/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.5097108]

>video games can "age"

[Anonymous No.5097115]

Yeah. They're all terrible. This board shouldn't even exist.

[Anonymous No.5097119]

well they aren't getting younger

[Anonymous No.5097120]

Posting in an epic thread!!

[Anonymous No.5097191]

>this game seems fun based on what is currently available to me
>wow, this game 2 years later is way better
>WOW, this game 6 years later really blows the last game away!
>WOOOOOOAH, this game 20 years later is AMAZING!
>do you want to play that first game again?
>no
That's what aging badly means

[Anonymous No.5097209]

>>5097191
So do games "age in reverse" if the newer ones are worse? Your reddit analogy is stupid. If some newer game is better just say it's better.

[Anonymous No.5097221]

>>5097108
Why do you shitpost here? You could be playing games with your friends or gf/bf

Why lose time to a Chinese board that won’t remember you?

[Anonymous No.5097223]

>>5097209
A new game that sucks is just a bad game. The "badly aged" game in question started out fun but gradually became unenjoyable when video games evolved.
>If some newer game is better just say it's better.
But there comes a point where the standards of video games rise enough so that what was once acceptable is no longer acceptable. Tetris for example is such a well made game that even though it's over 30 years old, most people still find it fun to play. The gameplay mechanics are solid and it doesn't rely on any gimmicks. It "aged well."

[Anonymous No.5097225]

This is just retarded semantics.

If you don’t like “aged” then just replace it with the word “dated” since that’s what people mean in these conversations.

[Anonymous No.5097227]

>>5097191
Why can't people just say what they mean? "I don't like this game" or "I don't enjoy this game like I used to" rather than trying to justify their taste and standards changing by passing off the game as old fashioned.

For me I'd rather see someone criticize a game on its own merits rather just using a catch-all dismissive phrase to write it off.

[Anonymous No.5097240]

>>5097227
> "I don't enjoy this game like I used to"
That's basically what aging badly is, but on a consensus level, due to the evolution of standards over the years
>For me I'd rather see someone criticize a game on its own merits rather just using a catch-all dismissive phrase to write it off.
Forgive people for not writing a 10 page breakdown of everything that isn't satisfying about playing an old game that most would agree isn't fun to play anymore.

[Anonymous No.5097242]

>>5097225
>>5097227

If a game was fun 20 years ago it's still fun. Games are good based on the principals of game design which are neither relative to time nor the quality of other games that do or do not exist. Good games are good, period.

[Anonymous No.5097246]

>>5097227
>>5097227
>>5097227

This. Millennials will go as far as needed to justify their shit tastes and bandwagon style volatility. "It's not me, the game just aged."

[Anonymous No.5097247]

>>5097242
>If a game was fun 20 years ago it's still fun.
Not true. If you enjoy a game because you have nothing better to compare it to, you may found that after you've played games with better controls or game mechanics, that playing the original game isn't fun anymore. It "aged badly." If you do find that the game remains fun over the years, that game "aged well."

[Anonymous No.5097250]

>>5097247
If the game isn't fun today, then it was never fun, and your perception and context is what changed. Games will always and forever remain just as good, or bad, as the day they were released.

[Anonymous No.5097251]

>>5097108
The standards by which video games are judged can age, no one means that the games have LITERALLY changed you semantics arguing autistics.

[Anonymous No.5097259]

>>5097250
>If the game isn't fun today, then it was never fun
Fun is subjective and therefore able to change.
>your perception and context is what changed
Exactly.
It's like kids in third world countries that grow up watching shitty Bollywood remakes of American movies, which to them are great because it's all they've got and all they're aware of, and then when they eventually see the real films they're based on, they go "oh, this is way better, what I had sucked"

[Anonymous No.5097261]

>>5097251

You can argue that 2013 Tomb Raider's graphics are more advanced, more lifelike, have more polygons, what have you. However you can't say they are objectively superior than 1996's TR. Games looking like movies were never supposed to be something to strive for.

[Anonymous No.5097262]

>>5097261
>my subjective opinion and mine alone is correct!

