[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   
File: 1.24 MB, 1920x1080, Ocarina-of-Time-1_2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1734839 No.1734839[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why don't we just call them "antiques" instead of saying "Oh, it just didn't age well."

>> No.1734841

because games don't "Age" fucking idiot

>> No.1734858

Because game do not age, you do

Seriously, if you are going to be a retro player and expect graphics to look good, then i recommend you[or anyone who still uses the same stupid argument] to do something else

>> No.1734875

>>1734858
When people says the game's aged I expected gameplay that isn't as good as I remember instead of graphics.

I mean, complaining about dated graphics is just retarded.

>> No.1734902

>>1734875
>>1734875
>>1734875
this

>> No.1734903

Games do not age.

>> No.1734909

>>1734841
>>1734858
>>1734903
Jesus Christ, how autistic are you guys. Everyone knows that games don't age, the phrase isn't meant to be taken literally. It refers to how well the game has held up, that's all. Some games have timeless graphics and game mechanics, some don't. That's it.

>> No.1734919

Because they're not and it didn't. Deal with it Arin.

>> No.1734921

>>1734909
this. the autism is strong itt. just want to dilute the solution.

>> No.1734931

>>1734909
Any claim about whether some game is as good as someone remembers it being is entirely subjective (even moreso than "fun" since you're throwing faulty childhood memories into the mix and speaking comparatively).
The claim is totally without meaning or merit to anyone who isn't the person making the claim, and it is always stated outright as though it's an undeniable fact.
There is never a single situation where you can say that a game has "aged poorly" and it not be retarded.

>> No.1734936

Games actually do age.
A gane made in 1988 is 25 years old.

>> No.1734939

Because antiques are supposed to be older than 100 years.
What video game do you expect to be in playable condition at that time?

>> No.1734942

>>1734931
>it's subjective therefore you shouldn't say it
By that logic no one should ever say that a game is good period.

>> No.1734943

>>1734931
What about et?
Or general custards revenge

>> No.1734958

>>1734909
>Everyone knows that games don't age, the phrase isn't meant to be taken literally.

Every time someone throws a shitfit about the use of words, I wonder if they're native English speakers.

Actually, that's not even an excuse. I've studied enough foreign languages to know that figurative language is not exclusive to English. What's wrong with you people?

>> No.1734972

>>1734942
You can easily back up the claim that something is good with reasoning. Even if someone disagrees with you, they can understand or respect your reasoning.

You really cannot do this with the claim that a game isn't as good as it used to be. You can point out that the graphics are bad, or the controls are awkward, or the camera is terrible, but it isn't as though these things were any better when the game was new. You can point out that you used to love the game and when you replayed it you didn't like it at all, but that's totally meaningless to everyone who isn't you.
There is nothing said by claiming that a game has aged well or aged poorly that could not be much better said by simply saying that a game is good or bad for [reasons].

>>1734943
What, do you think people considered those games masterpieces when they came out?

>> No.1734980

>>1734972
>You really cannot do this with the claim that a game isn't as good as it used to be.

Sure you can.

Let's look at graphics. Some things used to be really impressive but aren't so much anymore. You can do the same shit with movies and special effects.

>> No.1734983

>>1734972
Your reasoning would work if there was a scientific rubric that games were rated on.
But there isn't, it's all feels.

>> No.1734984

Games don't "age". A game that was good 20 years ago is still good today. It's your opinions that change, and nothing more. To say "the game has aged" instead of "I don't like the game as much as I used to", as if your opinions of what make a game good are some sort of fixed global standard that the universe revolves around, is incredibly arrogant.

>> No.1734989

>>1734984
>Games don't "age".

Read the thread. It's not a literal statement.

>> No.1734992

>>1734984
It's just that the shit we would put up with 15 years ago is different from today. A terrible camera, clunky controls, and poor design decisions were so commonplace back then that we were able to accept them as good despite those flaws

>> No.1734997

>>1734936
But since software doesn't change at all, unlike living beings, it is exactly as the same day it was created (or whenever the last update or patch was applied). People's perception and expectation may have changed though. Then again, for every game you think has aged poorly, you will certainly find someone who still enjoys it, or even who just discovered it and enjoys it, despite your perceived flaws.

