that make older game blatantly better than newer ones:

Level/area layouts, game mechanics, variety of gameplay and variety of genres.

Play 5 FPS' that came out in the last 5 years, and they'll look and play almost exactly alike. Same with their design, layouts, mechanics, ect.

Play 5 FPS' from 1998, and they all look, play and are layed out differently. Same with RPGs, TPS', Action games, Platformers, Fighting games, ect, ect, ect, ect.

All newer games really do better is standardise things. And the worst part is that the number of genres we have is shrinking every year.

Back in the day, if I was apt to play an RPG, I could play Star Ocean 2, Parasite Eve, Final Fantasy VIII, Wild Arms, Grandia, Vagrant Story, Xenogears, ect. They all had things in common, but they had their own graphical style, their own camera systems, their own game engines, their own battle systems, their own plotlines, ect.

If I wanna play an RPG now, there's Fallout, Skyrim, Dark Souls, Dragon's Dogma and Mass Effect. They differ in setting, but they're a lot blander, more standardised and play either like a third rate hack n slash, or a second rate FPS. So it's arguable to me what "aged worse".
I'd honestly rather play a bad PS1 or SNES RPG than play a good PS3 or 360 RPG, because they're just better games overall.

The same goes for FPS' as well. Goldeneye's gameplay has been outdone, to be sure, but the levels are just better designed than those in Black Ops 2, witch makes Goldeneye a better game to me. There's more than one way to play it, witch adds replay value. Something that new games almost entirely lack (outside DLC anyway)

It may just be my opinion, but I feel that people who say "aged badly" are just too dumb to look beyond the surface to see the greatness beneath.

Yes.
The original Pokemon games are really dated compared to the new ones because of how much new stuff each subsequent generation added.

>>549916
>because of how much useless shit each subsequent generation added.

the only thing cumbersome in originals are navigating the inventory

>>549898
One thing I would liek to add to this assessment is that certian genres really coultn;s be handeled well by older hardware, and are just ebtter now. TPS' for example.

Syphon filter doesn't hold a cantle to anything released in the past 10-13 years. But it's not because it's a bad game, but moreso because Third person shooters were a genre that the PS1 just couldn't handle all that well.

Other than blatant things like that, I like to assume that the only games that "age badly" are those whose hype has died, and fans have forgotten.

Classic Resident Evil beats the living shit out of anything horror related released since 2002, but people hate them and say they suck simply because they're not popular anymore. And that makes me sad. I'd love to see a classic style RE done with the power hardware has these days.

REmake for the Gamecube's graphics still stand up to newer games, and it was released 11 years ago. Imagine how great looking and playing a PS3 or PS4 RE with 2D environments would be. It could potentially be photorealistic to such an extent that you literally couldn't tell the difference.

But the genbre" aged badly" because RE4 fed people's need to run straight and shoot things, so now instead of games that set new standards and stand the test of time we get shit like RE6...

"Aged badly" my ass...

>>549898
>Play 5 FPS' that came out in the last 5 years, and they'll look and play almost exactly alike. Same with their design, layouts, mechanics, ect.
>Play 5 FPS' from 1998, and they all look, play and are layed out differently. Same with RPGs, TPS', Action games, Platformers, Fighting games, ect, ect, ect, ect.
Really disagree with you on this. There have always been cookie cutter titles throughout gaming history. In the the 90's, many FPS's were interchangeable Doom clones, for example, and every other platformer was a generic mascot game.

>>549951
No information on what the moves do is a bit painful, if it where not for the fact you are your enemy trainers share moves, which removes the initial mess.

>>549951

>abilities
>weather
>useful held items
>breeding
>graphics that don't look penned by a toddler with severe Down's Syndrome
>new types
>exponentially expanded roster of Pokemon and moves
>new regions
>better multiplayer support

there's nostalgia, and then there's blatant mumpsimus
grow up
>

I think we all can accept that Yoshi's Island is timeless.

>>549954
>Classic Resident Evil beats the living shit out of anything horror related released since 2002
That's incredibly ignorant. There have been some amazing horror themed games since 2002, like the Penumbra series, The Suffering, Condemned, FEAR or Scratches.

I mean, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I can't really take it seriously.

>>550027
>>more numbers
>>battery is dead wtf
>>slowed combat
>>farming
>>shinyz
>>more bullshit
>>what the fuck is all this now?
>>more of the same
>>multiplayer basically the same

original or bust faggot

>>550072
Yes

>>550131

everyone with half a brain agrees RBY is the worst entry in the series

aging badly is a problem within a game's inability to keep up with the times

no one can play certain games now without registering a certain mindset

>>550156
GSC is worse simply because all the glitches in RBY make it incredibly fun.

the old SMT games

>>550165
Please tell me you're trolling. Please.

>>550156
No, that title belongs to Diamond and Pearl Versions. The glitches, like this smart anon said >>550165 did indeed make the games more fun. Don't tell me finding a trainer in the wild with glitched out flareons that knew sky attack and metronome was not funny.

>>550235
You don't like fucking around with glitches?

>>546540
Is peewee herman supposed to be high on crack in this picture?

>>547805
Classic Tetris is a great concept with a shit implementation. Arika's TGM series improved it so the game is great too.

>>547954

It's because they aged badly.

>>550839

Games do age, but the overwhelming majority of people ITT seem to think it's because of graphics.

No. Graphics are a sign of their times, yes, but that is not the factor.

Games age most significantly due to aesthetic, gameplay gimmicks, and topical references/popular culture. Games that have aged poorly are not necessarily bad. Games that have aged well are not necessarily good.

For instance, Earthworm Jim. It's a pretty good game, but my personal opinion is that is has not aged well, specifically due to its crude style of humor which hasn't been exactly topical since, say the early-mid 90's. Hell, one could even argue that by the time EWJ was actually released, it's humor was already dated, well on the heels of the peak of such crude-humored pop-cultural phenomena such as Ren & Stimpy, or even Beavis and Butthead.

>>550785
Oh the irony of that comment.

>>546391
>those comments

Are they mad because the guy is dicking around while discussing instead of playing COMPLETELY SERIOUSLY?!? FUCKING GAME JOURNALISTS! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!

>>550942
>For instance, Earthworm Jim. It's a pretty good game, but my personal opinion is that is has not aged well, specifically due to its crude style of humor which hasn't been exactly topical since, say the early-mid 90's. Hell, one could even argue that by the time EWJ was actually released, it's humor was already dated, well on the heels of the peak of such crude-humored pop-cultural phenomena such as Ren & Stimpy, or even Beavis and Butthead.

Or this game, another thing that's as 90s as it gets.

>>551828
>>550942
>toilet humor
>went out of style after 1994

What was South Park and Family Guy?