[Anonymous No.5097269]

>>5097259

Yeah, what makes YOU have fun changed, hence the person playing the game aged, not the game.
And I feel games are more complex to judge than movies, since they have the active, ludo aspect. Gameplay depth, game feel, pacing are not something you can judge at face value, whereas you can watch a movie and have a somewhat formed opinion, maybe you'd need to watch it again but that's it.

[Anonymous No.5097273]

Mario will forever be the same age

[Anonymous No.5097274]

>>5097262
I agree with the guy you are replying to.

[Anonymous No.5097278]

The modern industry is so fucking cancerous that saying that a retro game doesn't live up to its standars should be taken as a good thing

[Anonymous No.5097279]

>>5097274
Thank you for sharing.

[Anonymous No.5097290]

>>5097269
>Yeah, what makes YOU have fun changed, hence the person playing the game aged, not the game.
Obviously the game isn't different and it's the person's experience of the game that changes. That's the phenomenon of certain games "aging badly." It's a mental thing based on the expectations that one has of a video game compared to what is available. Like you said, "your perception and context is what changed." These changes have occured to everyone who was familiar with a game in 1987 and was still aware of other video games from then on.
You're agreeing with me and you even understand why games aging is a thing, but you seem to just not like the phrase.

[Anonymous No.5097294]

>>5097290

Because I feel the phrase is incorrect. It implies the game simply got worse. It sounds like the sorta thing entitled whiny zoomers would say. But whatever, semantics, I suppose.

[Anonymous No.5097296]

>>5097240
>on a consensus level
>>5097251
>standards by which video games are judged

This shit doesn't matter. Argumentum ad populum. Games can't age because the consensus doesn't mean shit.

[Anonymous No.5097297]

>>5097294
This.
>get blind
>can't enjoy any game like you used to because you're blind
woah every single title aged terribly

[Anonymous No.5097313]

There are "people" on this board right now who think Robotron 2084 is a bad game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l800GL6NQPY

[Anonymous No.5097316]

>>5097108
If they couldn't age we'd still be playing games with magnavox odyssey's levels of mechanics, story depth, and audiovisual quality.

[Anonymous No.5097339]

>>5097316
Are you going to tell me neo-retro games aren't a thing? Half of Mario's existence is the 2d platformer series of our forefathers. Old games get remade and released all the time. Vintage IPs are constantly trying to play to "doesnt this remind you of how good we used to be? It's classic!". The indie market is flooded with 4th/5th generation revivalism. All of the elements of design that were considered good 20-30 years ago are STILL thriving.

[Anonymous No.5097340]

>>5097251
>>5097262

tr1 looks kino and if you disagree you're a faggot

[Anonymous No.5097354]

>>5097108
People who converse in English but don't understand it are comical to me.

[Anonymous No.5097361]

>>5097354
Got the context though, didn't ya? Die in a fire faggot.

[Anonymous No.5097363]

>>5097354

What is your point here?

[Anonymous No.5097380]

>>5097363
The people here who complain when games aging are brought up are funny to me because something aging either well or poorly as time passes is a concept that most people understand with no trouble.

But here these threads pop up periodically where the OP simply doesn't grasp the concept at all and falls ass backwards with rage about it. It's doubly funny because he usually insists that the onus is on us to explain it a billion times until while he tries to agrue the entire concept shouldn't exist. Proud boasting over willfull ignorance is always comedy gold.

[Anonymous No.5097385]

>>5097380

But whether something "ages badly" is up to variables completely external to the product. And people nowadays use the expression to imply something got worse because it got worse and that's it.

[Anonymous No.5097389]

>>5097385
>And people nowadays use the expression to imply something got worse because it got worse and that's it.
This is where you're wrong. See >>5097251

[Anonymous No.5097395]

>>5097108
>Your perception of a game is not influenced by the broader technological context.
>I am very smart.

[Anonymous No.5097397]

>>5097108
Games can age, but they don't change. They are the same game (discounting patches and mods) that they were the day they came out. It's not to say old games are not still damn amazing and fun. "Aged" games can be more fun than new games.

