/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.6730992]

Let's settle this once and for all. Can video games age. On one hand they don't as it's the same video game no matter how many years passes. On the other hand they do age as it's more of a social construct in a way and less literal than the game literally becoming worse over time.

[Anonymous No.6731031]

On a scale from 1 to 10, how much do you want to play this game?

[Anonymous No.6731034]

>>6730992
nobody says "this game has aged" and literally meant that it has objectively worsened over time
it's about shifting perception and standards
yes, games can age, not because they change over time, but rather because they DON'T change over time. they stay the same as newer games are made differently, new things become the standard, which in turn make older games no longer the standard. note that an aged game need not be worse than a new game, just different (hence the need to clarify with "aged well" or "aged poorly")

[Anonymous No.6731048]

>>6730992
You age and your standards change as technology advances. Games will always be the same and it is up to you to decide if they are still interesting to you.

[Anonymous No.6731070]

>>6731034
ps. "aged well" does't really mean it's a good game, but rather that the game is still compatible with current standards or expectations about games
a good game can age poorly, and a bad game can age well

[Anonymous No.6731284]

>>6731031
10, it looks fun. Bet I could have a good time with it in a bar or arcade

[Anonymous No.6731297]

Games look worse in retrospect because newer games introduce new mechanics and deeper thinking required because as technology advances more information can be stored and transported. On the other hand, nostalgia goggles.

I don't really know, is it-..... is it a currency thing? What is it?

[Anonymous No.6731305]

>>6731031
Lucky hit mahjong pinball? Fuck yeah, that looks fun, I like older pinball because of its simplicity, where modern pinball is ridiculous lights and set pieces that distact me away from how the ball plays.

[Anonymous No.6731321]

>>6731305
>baby zoomer gets too distracted by all the lights and noises
>can’t play a game as easy as pinball as a result
Autism truly is a curse

[Anonymous No.6731343]

>>6731297
>Games look worse in retrospect because newer games introduce new mechanics and deeper thinking required because as technology advances more information can be stored and transported.

That's not true at all and you're a complete idiot. I thought your post was being sarcastic from how it started out, jfc.

[Anonymous No.6731541]

>>6730992
It's been settled. Yes, obviously. People who say otherwise don't understand the range of meaning some words have. Anyone saying otherwise is functionally illiterate.

[Anonymous No.6731603]

>>6730992
They age in the sense that conventions change. Remember when movies used to be a tight 90 minutes and now routinely push 2 1/2 hours? Or how they all look blue and orange now? Same for games.

[Anonymous No.6731615]

>>6730992
You ever watch a pre-method movie, say from the 1940s, and notice everyone's acting is strangely stilted and exaggerated, like they're still evoking a stage play format? Games can be like that.

[Anonymous No.6731671]

>>6730992
The context in which the game is observed and played does change, while the game does not. A great example (I don't think it's retro though) is Deus Ex, where the twin towers were removed as part of the lore: at the time you would've thought "wow some huge shit has gone down great lore", now its just a sad premonition. From that point of view, the backstory has aged (for better or worse) without really changing itself.
Games also age as the way they're interacted with evolve. Transparency effects in Sonic's waterfalls don't really work on LCD/LED screens which is a great example of games reacting to contextual evolutions, although in this case it's a bit easier to experience it as it was originally designed. Differing control schemes may also be considered "aging", though not as noticeable it still feels off to play N64 games on a dual stick controller.

[Anonymous No.6731674]

>>6730992
No.

[Anonymous No.6731680]

>>6731674
Lol. Yes. It's not a debate.

[Anonymous No.6731718]

The correct term is 'date'. Games do not age, they become dated.

[Anonymous No.6731723]

>>6730992
>>6731034
>>6731048
>>6731297
>>6731603
>>6731671
I normally don’t multiquote like this, but these takes are all wrong for the same reason: game design conventions do not change linearly.

For example, between Mario Sunshine (2002) and Mario Odyssey (2017), the series did not include sandbox platforming. Did Sunshine and Mario 64 “age badly” and then suddenly “age well” in 2017?

There are so many illogical loopholes like that when you think about culture like a linear progression. I don’t want to sound like an asshole, but this is literally something you do when you’re really young and don’t realize how arbitrarily opinions and trends change. Everyone wants to believe they live in a special time.