Ultimately I think the term is just a dubious way of stating "I don't like this game (anymore)" but the speaker feels the need to grant himself some air of authority. But that's incredibly dumb, because everyone is entitled to their opinions and it's fine and perfectly normal to just state your likes and dislikes, even though they may have changed over the years. You don't *need* anything external to backup your own feelings. Unless of course you're externally-motivated and seek constant affirnation for every thought and action of yours, but that's not a good position to be in, and you'll never find true fulfillment down that road. Besides, it's great that we all have different tastes, otherwise nobody would be making all these different kinds of games and countless variations of them.

>> No.1734998

>>1734980
The graphics never got worse.
Imo controls are the only thing that can not age well.

>> No.1735000

>>1734989
Read his post. He's saying that even as a figurative statement it is arrogant and stupid. He also happens to be correct.

>>1734992
>It's just that the shit we would put up with 15 years ago is different from today
No, the shit YOU would put up with 15 years ago is different from today.
Please quit mistaking your opinion for the opinions of everyone else.

>> No.1735004

>>1734998
How exactly can controls get worse? Controllers can wear out, I guess, but that isn't the game's fault.

>> No.1735005

>>1734958
Because some games, especially any modern games, actually do age. Team Fortress 2, for instance, is not the same game as it was in 2007. World of Warcraft is not the same game as it was in 2004. Etc., etc.

Hardware also makes sense when talking about things aging. The Game Gear, Virtual Boy, Sega CD, and TurboDuo are all examples of systems that have not aged well. Not in the "I thought they were good then but not anymore" sense, but in the literal "These systems barely function compared to how they worked 15+ years ago", either due to lousy capacitors, faulty soldering, or whatever. They haven't stood the test of time, quite literally.

When dealing with stagnant games, however, they're just old. They haven't changed a bit. Our tastes have. -We've- aged.

>> No.1735006
File: 110 KB, 1400x1050, DOOM WAS WHITE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1735006

>>1735004
>FROM controls on PS1

>> No.1735008

My problem when people say "didn't age well" is that it usually doesn't mean shit outside of "it wasn't good to begin with".

I had been watching a bunch of videos by the Game Sack guys last week out of boredom, and my god they do this in almost every episode.

>> No.1735009

>>1735000
So /you/ never had to put up with three lives, no continues?

>> No.1735010

>>1735006
And those controls where great when the games were new?

>> No.1735012

>>1735004
They don't get worse but there was a time when 3d was new and devs hadn't quite figured out how the controls should work.

>> No.1735020

>>1735008
I agree. When it was current it was easierto put up with though.

>> No.1735027

>>1735009
Nigger, I play shmups all the time.
Not only do I "put up" with three lives and no continues, I ENJOY it.
Once again, your opinions are not everyone's opinions. Please stop getting them confused.

>> No.1735059

>>1734839
Aside from the sperging, antique is a term for literal age. Saying a game is aged refers to showing it's age such that the principles and design have flaws that were hidden by it's novelty. For example an FPS game back in the day released with only keyboard controls would be showing it's age. Mouse controls were available back then, but it would have been deemed acceptable due to the heavy usage of keyboard at the time to release a keyboard only FPS. It's not any more antique than it's contemporaries but it is showing it's age.

>> No.1735091

Complaining that Ocarina of Time hasn't aged well is like complaining that the Bible hasn't aged well.

>> No.1735092

>>1735027
The real question for you might be: do you gracefully accept that others enjoy different shoot'em up games, on different platforms, or do you just fall back on "those guys are nostagiafags or retards". Because I see that kind of ego-stroking all the time, in many threads on this board.

>> No.1735095

>>1734984
This guy gets it.

>> No.1735097

>>1735010
More tolerable

>> No.1735101

>>1735059
I play all FPS games with keyboard only, so for me that wouldn't make any difference.

If you wonder why, well it's simple: I hate mice, only ever use them for short periods of time, and prefer touchpads and such. In the past, mice have caused me many physical problems...