Tastes change and expectations change. A new 2018 car will blow the doors off a model A, but a model A is still a fun car, just not the same as the new car. Old cars can have "soul" and so can old games. Gameplay is the utmost importance to me personally. Riding in a model A might be way more fun and interesting than doing so in a new car, but there's no way you could say the models and the old ones are the same and that the 2018 isn't objectively improved. You can still enjoy old games as much or even more than when they were released. It's all a state of mind and personal preferences.

A new platformer might be "better" than SMB, but it won't diminish my enjoyment of SMB at all.

[Anonymous No.5097398]

>>5097227
>I personally am always 100% capable of objectively judging a game regardless of any context, so why can't everyone be like me ?

[Anonymous No.5097406]

>>5097385
>But whether something "ages badly" is up to variables completely external to the product.

Perhaps, but it doesn't matter to the process.


>And people nowadays use the expression to imply something got worse because it got worse and that's it.

I will admit you have a point here. Idiots who just use it to mean something is shitty also muddy the waters and that doesn't help things. Games that were terrible upon release don't age badly as much since they were already crap. Usually it's when a game was initally impressive but then strongly surpassed.

So Street Fighter 1 is a good example of a game that aged badly with SF2 being a good example of one that aged well. Then Rise of the Robots also aged badly but to a much lesser degree than SF1, because it was already a pile of shit and worse than SF1.

[Anonymous No.5097419]

>>5097296
Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy when applied to something objective and fact-based. It doesn't make sense to use that when we're talking about something peoples' subjective opinions on something.

[Anonymous No.5097424]

>>5097389

Standards being changed doesn't mean they got raised. If anything, a game like TR1 aged very well, considering how much better it is than the pathetic reboot games and the overall industry priorities and tropes.
And I say that being as unbiased as possible. Resolution being increased in film making, for instance, is an objective improvement, for obvious reasons. Increasing the image fidelity doesn't compromise other areas of movies by itself.
My favorite game of all time is MGS2. And I feel it that it wouldn't be a better game at all if it had MGS5's graphics or engine. There is a point of diminishing returns in certain aspects of videogames. Looking more and more photo realistic and streamlining gameplay is in no way an improvement, regardless of it being a standard currently.

>>5097406
I suppose I get what you're saying but it still seems redundant. SF2 is just as amazing today as it ever was. So to say it aged well makes little sense. Time just passed and the game remained the same, amazing. And vice versa for SF1.

[Anonymous No.5097438]

>>5097419
This. It's never useful to argue subjective things or personal preferences (like mustard is better than ketchup). You can subjectively enjoy things more than other things and not be right or wrong.

You can discuss why you like things more or find them more enjoyable (I like mustard because of it's tanginess and it works well in marinades) but simply saying A is better than B isn't something you can objectively prove.

[Anonymous No.5097441]

>>5097424
>SF2 is just as amazing today as it ever was. So to say it aged well makes little sense

Yeah normally you wouldn't say it like that, it's just to illustrate the difference between aging well or badly. Something aging badly doesn't mean it's shitty.

[Anonymous No.5097446]

>>5097227
You've got problems.

[Anonymous No.5097451]

>>5097227
autism

[Anonymous No.5097453]

>>5097385
Nothing exists in a vacuum, all experiences are compared to one another within the context of the current moment.

[Anonymous No.5097459]

>>5097290
Ah, but this terminology was borrowed from wine snobs. Sometimes, as wine aged, certain vintages, due to the ingredients used, literally "aged poorly" meaning they tasted worse with age, or "aged well" meaing, as the vintage matured and aged, over time, the flavor literally improved. This was due to chemical reactions in the wine as it sat in a barrel, or a corked bottle over decades; The wine literally changed it's characteristics over time and wasn't solely dependent on the person tasting the wine, Video games generally do not change with time, they play exactly the same from day one to a century later. This is why the term doesn't fit; it is a term used in a specific field (wine tasting) applied to something completely different.
People using this term in relation to video games it just trying to be like a wine snob; it's just being pretentious and is just disingenuous.

[Anonymous No.5097467]

>>5097398
>>5097446
>>5097451
>Suggesting people think a little more critically and try to elaborate a bit more than "hurr it's old" = autism
Alright.