>>548172
There are a lot of problems with Red and Blue, but this isn't it. Yes, the games are a bug-filled mess, but you actually have to be trying pretty hard to make the bugs show (the easiest bug to replicate accidentally involves talking to that NPC who teaches you to catch Pokémon again when you're about halfway through the game; there really isn't any reason you'd do this other than to trigger the glictch).

>>548390
Goldeneye's good for the campaign. If you're playing multiplayer, you're doing it wrong.

>>546358
True. A good example is the infamous game informer replay of Thief: the dark project. They screwed up playing it so badly and had the audacity to claim that it didn't age well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrcFKLwhfbI

>>546394
Defiantly important not just back then but even now. We are kind of spoiled today with everything simplified like a ford assembly line.

>>546691
Very true. /v/ is an example of generational differences when compared to /vr/.

>>548743
Texture wise it varies in quality but those screenshots are still impressive even today.
The draw distance is huge compared to today's games. The graphical design and cut-scene camera work is still good.

>>549898
>>549954
Are you me? lol

>>546292
Both. The latter is by people who don't know how to articulate why they dislike an old game so they just say WELL IT AGED POORLY. Some parts of FF7 have aged like milk and I couldn't even bring myself to finish it last time I replayed it a few years ago; I stopped entirely because the translation is just so fucking miserable and the plot isn't as good as I remember.

>>551884
>Very true. /v/ is an example of generational differences when compared to /vr/

/vr/ is only about 4-5 years older than /v/. How much of a difference could there be?

>>551965
It does. There's a radical change in people born in the late 80s-early 90s versus those born after 93. The latter are a hivemind of autism who've been raised by Facebook and Redshit. Truly the worst generation ever outside boomers.

>>551992
Or, maybe 15 yos have always been shitty in all generations including you at that age

It's an excuse.
People simply get used to something.

Look at the people that say Goldeneye, and follow it with something about the control scheme. It had a good control scheme, and if you let yourself get used to it again after years of dual stick then you'd see that.

>>549236

Castlevania 1 controls fine for the kind of game it tries to be. Bad controls are bad controls.

Games don't change at all.
The only "game" that this term could apply to is something like World of Warcraft.

>>552026
>Games don't change at all.

It's not about changing it's about old games living up to modern standards or not. Back then game development was highly experimental.

>>551992
Have you noticed a resurgence in the popularity of traditional-sounding baby names like Sophia, Emma, Abigail, Lucy, etc? It's because parents realized that those 70s-80s names like Jennifer, Jessica, Ashley, and Nicole are for sluts and they don't want their daughters to be ramming themselves with Deshaun's meat log at 15.

>>552039
Don't call it aging badly, it doesn't make any sense.
The game is still as good as the day it was released, to say it "aged badly" implies that the quality has somehow decreased.

>>552063
That's no reflection on the game, that is you being jaded.

>>552043
>Don't call it aging badly, it doesn't make any sense.

It does make sense. I have enjoyed many games as a kid that if I picked up today I wouldn't enjoy them nearly as much simply because I have experienced games that are way better. Likewise, I there are old games that if I picked up today I would enjoy because they contributed to today's standards.

>>552067

How is it not a reflection on the game?

>>552071
The game is exactly as it was released. It hasn't changed at all.
Any problem you now have with it is down to you, not the game.

>>552081

And the game was shit.

>>552063
Sounds like you aged badly, not them.

>>552114

Please do tell me how old games with shit controls are good.

>>546389

>My point being that the system itself remained the same, however. Companies developed better ways to manipulate the data on the cartridge as time passed, sure, but the NES couldn't process more than it was designed to.

I don't think you know how cartridges work. They aren't just a storage device for a game, there is hardware in there. Newer carts don't just look better because of improved artistry software trickery, they have better hardware behind them.

>>552120
You might be getting confused with games that have terrible control schemes like Tomb Raider or Resident Evil, that you simply got used to and learnt. But because you wouldn't put the time into nowadays due to all genres having a specific control scheme, then you say the game has "aged badly".

>>552128
Look at some early NROM games like Pooyan and Battle City. They look more like Colecovision stuff than NES. You're not going to do a lot on the thing without mappers.

>>546292
A game has aged poorly if its mechanics don't hold up to an acceptable level of quality compared to games of today. For example, oot's lock on system has been improved upon 10 times over. Or almost every fps of gen 5.
graphics can age poorly when they're held back by the hardware limitations. Like goldeneye would be one that aged poorly, as it's trying to be realistic but misses that goal quite a bit when compared to games today that are trying to be realistic in the same manner. Really, it's just attempts at 'realism' that result in poor aging. I can't think of anything stylistic of the era right now but something like muramasa (wii) won't age poorly in its style because it's not doing anything where it could be held back.

Also pretty much every early rpg and fps has aged poorly

>>546470

Why the fuck would you pick one of the worst games on the 2600 to make your point?

I mean, I assume you've played some other Pac-Man port or in an arcade, so you know it's awesome. The atari version hasn't "aged badly" it's as shitty now as it was when it came out.

>Goldeneye looks like shit
>he didn't play the PAL version of Goldeneye which runs at a higher native resolution

>>552161

nice bate mate I'm sure you'll trick someone

>>552161
OOTs lock on works pretty much flawlessly. Hell it's still pretty much the same shit used in every new Zelda since.

>>549998
>many FPS's were interchangeable Doom clones,
That's not what that word means.
Doom clone was the term that meant FPS before people were slightly less ignorant about them.
There actually weren't a lot of doom clones at all.
In much the same way as platformers where you collect things and jump around are not simply mario clones.
Games that are supposedly 'doom clones' back in those days are Dark Forces, Rise of The Triad, Heretic, Hexen, Strife, Duke Nukem 3D, Wolf3D (despite predating doom along with others that do the same), Blake Stone, Power Slave.
The fucking majority of them were barely like Doom except for being first person and shooting shit and maybe some quirks like no reloading guns and similar movement effects.
They were all their own games.

>>552537
The actual idea behind the lock on works without issue, but how it was applied through the controller, the kinds of graphics used to represent it and its actual application has been changed quite a bit since, both in the zelda franchise and games that learned from.
But regardless, you get the point. A game can be said to have aged when it's using antiquated methods and techniques. When you can go back and do something pretty more or less clearly better for the same goal.
Of course, whether or not a game has aged badly is more dependent on, I guess, its 'charm'. Which is more opinion based but personally, it'd be the kind of game that has so many old mechanics that, regardless of what made the game special, it's really just a pain in the ass to play. Like if some sort of old film was absurdly bright and it burned your eyes to properly watch it. What good the thing might have had has become buried under its problems (many or few, large and small). Problems that are only problems relative to today though.
That'd be a poorly aged game. I can't really think of any. E.T. would be a good example if it was good in the first place.

