/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.4497004]

ITT: games that haven't aged

[Anonymous No.4497014]

>>4497004
Wrong. Was just playing the christmas version of this the other day and it still holds up great.

[Anonymous No.4497016]

All of them?
Games don't age.

[Anonymous No.4497017]

>>4497014
reading comprehension

[Anonymous No.4497020]

>>4497016
i'm convinced that only autistic people say this. the game itself has physically not changed, but the standards by which they are evaluated have, hence they've "aged"

[Anonymous No.4497024]

>>4497020
Nonsense bullshit, the "standards" are subjective as fuck, and most people's opinions are worth a shit, case in point: yours.
Games don't age and if you mean something different use the appropriate wording.

[Anonymous No.4497028]

>>4497024
>if you mean something different use the appropriate wording
you really are autistic aren't you

[Anonymous No.4497041]

>>4497004
Still the saaame as always

[Anonymous No.4497073]

I think this game has aged beautifully, at least in terms of its visuals. Wish I could say the same about the gameplay, but I think it mostly just needs updated controls.

[Anonymous No.4497082]

Pic unrelated, also it's overrated like anything Kojima's shat out.

[Anonymous No.4497405]

[Anonymous No.4497583]

>>4497028
Just admit he beat you in the argument and we'll call it a day

[Anonymous No.4497601]

>>4497004
>aged

[Mace No.4497615]

>>4497073
Then again, these are the pre-dualshock days. At least MML2 updated the controls.

[Anonymous No.4497624]

>>4497024

I know that this was the point of the thread, to have an age-argument.

Here's the thing: In english, if you say that something "aged poorly" it means that the thing is now commonly considered worse than before because you are now used to better things, in this case due advancing technology and refinement of gameplay.

If you argue that pong is just as impressive today as when it was made and displayed for the first time, then you are objectively wrong. Pong was impressive because it was one of the first of its kind, it was new, fresh, exciting. Now it is incredibly primitive because we are used to more advanced things, both in design and graphics. Nobody plays Pong as a real source of entertainment today, thus it aged poorly.

The original Mario för NES is an example of a game that aged well. There have been no vastly better formula for standard platforming fun, so it plays just as well as newer platforming-games while having easy to read and playful graphics. A child will likely have fun playing Mario 1 today, though some may disregard it due to being used to better graphics even at a young age (though I've seen children play an enjoy Mario 1 on emulators without a complaint).

[Anonymous No.4497668]

>>4497624
>refinement of gameplay.
lol

[Anonymous No.4497673]

>>4497624
>refinement of gameplay
You mean the gradual transition from slow burn hurdle-beating fun to instant gratification right?

[Anonymous No.4497728]

>>4497668
>>4497673

Rub your two braincells together a little bit harder. Nowhere did I say that newer games are the pinnacle of gameplay, or that it's a straight line up, but certain things DO get improved in time. Control schemes are one such thing I am referring to, many old games had horrid controls because a good standard scheme had not been whittled down yet. Interfaces are another, there are many old great strategy games, but their interfaces are usually a clunky unintuitive mess.

[Anonymous No.4497747]

>>4497728
It's related to controls. Games can't have unique controls now that grow on you, because having generic one-size-fits-all controls is necessary for the instant gratification.

Soft people whining about different controls just reinforces that status quo. Absolutely disgusting.

[Anonymous No.4497781]

>>4497747
Spot on.

[Anonymous No.4497818]

20 years ahead of its time

[Anonymous No.4497853]

[Sage No.4497862]

>>4497818
More like other games didn't follow on its formula

[Anonymous No.4497891]

Earthbound.

[babbage's gramps !RATGzMALLY No.4497903]

>>4497004
It's the unique mechanics and engine that was good but never got run into the ground. That's why this (and others) didn't "age".

Imagine if it did end up being the NiGHTs engine that ran all the '00s Sonic games. You would fucking hate it.

[Anonymous No.4497925]

>>4497818
As I said before it got removed due to a fuck up, that's mostly because games didn't follow its formula. Imagine if we had later more refined games inspired by R.Sa·Ga2

[Anonymous No.4497967]

>>4497024
Exactly! this shit triggers me so much.
Jaws hasn't aged a bit! It's just as scary as the day it came out.

[Anonymous No.4498005]

>>4497020
In every way, including physical, the game has not changed and thus has not aged. "Standards" are not the game, they are something external to the game, something meta. What ages is not games, but people. It's annoying to see people constantly pass their own change on to games when in reality it is their perception that has changed, not the thing they are interacting with.

The only autistic people here are those that insist that we continue saying the thing they're used to hearing instead of what's correct. It's "chicken tenders" not "tendies" even though mummy lets you get away with it. Games that haven't changed, haven't aged, just because someone doesn't call you out on it 100% of the time doesn't make it correct.

[Anonymous No.4498095]

>>4497004
games with good tatas never age for me

[Anonymous No.4498112]

>>4498095

My brother.