[Anonymous No.5097483]

>>5097453
Being """"""timeless"""""shouldn't ever be a factor when judging the quality of a game. And by timeless I mean in regards to standards and context. If it manages to do it, bonus points, congrats, but it isn't a defining factor. A well made videogame won't stop being good, regardless of your experiences in the future. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. A real good game can't be "replaced", so to speak.

[Anonymous No.5097485]

>>5097483
that's what happens when a game ages well

[Anonymous No.5097489]

>>5097485

No, dude. Thats what happens when a good game is made. Time will pass, and the game will remain good. Aging does nothing to a videogame.
Like >>5097459 put so well, a piece of software isn't wine.

[Anonymous No.5097493]

>>5097483
Way to miss the entire concept. You're why these threads are funny. """"""""""""""

[Anonymous No.5097496]

>>5097489
Yeah it's called aging well as opposed to badly. The contrast between the two is the whole point.

[Anonymous No.5097501]

>>5097493
>>5097496

I suppose its my fault for biting the bait for so long. Go fuck yourselves, niggers.

[Anonymous No.5097502]

Honestly I feel like most people complaining about games ageing badly are simply young modern gamers playing them for the first time now. I don't have any problem switching to a [x year] mindset on the fly when replaying my old stuff, but I always need a concious effort with some things from before my time.

[Anonymous No.5097506]

>>5097502

This is the whole thread, zoomers doing mental gymnastics to justify this meme term. Don't know why i wasted so much time here.

[Anonymous No.5097510]

>>5097501
You know, another option is to just actually get a grasp of what it means so people using normal English don't trigger your tits off. Just a """"""""""thought"""""""""

[Anonymous No.5097526]

>>5097502
It's funny when someone accuses you of liking an old game because of nostalgia when it's something you only played for the first time fairly recently. That seems to be happening a lot lately.

[Anonymous No.5097529]

so 'age' is to /vr/ as 'toned' is to /fit/ in that both parties know perfectly well what people mean when they use the term but are so fucking pedantic that they bitch about the word's literal meaning over the obvious colloquial one? seems like you guys are just fags

[Anonymous No.5097538]

>>5097459
Expressions often aren't taken literally

[Anonymous No.5097547]

>>5097506
Yeah it's fucking ridiculous. If you really played and were used to those so called badly aged mechanics back then, going back to that mindset literally takes a fraction of a second. My dad still loves his old westerns from 60 years ago.

[Anonymous No.5097553]

>>5097538
Except that in that term's correct usage, of course.
You can say "Tom Cruise has aged Well." Because he look good for his age, he's human, he literally ages. Same goes for wine (Where this term comes from) Wine ages definitively; chemical changes in the wine over time with age; this is why vineyards "age" wine; they let it sit in an oak barrel for a few years to build it's character and flavor.
Going back to the analogy of Tomb Raider, you can't say that "Tomb Raider 1 didn't age well", but, comparing it to a later entry, say, The latest entry, you could say, "The Tomb Raider Game mechanic hasn't aged well" and, at least in usage of the term, you would be correct.
It's like people who say "I like to have my cake and eat it too". They don't even realize why the statement is just plain wrong. Drives me nuts.

[Anonymous No.5097576]

>>5097529
This makes me want to give fit another visit

[Anonymous No.5097582]

>>5097547
You're dumb as a sack of rocks

[Anonymous No.5097590]

>>5097553
The lengths you go to to not understand common English is great.

[Anonymous No.5097593]

>>5097483
>A well made videogame won't stop being good, regardless of your experiences in the future.

Except what makes a video game good is how much you like it compared to the options available at the time and your cumulative experiences up to that point. I repeat: Nothing exists in a vacuum. As we gain newer, potentially better, things to compare older things to there is always the possibility that those older things will no longer hold up to the subjective personal standards that have altered in response to the changes that have happened in games over time. We colloquially refer to things that don't hold up as "aging badly," whereas we colloquially refer to the things that hold up as "aging well."

[Anonymous No.5097594]

>>5097582
Hey I'm not the retarded guy having problems adjusting to old toys here man. But leep trying, have faith in yourself.

[Anonymous No.5097606]

>>5097594
That you think "having trouble adjusting" is an adequate description is what's so funny.