>> No.1735121

Ok here we go:

1. Aging isn't meant literally, it's a metaphor. A game doesn't change with age, but design conventions do. A game has aged well if it established or conformed to conventions which are still relevant today.
2. To say that a game has aged does not mean that it is or was bad.
3. Aging—like any other evaluation—is subjective, but we can argue one way or the other.

>> No.1735123

>>1735101
Relative to 99% of people, the game has aged. Relative to you, it hasn't. Why should I give a shit about either side's opinion?

>> No.1735167

>>1735121
It's kinda sad that /vr/ is so autistic that this actually needs to explained.

You can say to a movie buff "that movie hasn't aged well" and he'll know exactly what you mean. He might not agree with you, but he'll no doubt have other movies he believes haven't aged well.

No movie buff is gonna sperg out and say "movies don't age, people do!"

>> No.1735195

>>1735167
So long as it's clear he's stating his opinion, then everything is fine. It only becomes an issue when he believes and/or claims to be speaking for everyone else. It's seldom very clear, because posters have an unfortunate tendency to attack or disparage people who have different tastes. And that is why this is an issue at all. People here aren't going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt beause so many have acted badly for so long that it's assumed to be the default behavior unless otherwise clarified.

>> No.1735524

>>1734839
"Antique" has to connotation that it has added value due to its age. It's a neutral/good adjective. I feel "relic" would be a better term for the games you're talking about; it has more negative connotations.

>> No.1735552

hey guys.

guys.

listen.

what if we call them "retro games"

?

>> No.1736140

>>1735552
I like to call them "old school" games.

>> No.1736164

>>1735005
that's not aging, that's changing. The games had more content added to them. That content is new. Aging is just a really poor term. People use it too liberally without actually knowing what they're saying. It's too obtuse a phrase because it can mean so many different things to so many people. It's one of the wonders, and flaws, of language. Everything has a level of ambiguity and can be interpreted in varying ways. When talking about games aging, there is a number of things that can be taken into account. People can talk about graphics, which rarely hold up, aesthetics, which can hold up to varying levels (which are different from graphics), sounds, mechanics, design, etc. Some designs were once experimental and attempted with levels of uncertainty, many times they were done with intent, and were clearly pulled off in that regard.

What people should do, I feel, especially when criticizing older games is to understand the design of it. Learn how to critique the systems of the game, its design theories, its mechanical implementations, etc. Understand how they work. Observe and be aware of ones own limitations. I've seen people call Cave Story's physics shitty despite the game taking utterly brilliant use of them, at first with precision platforming that the slow jump/descent enables and eventually later with the booster packs - this is an example of great design and mechanics working together, however it was the persons fault for failing to grasp the benefits of them.

I don't think saying a game ages or has aged accomplishes anything. It's vague, has too many venues of interpretation, is too personal and equally impersonal, and it's overall a wasteful thing to say. I wouldn't welcome it here, and I wouldn't welcome it anywhere on a personal level. I don't think it has any place on /vr/ which has generally enabled really high level games discussion due to the largely older and highly interested demographic.

>> No.1736694

>>1735552
because not all retro games have aged badly

>> No.1736704

You know what really aged? Seinfeld. It ripped off so many sitcoms that came out in the last 15 years.

>> No.1736728

>>1736704
You know what really aged?
Your mom

>> No.1736741

>>1736694
A retro game is still a retro game.

A pretty antique sofa and an ugly antique sofa is still an antique sofa.

>> No.1736754

>>1736728
MY MOM IS BEAUTIFUL SHUT UP

>> No.1736828

>>1734909
>It refers to how well the game has held up, that's all.
There are only two possibilities here

>1. Game was shit when it was released, it's still shit now. Game was good when it was released, it's still good now.
>2. Because games are made with technology that quickly becomes obsolete, all old games are shit.

You can't have your cake and eat it too
Possibility 1 is what I believe

>> No.1736852

>>1736828
Not all art is meant to last. That's a universal truth, it doesn't just apply to video games.