[Anonymous No.6731725]

>>6731718
Age is an informal usage of the word and I refuse to believe that a board full of supposed adults don't understand figurative language, a concept that was made clear to me when I was 7.

[Anonymous No.6731726]

>>6731723
Yes, they aged poorly and then aged well. Like your aunt when she had her drug problem vs when she went vegan and started doing bikram yoga.

[Anonymous No.6731732]

>>6731726
No, in that case, my aunt changed, so it’s not like a videogame at all. The world around my aunt didn’t become addicted to meth, hit the wall, and then suddenly get into a new-age Korean yoga cult, which would be more akin to how a game “ages.”

[Anonymous No.6731741]

>>6731726
going vegan doesn't make you healthy, it can have quite the opposite effect. humans are omnivores

>>6731723
i'm having trouble understanding what you've written, really, i can't argue with you since i'm not really sure what you're saying

[Anonymous No.6731749]

>>6731723
>Did Sunshine and Mario 64 “age badly” and then suddenly “age well” in 2017?
I don't think games age "well" or "badly", simply that as context changes our views on games also change. But even in that case even though the series stayed away from sandboxing, both were still pretty influential to the genre which itself also evolved, adding some "age" to the games.

[Anonymous No.6731758]

>>6731723
what do you mean by sandbox platforming? i haven't played mario odyssey so maybe there's a reference i've missed

[Anonymous No.6731760]

>>6731741
Right, your aunt went downhill when she got off the drugs and changed her diet. Pay attention please.

[Anonymous No.6731767]

>>6731741
>i'm having trouble understanding what you've written, really, i can't argue with you since i'm not really sure what you're saying
Game design doesn’t change linearly with time like bank account interest. Trying to evaluate games this way is flawed, especially when newer games can become more like older games over time.

Maybe another example will help: the design of Ninja Gaiden would have been considered to have “aged poorly” for being too difficult. Then, the Souls games came out and suddenly 7th-gen game design looks like 3rd-gen design. Now Ninja Gaiden has “aged well.”

[Anonymous No.6731781]

>>6731758
In Mario 64, Sunshine, and Odyssey, you can pursue goals in a non-linear fashion. In Mario Galaxy and 3D, each level has a definitive goal. There is overlap between these styles, but they are still distinct.

[Anonymous No.6731834]

>>6731767
right, so you're saying things can change, then change back
i don't think your example is a good one though, i've never considere difficulty to be a factor in a game aging, we've always had both easy and difficult games

[Anonymous No.6731853]

>>6731031
10. Reminds me something we used to build and play as a kid, pic related. But it used a paper ball, instead.

[Anonymous No.6731889]

Games and movies don't age, your perception of them and the world around you changes.

[Anonymous No.6731905]

>>6730992
Games are information. Information doesn't age. You age.

[Anonymous No.6731910]

>>6731905
Thanks mr nimoy

[Anonymous No.6731912]

The concept makes sense when you can safely assume that most people reading your opinion aren't going to be familiar with other games of the same era. ie, you can use it in a review intended for modern gamers and everybody will know what you're talking about. Using it here is still fucking retarded because the whole thing doesn't really say anything by itself, and people here usually IS used to the old mechanics of the past, so to them you're just going to look like a retard who can't adapt.

[Anonymous No.6731994]

>>6731723
>Everyone wants to believe they live in a special time.
And sometimes they actually do. The people growing up during the advent of film and television experienced something the rest of us can't really imagine. This idea that there can never be quantifiable differences between then and now and it's all just nostalgia goggles is an example of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction. Yes, sometimes it is nostalgia goggles but sometimes there really is merit to shit being better/worse in the past.

[Anonymous No.6732020]

>>6730992
>retarded faggots don't understand basic expressions

[Anonymous No.6732464]

>>6731834
>i don't think your example is a good one though, i've never considere difficulty to be a factor in a game aging, we've always had both easy and difficult games
You may not have considered it, but I am far from the first person to make the comparison. Have you heard the term “Nintendo Hard?” It’s fairly common, and refers to the difficulty of NES and some Super NES games.

[Anonymous No.6732479]

>>6731994
There are also anti-nostalgia goggles.

It’s goggle all the way down.

[Anonymous No.6732490]

>>6731912
I don't know if that's universally true. There are a handful of quality of life improvements that old games lack that can be irritating to deal with after getting a taste of better options. Save features are an example. I'm certainly not enthused to write down passwords like I was as a kid.