[Anonymous No.5097636]

>>5097606
That's literally your argument. I got too spoiled by x so going back to y is a pain in the ass, I don't like the game that much as a result now and therefore that game aged badly. Which is ridiculous and a non issue.

[Anonymous No.5097638]

>>5097553
That's one way to use the phrase.

Another way, which is how it's used in media, is to describe something that at one time was considered good but later wasn't held in the same regard.

Movies where a lot of the jokes are based on pop culture references of the time are often said to have "aged badly" because the jokes that were funny in one time period lose their punch and relevance in decades after. Other films, or music, or plays, etc are said to be "timeless"

[Anonymous No.5097642]

>>5097636
That's not even close lol. >>5097406

[Anonymous No.5097643]

>>5097642
You're dumb as a sack of rocks

[Anonymous No.5097645]

>>5097643
Lol

[Anonymous No.5097651]

Some games are just dwarfed by newer releases, that's what I get out of games "aging".

[Anonymous No.5097657]

"why do you call it 'covering' a song when it's not on the cover of the album? songs don't get covered!!! stop saying that!!!"
I don't like the word sarcastic, but I don't complain whenever I hear it.

[Anonymous No.5097663]

There are games that are impressive at one point because of their novelty, and you overlooked its flaws because there was nothing else like it to compare it to.

Then other games came out that refined its mechanics and features to the point where the original game doesn't offer anything enjoyable, because you can see how bad it was in comparison.

That's a game "aging badly."

[Anonymous No.5097673]

>>5097657
I like this post.

[Anonymous No.5097681]

>>5097590
But it's not common English. The fact that the only people who use it are wine snobs, critics, and faggots on video game image boards should tell you that it's only used by, you guessed it, pretentious faggots.

You and everyone else who uses "age" in relation to video games is a pretentious faggot.

[Anonymous No.5097698]

This is one of the first movies ever made
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b6Ppp5902Yg

In 1896, this was the absolute shit. This amazed and shocked people. How do you feel about it? Chances are, you're not impressed by it. There's only one scene, there's virtually no plot, no characters, nothing that provokes the imagination, and it lasts less than a minute. One might today call it a "tech demo."
One might say the film "aged badly"

[Anonymous No.5097709]

>>5097636

No, it literally means you have shit taste.
This is the case in all creative media, there is media that is timeless and there is media that is just a product of its times.

The latter is more similar to pop-music and the former to like Beethoven. I mean you should be able to tell even now. There were games that back in the day were just shameless and retarded trend chasing, usually mediocre versions of timeless games.

[Anonymous No.5097714]

>>5097636
Contemporary pop music that is in its very nature trend chasing, and pop is always changing to emulate the timeless poorly.

[Anonymous No.5097749]

>>5097467
Being unable to glean any other meaning from words other than what's absolutely literal is YOUR malfunction.
No one is suggesting that games somehow change as time passes. Its the climate around the game, the context that chznges.
Some games dont hold up. That's what "aging poorly" refers to. You need this concept explained to you every few days.

Take your pills

[Anonymous No.5097753]

>>5097681
Is this post peak irony?

[Anonymous No.5097764]

>>5097424
>SF2 is just as amazing today as it ever was
SF2 was also revised and updated multiple times over the years to make it better. Going back and playing base SF2 isn't actually that great if you're used to newer versions.

[Anonymous No.5097767]

>>5097424
>SF2 is just as amazing today as it ever was.
Which one?

[Anonymous No.5098031]

>>5097108

[Anonymous No.5098139]

>>5097681
>The fact that the only people who use it are wine snobs, critics, and faggots on video game image boards

That's not even close to true though.

[Anonymous No.5098165]

>>5097681
>But it's not common English
>snobs, critics, and faggots

[Anonymous No.5098330]

>>5097108
Everything ages. Look at the user base of this board. The curious case of /b/enjamin /b/utton

[Anonymous No.5098335]

>>5097209
>So do games "age in reverse" if the newer ones are worse?
Stop being autistic.

[Anonymous No.5098337]

>>5097681
>only pretentious faggots say things age
>I define pretentious faggots as anyone who says things age

[Anonymous No.5098427]

>>5097108
>poor lonely faggot shitposts again

Dude, this isn’t going to improve anything

[Anonymous No.5098490]

>>5097764
>>5097767

It has, and the updates are usually what people play now, but even vanilla SF2 holds up very well and has aged a lot better than Street Fighter 1. It just hasn't aged quite as well as Super Turbo.