Most movie buffs would agree that Casablanca has aged better than Son of Dracula, for example, despite both movies coming out in the same decade and both movies being critically acclaimed at the time of their release.

>> No.1736858

Everybody's missing the point. The N64 controller was shit.

>> No.1736869
File: 15 KB, 198x247, 1369282242635.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1736869

>>1736858
>this guy

>> No.1736884

>>1736852

the only metric in gaming that's worth a shit is the gameplay

if it doesn't hold up then the game has always been shit

Donkey Kong and Pacman are still enjoyable

>> No.1736970

>>1736858
>Not realizing that it's variable for 2D/3D games
It's not a good controller, but it's still decent.

>> No.1736993

>>1734839
I loved OOT/MM, but have been oddly unable to get N64 emulators to run at decent speed on any hardware.

>> No.1736996

>>1736858
This is true, but there have been worse game controllers. The size of the controller didn't stop my 8-12 year old self with my little child hands from playing.

>> No.1737017

>>1734839

Ocarina of Time is still an amazing game.

>> No.1737076

>>1737017
Obviously yeah, it was amazing when it came out, and it's still an amazing game.

But it's still got issues

>> No.1737147

>>1737076
>tfw have noticed some things are wrong with the game engine
>same with a lot of early 3D games, such as Mario 64

I see what OP means when he talks about the games that 'didn't age well'.

>> No.1737542

>>1737147
Seeing as SM64 and OoT use more or less the same engine, that makes sense.
Not sure what it has to do with aging though.

>> No.1738280

>>1736852
I don't know, I haven't seen the Son of Dracula but the trailer promises I'll believe every chilling scene. That's more than Casablanca delivered.

>> No.1738446

Why is it that N64 games are the only ones singled out for having "aged" and never Playstation or Saturn games, which on average had significantly worse early 3D graphics, and also gameplay that was more outdated. The gameplay of N64 games tended to be more forward thinking.

A good example is Mario 64 vs Crash Bandicoot. The former is one of the first "open world" 3D games which is basically like a lot of modern games, and the latter is essentially Donkey Kong Country with 3D corridors. And yet Super Mario 64 is accused of aging all the time, and Crash Bandicoot? Pretty much never.

Compared to 90% of the Saturn and Playstation library, Ocarina of Time seems like an extremely modern game. There are so many Saturn and Playstation games that drip "ancientness" in both graphics and gameplay that it's not funny.

I don't know whether this bias is due to trolling by Sony fanboys, the fact that N64 emulation is so shit, or just people having higher expectations of Nintendo as compared to their rivals.

>> No.1738482

>>1737076
And it's always had those issues, they didn't just spring up after a random amount of time had passed.

>> No.1738485

>>1738446
> And yet Super Mario 64 is accused of aging all the time, and Crash Bandicoot? Pretty much never.

I never hear anyone seriously claim either has aged particularly bad. It's insignificant though, Crash is the worse game even ignoring the aging issue but its sequel can stand toe-to-toe with M64 as an enjoyable platformer that presents a reasonable challenge.

let's be honest here, not many games from that era have aged well period. Who wants to stare at a mass of polygons desperately pretending it's something else? Fucking no one. M64 and Crash get high praise/criticism because they stand head and shoulders above the others and thus, they present a target.

Long story short, idiots will be idiots, don't let that bother you.

>> No.1738492
File: 651 KB, 1067x800, VNyk86k.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1738492

>>1738485
>Who wants to stare at a mass of polygons desperately pretending it's something else? Fucking no one.
I'm not sure this is the right board for you.

>> No.1738496

>Who wants to stare at a mass of polygons desperately pretending it's something else?

Really? I still play the Atari 2600 and love it.

>> No.1738508

>>1738496
And cue the hundreds of people applying my statement to all games made before the N64.

No. I meant it specifically about that generation only. Fuck you guys.

>> No.1738516

>>1738492
I'm not sure I give a shit about where on 4chan you think I should post. The N64 and the PS1 looked noticeably worse than the consoles to come before them. This is beyond dispute. Very few games from that era look decent, let alone good, and those few that do are singled out and attacked.