It's entirely possible for games to age badly, just as film or music or even board games. It's no fault of the games themselves, but identifying what the timeless strengths are of your platform are or innovating standards is not always present.
For example, it's hard to claim that early synth work was incredible compared to what came after it. A similar example would be the aging of sound effects in very early games.
Another example is early 3d games. This is a touchy subject, but it has to be understandable that it's as bad as CGI from films at that time to some people.
This does not include good design. Well designed sprites, colour schemes, sound design and gameplay mechanics can hold a game together from any era. At the same time, because of the technical limitations of video games, it is possible for a game to be the best designed game of its time and then lose all of its ground to later titles.

>>552639
You have zero idea what you're talking about.

I think it is possible for a game to "age badly". When gaming as a whole takes big steps forward, old games get left behind. A lot of people are talking about Goldeneye, and I honestly could have forgiven the graphics, and YES, it was a fucking amazing console game for the time, but it was working with a single stick, and the "consolization" of FPS's hadn't happened yet, so weapons switching was awkward, autoaim wasn't big enough to make up for the inaccurate stick movements, and of course, the 64 wasn't strong enough to keep the frames from dropping. All these things could be forgiven in a time before the Xbox generation made console FPS more workable (albeit much more casualized and less deep (and IMO less fun)), but once that happened, Goldeneye just falls hopelessly short.

Now on the other hand, Mario 64 has not aged badly. 3D platforming hasn't changed that much, and the game had everything that good 3D platformers have now: a competent camera, controls that were tight, but not TOO tight, a good moveset for platforming and fighting basic platformer enemies, and a variety of awesome levels to run and jump around in. Also the frames didn't drop noticeably, but the graphics are still colorful and appealing, if a bit blocky. It isn't as mindblowing now as it was back then, but it's still fun to play and it isn't really strictly worse in any way than modern platformers, other than the graphics of course.

>>552698
Read the thread, this issue has been addressed.

Games do not change, they do not age. It is the player that changes. If you're unable to play older games because they have "aged" then you were likely not playing them when they were new.

>>546391
> It's the players that change
Agreed
> Replay's review of the game Thief
> they keep treating it like SHOOT-N-KILL FPSes

Uggghhh

>>552698
Even as someone who grew up on SM64 I have to disagree. It's too empty. A shame because the controls are as tighter than anything 3d. I just feel like I can take in a whole scene in a split second, and then it feels like an Island until I get to the next object. There's no detail, no texture.
>>552712
Don't just dismiss it like that. Are you saying there's no higher standard now, that games haven't changed a single bit ever?

>>552712
There are games where the designers clearly didn't think through how the player might react to something, or simply neglected some kind of time-saving feature.

the original XCOM didn't let you type in numbers for manufacturing or buy/sell fields for example. While you could thankfully click and hold the arrow keys to constantly alter the number, it was still a nightmare waiting for the counter to tick up to triple or even quadruple digits.

>>552764
You're getting confused again, that was a bad idea at the time and still is.
It hasn't suddenly become a bad idea because a new game does it better.

>>552772
When someone claims a game has aged poorly, they're ignoring historical context. They're placing the game in the here and now.

A game aging badly doesn't mean the game necessarily did anything wrong. It just means that it relied on older methods that haven't stood the test of time. Some ideas simply could not have occurred prior to when they did. Just because they didn't doesn't mean the older ideas were less intelligent, just that this new idea is a better one.

>>552772
The new context isn't intrinsically part of you that you would have developed, it comes from having played better games.
In essence the standard changes and the past games fall behind, they have aged.
You may disagree with this but only my alternate expression of the same idea. Why can't you just accept games aging as an idiosyncratic saying?

Sometimes it is a matter of aging with mechanics. Just like playing tomb raider 2 after playing anniversary, jesus christ going back was frustrating.

>>546292
I look at Ocarina as a whole. Shit yeah, it's a rad game. But the girl's getting old. Her texture's are all that pretty, and some of her gameplay is a little shoddy. And there's some bugs. I can forgive her, because she's a beautiful lady. But she's getting on in years.
Go polish off a really good modern FPS, then go polish off DOOM. You'll understand. She's a beautiful lady, who can teach you all kinds of kinky things, but she ain't no spring chicken.

>>546356
>Seven Samurai
>aged badly

Fuck you, Seven Samurai is timeless.

>>552794
Ur mom polished me off

>>552786
>>552787
The game hasn't changed, it's still as good as bad as it was on release. It makes no sense to say it has "aged".
Things have become easier now, so you're going to notice how much harder things were back then, but you're missing (or never experienced) the fact that the first time you played the old game it was just as difficult as it is replaying it.

Really the only thing that has changed are your expectations. You seem much less willing to put in the effort these days.

>>552794
Doom still felt restrictive even when it was new. The inability to jump or look up/down really bugged me.

>>552819
So you can't even accept it as a saying?

>>552825
S'what I mean. Looking at OoT as an example, while it was still technically a free roaming game, it felt super restrictive, and the world was empty. And the next Zelda built upon this better, and so on.
That's just art though, brother.
And a masterpiece doesn't lose merit due to any other masterpieces after it, a tleast I feel.

>>552831
It's incorrect to say, when have you heard of a game "aging well" ?

The truth is that you can't play the game anymore for some reason, but just use the "aged badly" excuse to cover it up.

>>552843
Games age like people. Small flaws become bigger as they get older. Doesn't kill it's personality, but you notice it.

>>552851
>games age like people

no

>>546356
>aged badly
>potemkin
>seven samurai

How?
They couldn't be done in any other way, they're great as they are.
Same with Citizen Kane, now I see fucking critics on websites calling it "boring".
How the fuck can you say Citizen Kane is boring?

It has lots of little jokes and irony throughout, the exchange of lines between the characters is pretty much timeless, and Wells is just magnetic in all of it.

>>552853
>Disagrees
>Doesn't explain why
>Look at me juggle dicks, guys

>>552843
Why? Outgrowing a game is obviously a common experience, and these are the words that this feeling has taken on. Are we not allowed to express it?
"This game has aged poorly"
"No it has not aged poorly, it's still enjoyable"
"This game has aged poorly"
"No it has not aged poorly, the game is literally identical to when you played it"
Can you understand that these two ideas need to be separated? Do you think the words will change to fit your meaning? You need to divorce yourself by your literal interpretation of this phrase.

>>552854
>How can you say Citizen Kane is boring?

Nothing interesting happens.
>b-but muh rosebud
Nah, it's a shitty film kid.

You know why it's highly regarded? The camera work. That's the only good point.