[Anonymous No.5098492]

>>5097209
Stop with this autistic and sub-literate attempt to force literal interpretation of the term "aging" to what is a fucking obvious concept to anyone with a functioning brain.

When newer games are better in ways that are obviously due to advancements in technology, game design techniques, or the evolution and maturity of audience tastes, the old games are said to have aged badly. "Dated" is a a more commonly used term for this concept when discussing other subjects such as movies or television.

It's not the same as saying a game is bad or good. It's more specific. Pretending you don't understand this just makes you look like a retard. Not understanding this means you literally are a retard.

[Anonymous No.5098505]

>>5097681
This whiny, insecure comment is plebian to a degree I did not think possible.

[Anonymous No.5098601]

>>5098492
>Pretending you don't understand this just makes you look like a retard.

He's not even pretending. He's sincerely that dim witted.

[Anonymous No.5098610]

Except Doom. It was a godawful game back in 1997 with Quake, Duke, and then HL, Unreal kicked in, but in 2018 it looks more fresh and enjoyable than any of those bullshit.

[Anonymous No.5098617]

>>5097251
No shit, i don't want to meet these people that are high-functioning enough to post on the internet, but literally autistic enough to not know what a colloquialism is.

[Anonymous No.5098623]

>>5098610
Guess how I know you weren't even born in 1997.

[Anonymous No.5098626]

>>5098623
It's too obvious, he's falseflagging as a zoomer.

[Anonymous No.5098642]

>>5098492
>When newer games are better in ways that are obviously due to advancements in technology, game design techniques, or the evolution and maturity of audience tastes, the old games are said to have aged badly.
>When newer games are better in ways that are obvious
I think the issue is that "aged badly" implies that everybody agrees new thing is better when it's really just the speaker making this claim and on a board like this, many will disagree with them.

[Anonymous No.5098708]

>>5098642
There is as aspect of personal opinion, but objectively Street Fighter 2 aged well in a way Street Fighter 1 did not, for example. An individual might love the first game more than the second, but it doesn't change the overall situation.

[Anonymous No.5098720]

>>5097297
Thats the most retarded analogy. Hes blind. Nothing happened to the games, they will always be the same.

[Anonymous No.5098725]

>>5098642
>when it's really just the speaker making this claim and on a board like this, many will disagree with them.
Yeah when you encounter disagreement you debate the details. That's how discussions happen between people who aren't binary-thinking simpletons or juvenile shitposters.

[Anonymous No.5098763]

>>5097108
Please kill yourself and stream it so I can feel hope again.

[Anonymous No.5099049]

>>5097698
I'd say it is more amazing now then it was back then because of how old it is. It's like seeing through time itself

[Anonymous No.5099273]

>>5098725
>>5098725
But often people won't give any real reasons why they think a game aged. If the do they'll just point out how new game Y did what game X does better so game X aged badly.

To give a modern analogy, since the release of Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 just happened and most people think it's better than Call of Duty: Black Ops 3, does that mean that Black Ops 3 "aged badly"? Or was it simply that Black Ops 3 was a bad game to begin with and everyone only bought and played it because it was the newest release of the time?

[Anonymous No.5099286]

>>5099273
>But often people won't give any real reasons why they think a game aged. If the do they'll just point out how new game Y did what game X does better so game X aged badly


so, people misuse a colloquialism because they are idiots, and the more people who use the new slang definition, it becomes a neoteric idiom of language, like how gay used to mean happy, but now it means you like sucking dick. where as, "aged poorly" meant that overtime wine aged poorly, because of ingredients.... now "aged poorly' means, "becuase my current taste and my nostalgia for said thing are at odds, its aged poorly." when in reality said thing never changed at all. now, if you said my old snes console aged poorly because i left it in the garage for years, then that would be the original use of the term. its just a neoteric idiom now. so fuck you!

[Anonymous No.5099486]

>>5099273
>does that mean that Black Ops 3 "aged badly"?