Atari 2600 games didn't pretend to be shit. They were what they were. Wheras with the N64 and Playstation you've got a huge triangle flying around with ugly-fucking textures and I'm supposed to believe that it's a fighter jet, when the perspective presented in Space Invaders or Asteroids worked just fine without pretending to be more than what it was.

Or you can sit here and seriously argue with me that N64 and PS1 games look good. At all.

>> No.1738540

i love /vr/ but a thread like this that is only discussing semanthics of a particular phrase, really brings out the autism into the the open

>> No.1738580

>>1734939
We'll have perfect emulation then

>> No.1738631

>>1734972
>There is nothing said by claiming that a game has aged well or aged poorly that could not be much better said by simply saying that a game is good or bad for [reasons].

>>1734997
>the term is just a dubious way of stating "I don't like this game (anymore)" but the speaker feels the need to grant himself some air of authority

These are the takeaway points, the only reason the phrase became popular is because people can throw it around lazily and it sounds stronger than "this game is old and bad."

>> No.1738654

>>1735097
I'm sorry, and you think this same line of reasoning doesn't apply to things like graphical fidelity?

>> No.1738671

>>1738516
I fucking hate retro games, I mean, Who wants to look at a mess of pixels and polygons? I only play next-gen games like Watch Dogs and CoD.

>> No.1738676

>>1734939
probably all of them, the consoles not as much, the cartridges/CD's should be fine

>> No.1739452

>>1735091
Your autism doesn't surprise me

>> No.1739663

>>1736828
I think what people are talking about is
>game was awesome when it was released, relative to whatever was out at the time. now that games have better controls, better solutions to gaming problems, can better convey the designer's intentions, etc... they aren't as much fun to play.

I know I will get shit for this, but I think of NES Castlevania as a game that didn't age well. the clunky jumping, the fact that you can't jump onto or off of stairs, and the lack of directional whipping make the game harder than it needs to be. Back in the day, preset jumping arcs were standard. that design would never be used now, because it is too unrealistic and it impedes gameplay.

another would be Jumping Flash, with Robbit's inability to look up or down. Or Dragon Quest 1, in which dying brought you all the way back to the first castle, rather than to the start of the dungeon.

little shit that pisses you off, and you know the designer would not have done, if he had thought about it

>> No.1739675

>>1738446
I think its Nintendo fanboys presenting big fat targets to bitter rivals. Me, personally, I fall into the latter category :)

I won't shit on people's fond memories, but I loved Nintendo, until the N64 came out. I think it is a terrible system, and I get a little mean-spirited tingle when someone bashes it.

I will admit, though, that they killed themselves breaking new ground and setting new standards for gaming. Sony's Dual Shock controller was a direct response to the threat of the N64's analog stick

>> No.1739720

>>1739663
Maybe the designer would have done differently or maybe not. But ultimately these games were enjoyed regardless, and now it's your biases that are coming into play. I think it's better to accept the games the way they are rather than constantly compare them to more modern ones, as that will only lead you to frustration and you won't be able to enjoy them (as much).

Anyone from /v/ can complain that Space Invaders is flawed because it has no powerups. But a real retro gamer will appreciate it for what it is, and enjoy the unique experience it provides.

Anyone from /v/ can complain that early versions of Wizardry, Ultima, Might & Magic suck because the graphics are so primitive, and they're so unfair and don't give you automap. But if you want to experience early CRPG then you don't have many options. If you're a real retro gamer and you savour the experience and try to get everything you can out of the game, relishing in making your own maps on graph paper like in the old days, and using your imagination to fill in the blanks as once was common.

These old games give you a chance to experience the past, maybe one you were too young to live through. But if you approach them with negative mindset, looking for flaws rather than accepting the games as they are, then you'll only hurt yourself as your experience and enjoyment will become less satisfying.

That doesn't mean you're going to like every old game. But in an otherwise great game like Castlevania, it's pointless to go looking for flaws like this...

>> No.1739729
File: 24 KB, 625x626, 1403523779607.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1739729

>>1738516