[Anonymous No.4499851]

>>4498005

If you think that the phrase "the game has aged" can only be applied to actual physical degradation of the CD/DVD then you are either being willfully dense, or you just are dense.

It is not the people that have aged. Have children "aged" relative to children of the same age in the 80's? What nonsense. Our standards have evolved because of advancing technology and distilled design. Put a kid used to the latest games in front of a ps1-game and he'll say "What the fuck is this janky shit?", while a kid at the time of the release of the game might have been impressed by the graphics and novelty the game offered. The GAME aged.

[Anonymous No.4499992]

>>4499851
/vr/ is ALWAYS pedantic like this; it's pointless to fight about it.
People use "aged" in this sense all the time to refer to various forms of media. When we say something "hasn't aged well," it is a set phrase used PRECISELY to convey the idea that an older work comes up short in some area or another when examined from a present-day perspective. Arguing about the word itself is an exercise in semantic hairsplitting. Don't bother.

[Anonymous No.4500039]

>>4497016
>what is data rot

[Anonymous No.4500051]

>>4497016

>Games don't age.

[Anonymous No.4500056]

>>4500051
>Games age

[Anonymous No.4500062]

>>4500056
Jeff Gerstmann is right about the original Saturn Virtua Fighter looking better than Remix. Quad rendering without textures looked so much more unique.

[Anonymous No.4500067]

Some people here get real mad when you discuss this because they don't want to admit their favorite games were over-reliant on now obsolete technology and gimmicks.
It's fine if you still like them, but don't act deluded.

[Anonymous No.4500202]

>>4499992
>Arguing about the word itself is an exercise in semantic hairsplitting
It's annoying as hell when we have multiple words that mean multiple things that allow us to talk concisely about some topic and instead of using them we just lump everything into some other word redefining the meaning and confusing everyone, leading into said "hairsplitting" discussions. If people started using the right words we wouldn't have to spend such a great deal of time clarifying intent of meaning on both sides.

I personally don't think your post has aged well, maybe it made sense when you posted it but not anymore, the standards of discussion have really changed a lot since then.

[Anonymous No.4500264]

>>4500202

But everyone except a select few autists here on /vr/ know exactly what a person means when they say that something has aged.

Going by your logic we can't say "hair splitting" because we aren't actually splitting any hairs and saying that we are will confuse people.

[Anonymous No.4500272]

>>4500067
>their favorite games were over-reliant on now obsolete technology and gimmicks.
?

[Anonymous No.4500307]

>>4500264
>everyone except
You can't just disregard the entire other half of the community like that. At least with their side they're arguing for a reason, to put a stop to any confusion, it's almost ironic for the detractors to complain about them when what they're doing is trying to prevent meta chaff and instead further discussion about the real intended topic. It would be nice if that topic was made clear from the start because
>know exactly what a person means
isn't true. Again it's lumping several aspects into 1 word which isn't great for anyone.

>on hair splitting
If you want to make that argument on /fa/ then I'd participate, but I don't think that one flies here. As much as I wish it didn't, context is important. We're on /vr/ and we're talking about games and how they have or have not changed in some way that isn't clear, that is the discussion I'll engage with.

[Anonymous No.4500386]

I think the problem some people have here over the "aging" aspect is not that they don't get the meaning. It's more like the standards games are judged have been getting worse (outside of graphical stuff) the last few years so it seems weird to say a game has aged when most people into modern games have very bad standards and just dismiss everything based on graphics.

[Anonymous No.4500409]

>>4500386
I would agree with that, I don't think it's the sole problem but one of them for sure for some people.

The biggest problem is that the so called "standards" are just what's contemporary but worse than that, it's only standard in their own scope. You just can't make a general argument that controls are standard now across all game or even most games and even if you could the rate of change of this standard is rapid so it's almost pointless to discuss. Even for graphics there's no standard bar of quality or anything like that, just because a game comes out today doesn't mean you can make confident assumptions on how it will look, control, play, anything really. People don't have to pass a review board or anything like that, so the whole standards thing just falls apart; standard for who, in relation to what? The games you yourself play and friends of yours play? It's so murky.

[Anonymous No.4500461]

>>4500409
Indeed, to a GTA/CoD kid an arcade shmup has aged simply because it's not a 3D game, doesn't have exploration or whatever even if it's not even the point of the game.

[Anonymous No.4500889]

>>4497004
The saturn version has.

[Anonymous No.4500927]

>>4497016
So I imagine you're a silent movie fan too, since movies can't age either

[Anonymous No.4500929]

>>4497004
>haven't aged
All of them

>>4500051
What is this supposed to prove? It's a certain aesthetic from a certain time period. It looks good.

[Anonymous No.4500932]

>>4500889
Nah

[Anonymous No.4500943]

>>4500927

Hell yeah, Nosferatu is the shit.

[Anonymous No.4501090]

>>4497967
>>4500927
>>>/tv/

[Anonymous No.4501421]

>>4497004
>aged
Kill yourself