>>552819

Yeah just play the CASUAAAAALS card, I'm sure that proves you're right.

>>552864
>Loved a handful of shitty games as a child, know now they sucked but still have fond memories
>Loved Mario 64 as a child, thought it was amazing. Play it now, it's old and there's odd design choices that bug me but it's still a great game.

>>552819
Yes. The ford model a hasn't changed in it's mechanics either. It's still the exact same car as it was a century ago. But when compared to cars of today, it doesn't really hold up, does it? The car has aged, its no longer what it once was by comparison.

The idea has aged. The concept doesn't somehow become older and rusty and fallen apart. But it's not an idea from today's thinking. It attempts a similar goal as cars today do but it doesn't even remotely compare in terms of efficiency.
Of course, that doesn't make the car any worse for it's time. But again. "for it's time".
As I said before, when someone claims a game has aged, it's ignoring historical context.

And my god, stop with the fucking nonsense about game difficulty. It's completely irrelevant. We're not talking about how super ghouls and ghosts was made more difficult because you had no control after you jumped. We're talking about how the first final fantasy had really ugly text backgrounds. It was fine for the time, because you had nothing better to compare it to but if you compare it to games of today it's significantly worse.
Super ghoul's and ghosts jumping is a timeless mechanic. The textbox appearance and look in FF are not. sgng jumping has not aged. ff textbox has.

>>552864
It hasn't aged, that's the issue.
The game doesn't change, it's all in your head.

Games that I enjoyed 15 or 20 years ago I can still go back to with the same level of enjoyment. If games aged, that wouldn't be true.

"It aged badly" is an excuse used by children too used to the casual games of today.

>>552882
I think we all understand that the game has not literally changed. The circuits haven't rearranged etc. and we have grown up or better games have been made. Saying games age is the expression of this. No statement was made about the speed that games "age".

>>552867
>rich lone guy dies
>someone hears him say a word
>persons want to unravel the mystery behind that word
>tale of grief, friendship and love unravels, with the theme of lost innocence behind it all
>nothing happens

But yeah, keep sticking to Hangover, I heard they're making the third now.

>>552882
Of course it's all in your head you moron. You're a product of the times. Games are a product of the times. You continue to evolve, while the game does not. It remains a product of its time whereas you do not
Some games can remain relevant throughout the ages. Other's cannot. Those that cannot, are considered aged.

>>552896
It's the fact that it's an opinion someone has, but they use a negative statement like "the game has aged badly" to imply that it's the game that is now bad somehow, and to absolve themselves of any responsibility relating to why they cannot play the game like they used to.

>>552919
Stop adding things to the argument that are completely irrelevant and forcing your fictional arguments on to the other party.
A game aging has nothing to do with deflecting this absurd responsibility you've placed on people. It can be used as an excuse, sure, but that doesn't fucking mean a game hasn't or can't age

>>552902

Here's my question. In the movie, Citizen Kane says rosebud, he dies, the orb shatters, and the maid comes to the room after hearing the crash.

Who heard him say "rosebud"?

>>552901
>Some games can remain relevant throughout the ages

SMB3

>Other's cannot

Rap Jam

>>552954
Another maid in the room? She heard him through the door? Who cares it's not important to the central theme.

>>546292

a lot of old JRPG's have aged badly due to innovations that came to the genre afterwards, it's not even limited to graphics, but is evident in gameplay. Random encounters and turn based battle systems have largely given way to different systems now.

It's totally a thing.
>Example of a game that has aged well from the 5th gen era?
Einhander or R-Type Delta or any shump really
>Example of a game that aged poorly from the 5th gen era?
Resident evil, Golden eye, Soul Reaver and other bunch of games that got to be the first of the line to experiment with new graphics & controls.

>>552947
You either don't understand this thread, haven't read it, or have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, if you want to "le downvote" you should head on back to leddit.

>>553003
you're not arguing with the thread, you're arguing with two anons specifically about the topic of whether or not a game can 'age'. No one is arguing whether or not it's an excuse. Simply that it is a thing. That games age.
also I tend to just sage when I lose interest in the argument because it's not going anywhere, and this is clearly not going anywhere as you (presumably, anyways) can't keep a consistent argument

>>553028
Games don't age though, it's an excuse people use.

>inconsistent argument
If you can't follow a thread then why both posting?

>>553043
They get older though.

>>553050
You mean the release date becomes further away. The game experience itself has no dependence on time.

>>553043
Maybe this is a bit of a misconception but when we speak of games "aging" i always tought they were refferering to a comparision to nowadays's standards on what to expect from the elements included in the delivery, which they do get old and outdated thus making the claim that they "aged" kind of valid.
Just sayin

>>553052
>game experience
Not only is that not what I said, but you're also wrong in the sense that many sociological changes can come with the passage of time, leading to a different experience with something due to new cultural influences and/or missing cultural influences from the past.

>>553043
but it's not just an excuse and a number of arguments and examples have been given as to why it's not simply an excuse
Again, it can be used as an excuse but that doesn't mean in its entirety it is an excuse. You've gone in a complete circle, completely removing all arguments that have been made so far
And not only that, whether or not it is an excuse does not change whether or not a game does age. It's an entirely irrelevant point to bring up and completely ignores everything thats been said up to this point.
and for the last time, a game is the product of its time and you're a product of your time but unlike a game, you continuously evolve while the game remains stagnant. The only way for the experience to be the same from the day the game was released and 10 years later is for you to not have changed at all.

When you're alone
And life is making you lonely,
You can always go downtown
When you've got worries,
All the noise and the hurry
Seems to help, I know, downtown

Just listen to the music of the traffic in the city
Linger on the sidewalk where the neon signs are pretty
How can you lose?

The lights are much brighter there
You can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares and go
Downtown, things'll be great when you're
Downtown, no finer place for sure,
Downtown, everything's waiting for you
(Downtown)

Don't hang around
And let your problems surround you
There are movie shows downtown
Maybe you know
Some little places to go to
Where they never close downtown

Just listen to the rhythm of a gentle bossanova
You'll be dancing with 'em too before the night is over
Happy again

The lights are much brighter there
You can forget all your troubles, forget all your cares and go
Downtown where all the lights are bright,
Downtown, waiting for you tonight,
Downtown, you're gonna be alright now
(Downtown, downtown)

Downtown
(Downtown)

And you may find somebody kind to help and understand you,
Someone who is just like you and needs a gentle hand to
Guide them along

So, maybe I'll see you there
We can forget all our troubles, forget all our cares and go
Downtown, things'll be great when you're
Downtown, don't wait a minute more,
Downtown, everything's waiting for you

Downtown (downtown) downtown (downtown)
Downtown (downtown) downtown (downtown)

Its possible, but OoT isnt one of them.