Yup.

>Or was it simply that Black Ops 3 was a bad game to begin with

It wasn't a bad game and it's still not a bad game, it just became dated. Something not aging well doesn't mean it's a bad game.

[Anonymous No.5099493]

>>5099286
No.

[Anonymous No.5099502]

>>5099286
>Descriptivism

[Anonymous No.5099559]

>>5099502
>millennialism

[Anonymous No.5099580]

>>5099273
>But often people won't give any real reasons why they think a game aged
Saying it "aged" is a very broad narrowing of the possible reasons. If you are interested in knowing more, you debate the point. You say "no, it aged fine and here's why..." then they either tuck tail and run, or they defend their point. In the process, you start drilling down into the details and find the parts where you seriously disagree incontrovertibly. Then you call each other names. You could just ask what specifically they think aged, but that's more polite but less fun. Either way, the experience is now part of you and you remember those counter arguments and either you grow to appreciate them or you get better at rebutting them the next time you see them.

What you don't do is bitch-nitpick the language like an obnoxious cunt. That is even more broad and irrelevant than saying games aged, and forces the other person to either ignore your stupid ass or explain basic fucking language concepts to you as if you're in fucking kindergarten on the slim hope that the argument might turn into something that isn't brain-meltingly retarded.

[Anonymous No.5099607]

>>5099273
Jesus what is actually your problem. Since you feel everything needs an essay to explain, write one up for what your exact dysfunction is.

[Anonymous No.5099609]

>>5099273
>But often people won't give any real reasons why they think a game aged
They actually do if you take the post as a whole and are capable of using context clues.
"I think Butt Blasters 2 hasn't aged well. Everything they did in that was done better in 3 and without the stupid control scheme"
NO one has ever just said "it aged." as a reply

[Anonymous No.5100201]

Everything everwhere ages.

[Anonymous No.5100205]

>>5099609
>NO one has ever just said "it aged." as a reply
There are some rare instances where people do, but that's just an invitation to ask them why they think that and start a discussion. Something an antisocial autist like OP would never grasp.

[Anonymous No.5100465]

>>5097108
I think saying that Mario Bros or FFVII didn't age well is garbage, because they're both solid games that stick to their genre and do a very good job of it, regardless of how "bad" they might look now due to technology constraints at the time.

But I can understand someone saying a game like Zelda II or Metroid didn't age well. What they tried to do just don't hold up very well now that game design has evolved.

[Anonymous No.5100616]

>>5100465
Yeah SMB is a perfect example of a game that aged very well. FFVII is more debatable but has still aged pretty well.

[Anonymous No.5100663]

>>5097108
>opinions can change over time
wow

[Anonymous No.5100689]

>>5099609
>NO one has ever just said "it aged." as a reply
Plenty of people do just that here.

[Anonymous No.5100695]

>>5098720
>Hes blind. Nothing happened to the games
Exactly

[Anonymous No.5100701]

>>5097108
what do you mean by "video games"

[Anonymous No.5100728]

>>5097294
You being stupid and not understanding the word isn't a fault of the language, it's yours for not educating yourself.

[Anonymous No.5100781]

Games made prior to ~1987 have, by and large, aren't very fun anymore simply because 1) people were still figuring out the basics of game design and 2) said games are vastly outranked by later games that do the same thing they did but much better (the seinfeld effect)

Monty on the Run is sloppily programmed, overly punishing, and way too short, Super Mario Bros has overly horizontal and extremely repetitive level design, and pretty much every atari vcs game is an overly simplistic yet also overly cryptic messes

[Anonymous No.5100926]

>>5100781
SMB's horizontality is actually a good example of something that was a constraint on the design but the result isn't objectively worse. Later games did a much better job of exploring verticality in platform games, and if games had never moved beyond horizontal SMB style that would have been really bad. But if you really enjoy just running fast through a series of horizontal obstacles, SMB1 does a great job of it. So I don't consider "lack of verticality" a valid criticism of SMB1.

It's not even that repetitive, apart from the obvious reused stages (and even then, the second versions always have tweaks to make them more challenging). Each stage presents a different combination of challenges in a different sequence. It's certainly not "extremely repetitive."