>>547974
Agree, that game has aged like wine. FFVII on the other hand has aged like milk.

I just beat Ocarina of Time for the first time last year. And I had a ton of fun playing it. I had no problems whatsoever with the controls or game mechanics. Aged very well.

Lots of PS1 games aged badly though. Unfortunately I find that I can only play MGS1 without thinking the controls suck or the game mechanics are shitty. Every other PS1 game I own is unplayable to me.

Yes. It's what happens when a game's innovations get rendered moot by either technological progress or the entire genre from that point on adopting the game's unique stuff. It's usually what happens when a game is based on a single gimmick instead of being solid in its own right.

Dune 2 is a pretty good example of it. It's the first real RTS(technically Herzog Zwei predates it, but that game is pretty different) and by god is it ancient by RTS standards.

>>548642
Ah, nevermind then.

>>552639
Twilight princess controlls for zlock are nearly identical except for the graphic is changed to an arrow over their head. Instead of a crosshair icon. It's applied the same with the controller.

>>546324

I actually thought 3D graphics looked blocky and awful until like the mid-00s

It's entirely possible for ANYTHING to "age bady." When you say something that "stood the test of time," you're saying it has aged well or at least is still relevant/fun/interesting/entertaining today.

-Fashion (every 10 years, people look back on many choices and go "wtf was I thinking...wtf were we ALL thinking?!")
-Movies (some films age well, others do no not)
-Art (paintings, drawings, sculptures...some are great period pieces or become pop culture icons. Others have 15 minutes of fame, and just became another stupid overpriced piece of shit)

Throwing around the phrase too often CAN be dismissive, but it's true some games and other things just do not age well. OoT one could argue was the first big transition for the Zelda series going from 2D to 3D space, and for the most part it did that job fairly well. But if you just don't like it anymore or feel that time has been unkind, I can definitely accept that.

I still enjoy it though, every few years, when I fire it up.

>>553261
>bady

Stopped reading.

>>553273
You weren't going to read it anyway, fatty.

>>553247

Did anybody else think this? I sincerely and at the time hated anything polygonal. I couldn't wait for graphics to improve. I always knew they would get better. They've still got a long way to go.

>>553261
>Throwing around the phrase too often CAN be dismissive
I think the issue is with calling something outdated or badly aged without pointing out why. This is what I'd consider a dismissal.

However, this goes both ways, of course. Calling a declaration of outdatedness "an excuse pulled out of people's asses to dismiss old games" without giving proper reasons is awfully dismissive as well.

>>553294
I felt the same way, but what's strange is that nowadays, I can tolerate both, modern high poly 3D *and* the blocky low poly stuff I used to hate in the past.

>>553315

Me too. With perspective, it's easier to see the old graphics for the achievements they were. I kind of still like 2d hand drawn shit better.

>>546358
Playing Zelda 1 the first time also takes a ton of patience. People have so many games now they'd rather just shut it off and play something accessible.

>>552867

He didn't even mention the rosebud twist, but that's probably the only thing you know about citizen kane seeing as you're a pleb.

>>546292
>>546301
Agreed with this.

Games can age poorly in that their game doesn't live up to the standard of more modern game's mechanics and execution of those mechanics and its flaws are more noticeable over time.

Like in your picture, OoT, I would say has aged well because it's still an enjoyable game and can be put up against today's adventure games and hold its own.

An example of a game that doesn't hold up well, in my opinion, would be something like Crash Bandicoot or Mario 64 or Donkey Kong 64 or Sonic Adventure.

OoT has aged badly.

Donkey Kong is still a solid game.

>>546742
>Sewer Shark today, and rightfully so, but in its time, it was critically acclaimed
no it was shit back then too. magazines were just paid to give it positive reviews.

>>553378
I've waited for 8 hours in this thread and now I see that you don't understand why Citizen Kane is considered revolutionary.

>>553114

a lot of early 3D games have aged poorly. FFVII being one of them. Some early 3D games LOOK bad (OOT, SM64, Starfox 64) but the gameplay is still good enough that they feel timeless. As I said earlier, a lot of JRPG's have aged badly because mechanics have changed in the genre. The genre has less and less games based on random encounters and turn based battle systems. You find more and more action RPG's and MMO like combat systems (such as Xenoblade and Last Story, Tales, Star Ocean, Nier, Dark Souls, even Final Fantasy battle systems have changed). So in Final Fantasy VII's case, the gameplay AND music/visuals seem dated.

Some games with sprite based artwork end up looking better even with extra age. Final Fantasy IV-VI look better than VII overall because the sprite artwork is good, but the gameplay is again a bit dated, but Chrono Trigger has aged well due to the gameplay innovations it brought to the genre.

>>552698
>not using the c-buttons for movement and the stick for aiming

Old games: You have to work at getting your satisfaction, but when it comes, the feeling is incredible.

New games: Drip feeding of excitement at a constant rate, but overall the feeling is rather blasé.

'Aging badly': When somebody expecting drip feeding encounters something that requires work towards satisfaction.

>>552962
I applaud you.

This is the most succinctly put point. The point I was trying to make about Earthworm Jim.

It's not the gameplay. Clunky gameplay is clunky. It's not the graphics, so much. Charm is charm. That's why cartoony graphics hold up better than more realistic ones. Age is not a factor.

Are the themes and ideas that the game presents still contemporary, or are they dependent upon historical and cultural context with which they were released? The former is a game that is "timeless" and "ages well", whereas the second is far too dependent upon cultural waves, and therefore "ages poorly".

>>555149
The worst kind of control set up, just awful.

For me, games only age badly if they have a poor control configuration. Personally, I do not think OOT aged badly(game in the OP).

Supposedly, but who gets to define the standards?

The loudest whiners of course.

Why bother with learning complex controls like those of Goldeneye? Why can't everything be Call of Duty?

So there, might as well take the most recent titles of the best-selling series of all time and define that as the standard.

So, if it doesn't feel like CoD, it's shit.

"Aging" is for casual faggots.

>>556120
read
>>553064
>>553261
>>554954

It's very clearly not just an excuse. It can be used as one, but that doesn't stop it from being a thing. Just because you let yourself get defined by whatever is popular at a certain time doesn't mean everyone else does

>>556120

>Complex controls
>Goldeneye

wut

>>556164
It's "ironic". CoD is shitty. I don't believe in art "aging". Like the last guy saying FF7 aged badly, I can't think of a *single* thing about FF7 to 9 that "aged badly" other than technical aspects, but that's to be expected and it doesn't bother me at all.

>>556172
>"it dun hav xbox stix to walk and luhk so it bad 4 a casual babby lik me"

>>556205
How is that ironic
And when someone says something aged poorly, they're talking about the technical aspects you fucking moron

>>556225
>So, if it doesn't feel like CoD, it's shit.
That was said ironically.
>And when someone says something aged poorly, they're talking about the technical aspects you fucking moron
That's the problem you fucking moron, when talking about TECHNICAL aspects, think "resolution", "polygon count" and stuff like that. Gameplay elements like Resident Evil "tank controls" and "random encounters" aren't technical aspects, but even if you consider them so, they aren't inherently good or bad.

See, that's the problem. Some people think their views on gameplay are the "right one", just because...they feel like it is. Or because the general gaming population doesn't like it, that's still illogical tough (ad populum).

>>546292

I usually see this phrase coming from /v/irgins in deus ex threads. most of them cannot even grasp the idea that you have to improve your skills to be able to shoot people effectively. they cannot even into the aiming mechanics. that's why I hate that phrase and think it's bullshit most of the time

my mind is blown when someone says the same about system shock 2

I hate the word "aged", it's meaningless in that it implies many things that are not true. For example, if I said that "2D games have aged badly" it implies that people didn't know that 2D games were just 2D because we were all too stupid to understand the concept of 3D space before 1996.

I think it would be more correct to say that every game has an objective, a "selling point", and that some game accomplish their objectives better than others and that some games accomplish the same objective as an older game better and so games that were once considered "good" like Super Adventure Island have become more obscure as objectives have become crowded or, alternately, as objectives became forgotten and misinterpreted. Then there are the objectives that are tied to an "exciting new technology" that inevitably becomes out dated as seen in Sega CD FMV games.

>>556205

Western audiences aren't really big fans of random encounters, and they prefer encounter systems like Chrono Trigger or Tales/Star Ocean, where you can see the enemies on the map and choose to encounter them or attempt to avoid them if you want.

I have not played Final Fantasy XIII, but didn't they also move to this system of encounters? I also like it in modern Tales and Star Ocean games because your positioning when you get the encounter can give you advantages or disadvantages. Sneaking up on an enemy group from behind raises all your stats and lowers their stats, while having an enemy ambush you from behind results in lowered stats for you and in Tales of Vesperia's case, your party makeup is not the party you have currently selected aside from the main character. IE if you have Rita, Estelle, and Repede, with Yuri leading your party, if you get ambushed from behind you fight with a weakened Yuri, Raven, Karol, and Judith.

It's a better system than random encounters with random surprise or preemptive attacks in it. Even with turn based battles it's better because you can take the mechanic of sneaking up behind as giving you a preemptive attack (such as in Lufia 2)

Random encounters just feel dated and inferior.

>>555149

>controlling movement with the right hand

>>556272 (cont'd)

>>547514
Taking DW1 as an example, I would have to completely disagree about it aging badly. The problem with your analysis of the game is that it misinterprets the objective of playing DW1 by confusing it with the objectives of later jRPGs. The people who were buying DW in the 80's were buying it for entirely different reasons than people were buying FFVI or VII. I also find this attitude about people enjoying DW1 back then because it was a good game "for its time" amusingly patronizing because apparently people just had shit standards for fun back then.

DW, as well as 8-bit RPGs in general, are more of a primal type of game. While 16-bit and modern jRPGs present you with sub-plots and quests that keep the game moving, DW uses a different method: greed, greed and the desire to get farther in the game. You start DW with little cash, not even enough to buy a proper weapon, so you fight monsters to get gold. Eventually you're strong enough to fight stronger monsters and get more gold which you use to buy weapons which you use to get to the next town which, surprise, has even more expensive weapons. You might say that it's dumb, but you have to first buy that a mandatory subquest about finding a flower on a mountain to make an antidote for a village girl is somehow better filler than killing monsters for gold and treasure while keeping in mind that no one really gives a shit about some npc. Personally, I enjoy DW and have even replayed it a few times and I've never found it to be any less fulfilling than the average jRPG, what I would agree with is that i wish it had more side areas to explore so it wasn't just me walking back and forth for hours on end, but it's not like people felt any differently in the 80's.

>>556312
>not holding the controller upside down

>>556303
>Random encounters just feel dated and inferior.
To you.

Don't get me wrong, I like both systems, equally, it would suck if only one of those were used.

But you can't just say "it's dated, inferior and therefore makes this game age badly". Why do I have to agree with that? It's like saying "medkits are dated, regen is better." it's an opinion, but it isn't "the right one". Even if 99% of gamers thought that, I wouldn't be surprised these days, that wouldn't make it true.

>>556252
ok first off it's not irony if you're just stating a flow of logic.
>they think all the mainstream titles are best used to define standards
>thinking like this, if it doesn't feel like cod, it's shit
More or less, a readaptation of what you said. You weren't stating anything ironically.
But whatever, this is stupid and irrelevant

Now, lets move on to the second half, the point of subjectivity versus objectivity. We have to first acknowledge that the terms "good" or "bad" (and their synonyms, such as "poorly") are comparisons. In this case, we're comparing a older game to (a) modern game(s). More specifically, we're comparing mechanics from this era to the mechanics of that era for achieving the same goal. Of course, for the most part, these preferences are based on subjective ideas. Like whether or not a game is effective at maintaining good pacing.
so let's say a game had good pacing in 1990. It flowed well for a game of its time period, and compared to any other game at the time, it had the best flow. But 10 years later, a game comes out that completely breaks the upper threshold of what "flow" could achieve. Or rather, what it was believed flow could achieve. 10 years later, this new quality of flow becomes the norm, and it becomes the judging point from which all flow must compare. Looking back at the game from 20 years ago, it simply doesn't compare. It's flow is nowhere near as flowy as the flow of today.

>>556303

the only game where random encounters actually make sense is Megaman Battle Network

>>556369
>the only game where random encounters actually make sense is almost all of them
Fixed.

>Can games age badly
No, anybody who states this is a blundering fucking idiot, and a dumb cunt. If you appreciated a game back in its relevancy (199X) or even (198X) but all of a sudden you don't, the game has not fucking changed. Not at all. YOU have changed.

I do agree that games face an interesting uphill battle, as they have (aesthetically/audibly) changed more rapidly in a fifteen year period than other comparable mediums (film/art/literature). Technology and video games are intricately tied, so perhaps, it is well to say the technology to express and enhance the video game medium has grown, but even this is debatable. Call of Duty Black Ops 2 beats the pants off Doom in every conceivable notion of "tech", so I guess Doom's aged badly (LOL).

One has to ask what does
>AGE BADLY
mean.
That new games have features so common place that to play the "older" versions invokes tedium or even boredom?
That visuals were terrible even -then- and you knew it -then-, but tolerated it, so it still..aged?

Video games are not fucking wine nor are they food that rots and decays. Stop being cunts, enjoy your damn vidya, or go ride a dragon dildo.

>>556332

>down is now up, right is now left, left is now right, trying to pull the z trigger backwards

>>556335

Visible encounters offer strategy, where random encounters do not.

>>556402
That's an interesting assertion. Completely false, but interesting.

>>556373
>fixed

looks broken

>>556421
Why don't you start by backing up the assertion you're making that they don't make sense, and we can go from there.

>>556367
TBH, I'd say ever since 2006 or so games have been flowing worse and worse. So, see, you could say most old games "flow" bad. For some people, that's exactly the reason those old games are good, because they're "bad" by today standards.

So a certain games that's said to have aged badly aged good for that person. And this person's opinion isn't any less valid, even if he's in a minority.

>>556375

It's not just you that have changed, but games have changed too, not that particular game no, but the genre that contains it does change, introducing new ideas and new techniques that sometimes outdo what the older games thought of doing.

I used to love old JRPG's when I was a kid now I play them and struggle to keep interest because random encounters and turn based battle systems have been so outclassed since the mid 90's by visible encounters and real time or active time battle systems.

>>556439
>outclassed since the mid 90's by visible encounters and real time or active time battle systems
Sure is your opinion there.

>>556367
and because it's not as flowy as games of today, and because its likely due to older forms of thinking, it can be said that its flow has aged. It's based on antiquated forms of thinking. We are no longer limited to the level of flow that could be achieved 20 years ago.
Now of course, one could argue whether or not this new flow is better. One could also argue whether or not that old flow was even good in the first place. One could even argue whether or not flow exists.
but of course these are all moot points, because when someone says a game has aged poorly they're claiming that the game uses mechanics that the person personally feels has been outdone in current mechanics, and has so overwhelmingly been outdone that they would go so far as to claim the game is not just aged, but aged so poorly to the point that it has lost its charm.
Now take note. This is something that could be claimed by both someone who knows absolutely nothing about video games, as well as someone who knows a great deal about video games. It has no direct relationship to the knowledge of video games. To bring up 'casuals' and 'hardcores' is entirely irrelevant. You might be more readily able to believe the claim to have merit if said by a 'hardcore', but again, that has nothing to do with whether or not a game can age, or whether or not it can do so 'poorly'

And the last thing, saying a game aged poorly is NOT an objective statement

>>556418

>see enemy on the field
>maneuver around it
>trigger encounter from behind
>boosted stats and/or free attack turn
>have items that can stun enemy sprites on screen before encountering them
>gives option of either skipping group or getting a free surprise attack
>not strategy

Compared to walking around in circles until you randomly encounter something and then another RNG decides if you surprised them or they surprised you? Are you really trying to make this arguement? Really?

>>556448
>And the last thing, saying a game aged poorly is NOT an objective statement
Actually...

>>556447

It's the direction most games in the genre are taking aside from handheld ports of older games so I'd argue it's a more widely shared opinion than yours.

>>556482
Then, as others have said, that makes the likes of Call of Duty a better game than other, older FPS games.

There's a name for what you're doing. I wonder if you know what it is.

>>556429
>TBH, I'd say ever since 2006 or so games have been flowing worse and worse. So, see, you could say most old games "flow" bad. For some people, that's exactly the reason those old games are good, because they're "bad" by today standards
sure but again it doesn't matter, games do age and for the love of god please don't fucking tell me there hasn't been a single improvement in video games over the past 20 years. I don't give a fuck about the norms, if you fucking think that no game has ever done anything better than what your favorite games of old did well, you're just a fucking jackass, a nostalgiafag or you simply haven't played anything but the most mainstream shit available.

>So a certain games that's said to have aged badly aged good for that person. And this person's opinion isn't any less valid, even if he's in a minority.
Yeah, sure, of course, this isn't being argued and is completely irrelevant. I'm trying to tell you the idea that a game has aged poorly has nothing to do with whether or not you're experienced with videogames or you're completely new. Both someone who knows exactly what they're doing can make this claim and someone who doesn't can make this claim but either way, it doesn't inherently hold merit and either way, it doesn't stop it from being any less true or false.
Hell, this could be seen as an ad hominem. (there's actually a better fallacy to be applied here that would fit perfectly but I can't remember it, and google ain't helping)

>>556513
fuck 1500 cap
in other words, the person claiming and the idea itself are disjoint. Just because a casual says something doesn't mean the false, it just means the person making the claim has no ability to keep it standing. This is the exact same mistake /v/ makes with feminism.
fucking christ there is a perfect fallacy to be said for this but I can't find the name

>>547974
I'm playing it on P64 with mouse as my left/right directional scheme and 1234 for my c-buttons. In something like 6-8hrs I've completed everything up the fire temple minus all optional stuff aside 1 of the 4 bottle quests, skulltella quest, and getting the gold scale/gold gauntlets. I think of all the side quests the Biggorons sword is the most easiest yet most stressful. Most tedious temple? Water. Fucking Zora.

Also, anyone know how to open the gate in the water temple that contains the one skulltella? I've tried using the fire spell but to no avail.

>>556496

bandwagoning, but, in the case of shooters, not all are going CoD style, and those that are, are doing so because CoD is overwhelmingly successful, just like WoW and MMO's, but what they're finding is that copying CoD is not making their games as successful as they'd like.

JRPG's didn't progress the way they did based on the overwhelming success of any one particular game, otherwise we'd all have random encounters and turn based battle systems because that's what Final Fantasy VII had. Instead you had niche games with these systems that became cult hits at best, but as time went on more and more of them used these systems and now even Final Fantasy has adapted to use them to an extent.

>>556594
>bandwagoning
Nope, that's not it, try again.
P.S. You're still doing it.

Yes, for example
the game in the OP pic aged horribly.

MGS1 aged extremely well.

inb4 >Sonygger, etc

>>556608
they are both shit games and completely overrated series to begin with anyway.
Metal Gear Solid is a joke. It was cool for about 5 minutes back in the day but since you faggots like to latch onto anything and everything that comes out of Japan, I can see why you love it so much.

People have it backwards: "aging badly" isn't a matter of a good game magically becoming bad. It's a matter of a game that was bad from the beginning (at least in certain aspects), but we either didn't notice it because there was nothing better to compare it to, or didn't care because it was all we had.

A good example is games which have no way to save. In 2nd gen (Atari 2600/Mattel Intellivision) this was basically every game, so we put up with it. Nowadays if a game was released that had no way to save, it would be universally trashed by critics for that alone and would bomb in sales.

Yes, games age badly. However, when it comes to which ones, it is all a matter of opinion.

>>556312
For N64 Goldeneye and the N64s button layout, it worked extremely well, and felt more intuitive that the move/turn combo of the default controls.

Right hand movement definitely does not work as well with dual sticks. Too much play, maybe? Idunno...

>>556594
>that's what Final Fantasy VII had
>implying FFVII is the pioneer of such gameplay
>implying you no retro

Yeah, I mad.

>>546292
It is possible, but it is often used as an excuse. OoT is an example, the game did not age badly at all. In fact, the way it handled 3D became the norm for many. What actually happened is that it was pretty overrated at the time because of the novelty factor.

This whole thread is retarded.

>>556402
Random encounters does not disallow mechanics such as running. I feel the running mechanic is something I wish games didn't leave so behind.

>>556726
It was great.
The Psycho Mantis fight in particular, along with some other small things such as "the back of the CD case" and 4th wall breaking were done flawlessly.

You're just a bitter person who likes to scream "weeaboo" at anything he can.

>>556842

no you foaming at the mouth retarded nigger. You seriously fail reading comprehension.

FFVII wasn't a pioneer, no, but it was the most successful JRPG of all time.

He's trying to compare shooters emulating CoD to JRPG's all moving away from random encounters and turn based battle systems. I'm saying that's not a valid comparison.

FPS's emulate CoD because it's successful. JRPG's have moved AWAY from the most successful JRPG of all time instead, the complete opposite. Their evolution is NOTHING like the trend in shooters.

FFVII just used systems that were the norm at the time, that are now NOT the norm.

Shooters all CONVERGED onto CoD's playstyle. JRPG's DIVERGED from turn based battles and have a bunch of different playstyles now, but random encounters and turn based systems are much less common.

>>556907

are you talking about fleeing from battles? Because JRPG's that have enemies on the screen to encounter still have that. Tales and Star Ocean and Lufia 2 and Chrono Trigger for example all have the capability to flee from battles.

>>556980
Yeah it sucks balls that there are no real RPGs left. Even Final Fantasy XII isn't an RPG, and XIII probably isn't either though I haven't played it. If I want active dodge and spammable attacks I'll go play Link.

>>556998

>being this retarded

not about to get into a debate about what makes an rpg, I'll have the last word and RPG doesn't mean turn based battles or dice (those are all carryovers from table top games where they cannot simulate real time combat and maintain player agency, computers can)

Player agency is what defines an RPG, end of story. Not even going to reply to claims otherwise.

>>556439
But Final Fantasy X came along and introduced the best gameplay mechanics, then in XII went to shit. Only real RPGs left that are made are handhelds, and the next Final Fantasy VI remake will probably have XII's fighting mechanics and control only one character at a time with shit AI teams.

Games today basically force story down your throat, even shooters. "Leaving story area" fuck you I want to blast fiends with a rocket launcher, rocket jump, and travel through lava with an invincibility buff and find secrets.

>>556303
You aren't magically weaker just because a monster hypothetically hits you from behind, you'd still eventually be face to face with the things. If you could bench a ton a wizard pelting you with a fireball from behind may take off some HP but your strength is still there. I liked Star Ocean (especially since it has medieval + sci-fi elements) games but don't think they're the only viable battle system.

>>556987
No, thats wrong. Fleeing existed in FF1 even, but it was a rather useless mechanic for several reasons.
Your goal in a lot of jRPGs is to become strong enough, and what nets you the best gold/xp/gear? Figthing all the battles you encounter. Fleeing is usually only useful for speedruns and battles that would drain all your resources for no real reward.
So basically you have no reason to flee, ever if you are playing the game somewhat correct. Sure, there are games like Fallout where you savescum and flee to avoid the RNG killing you, but beyond that, its rare to see it serving a real purpose beyond legacy.

>>546292
It is certainly true that some games tend to age. I think hardly anyone would want to play Atari 2600 games nowadays. But I think people tend to exaggerate. Especially on /v/ there seem to be people who honestly believe everything pre-2004 is "outdated".
There are so many great older games that I actually don't really care that we don't get too many good games anymore. The SNES and Mega Drive/Genesi alone have dozens of great titles that are still worth playing today. When people say there is nothing good to play I wonder if they ever consider going back to some older titles they missed out on.

>>557013
No, RPG for me is defined by random encounters. I was raised on Final Fantasy I and Phantasy Star II. Although they were a bit old even when I was a kid. I agree with the progression bit, you start off as an average Joe with 5 strength, and by midgame have 150 and can smash behemoths like a boss. Bitch, my speed stat is 100, I make cheetahs look slow now. Though hyperimps are another story, gotta slay more until I get first hit more often. That is another aspect of the genre I like. Sure, sometimes random encounters aren't wanted, and if you're grinding the rate drops but if you're dungeon crawling for treasure or looking for the boss the rate spikes but still, they add to the game's overall feel. Sprite and world weren't even to scale, so taking a minute to travel to the next town would effectively be 300 or so miles, whereas in newer games everything is to scale, making the current game worlds smaller by comparison.

>>557047
Is savescumming when you save and wait for a luck generated prize? If it's what I think it is then I did that in Shining Force II trying for Slade's ultimate weapon for like half an hour. It's also why autosave blows in current games and why manual save is best. Or, just get rid of luck based prizes altogether.

>>557013
>Player agency is what defines an RPG
It's not a definition if it doesn't actually separate the thing it's supposed to define from everything else. All games have "player agency". Your definition is totally vacuous.

>Not even going to reply to claims otherwise.
Some grade A intellectual integrity right there.

>>557080
No, you savescum because in Fallout, the enemy landing a critical hit if they have laser or rocket weapons is usually instant death before endgame.
In the second game, the endgame enemies are stronger, so it applies there as well.
You savescum because the game is almost designed around save states to advance.

>>557071
Maybe a Final Fantasy XII type system would be okay with a speed stat? You start off at a slightly faster than average human pace then your active and passive dodge capabilities and running speed increases?

>>557080
>>556402
>>556907
Fun fact: In the design docs for Final Fantasy, the speed stat was orginally suppose to decide in conjuncture with luck which party got the first turn, chance of there being free rounds to either party, who went first, and rigging the chances of fleeing.
Due a oversight in the coding, speed is only used to decide who goes first each round of battle, with some additional RNG.
So why was speed important? Well, the most useless class is the Thief class. Thief class comes with extreme speed stats as well as gain. So you would have a thief in the party to go first in battles, and avoiding the party wipers getting free rounds if you encounter them, as well as fleeing.

>>557096
That sucks. Though I savescumed for a different reason in Shining Force II I guess it still kind of counts as it since it's a legit way of getting the uber-rare katana that you can't otherwise get. If you keep begging the RNG gods they'll deliver.

If players savescum then something's wrong with the core mechanics of the game itself.