[Anonymous No.6732530]

No, NO! NOT THE TOP ROPE!

[Anonymous No.6732648]

>>6731034
This
>>6731723
Sunshine and Mario 64 are examples of games that do not really feel aged at all, so they are not good examples to use here. Games age because of advancements in technology and control schemes that render older games feeling far worse and obsoleted in comparison.

It's difficult for 3D platformers to feel aged because the idea of the Mario 64 era of 3D platformers had game design based around older technology, and Mario 64 nailed the control scheme for a 3D platformer so well that every single 3D platformer to this day is inspired by it. The only thing that aged badly about these games is the camera controls, and for most games that is at most a minor nuisance.

If you want an example of a 3D platformer that aged like shit, play floating runner, which was interesting back when it was released since it predated mario 64, but was basically obsoleted by Mario 64 6 months later.

There are very few games that were extremely highly regarded back in the day yet have aged poorly enough that they play badly, because those games are highly regarded for the very reason that they stand the test of time. The only games of this example I can think of that actually have aged in a negative way off the top of my head are Goldeneye 007 and Shenmue. Games aging always applies more to the lesser games that aren't as well remembered today.

[Anonymous No.6732694]

It's up to you whether a game is too archaic for you or not. The games don't change, and people aren't born with different standards just because they were born later. You can introduce a kid in 2020 to games on the NES and he sure as hell isn't going to notice how "aged" they supposedly are when he's having a blast.

[Anonymous No.6733983]

>>6732648
Floating Runner was never good. It didn't have the same status as Mario 64 that was then "obsoleted" by Mario 64. It just simply made worse design choices in the context of the technological limitations. Even that is just opinion, but I guess most people would agree.

>Games age because of advancements in technology and control schemes
I guess, sort of. Many technological aspects of a game will hint at its age. Sure.
>that render older games feeling far worse and obsoleted in comparison.
No. If you can balance a game's design perfectly against the technological aspect (limitations), then it's a good game. It has nothing to do with the "age" of the game, or "new standards". That's why Tetris on NES isn't obsoleted by Catherine on PS3.

People have simply grown accustomed to contemporary games, so those feel more intuitive and natural to them as a result. Older games and their controls now become foreign, less intuitive, and "feel worse" due to a lack of exposure. In the same way, someone who only plays NES games might feel that contemporary games come off as foreign and unusual. That person just doesn't have the argument of "aged poorly" to excuse themselves with.

[Anonymous No.6733989]

Only games from 1999 and earlier are allowed to age.

[Anonymous No.6734004]

>>6733989
Honestly I'm noticing a ton of PS2 games that are aging like milk when compared to even older stuff. That 2000-2004 period is rough to look back on.

[Anonymous No.6734093]

>>6733983
007 goldeneye is an excellent game, it was good then and it's good now
but it's aged alright, 10-20 fps is not something people are used to anymore, nor is a first person shooter with only one analog stick, for anyone not used to N64 shooters, it's a strange thing to get into, it's no longer compatible with the expectations of modern console shooters

[Anonymous No.6734103]

Are some older games more well-received by newer players? If so, then yes, games can age well or poorly.

[Anonymous No.6734517]

I think it would be cool for everyone to sell their link on thursday when I get paid

[Anonymous No.6734549]

One thing I think is underappreciated, particularly with PC games but also occasionally with emulation of console games, is how hardware can affect games of the past that were not designed with future-proofing in mind. Especially a lot of old Lithtech games and early 3D era stuff and lot of the strange half-done ports from the Gamecube era. Advent Rising just does not have shadows if you don't have an ATI 9800 Pro. A lot of the early Lithtech games seem incredibly unfair because their AI was designed to run at 30FPS. There are sometimes fan patches to fix this stuff but even GOG doesn't have that stuff installed by default half of the time. It seems a lot of people just say "well the graphics aren't bugging out and my buttons work so this experience must be exactly like how it was when it came out."

[Anonymous No.6735046]

>>6734549
that's just a form of digital rot

[Anonymous No.6736832]

>>6730992
Yes. Look at doom keyboard controls vs kb+mouse.
Or how prince of persia is just a worse, clunkier abes oddyssey, or how the original metal gear solid is nearly unplayable trash compared to newer installments.
Games retrospectively become worse as new advances in game play set the standards for genres.
Graphicsfags can fuck off though.

[Anonymous No.6736838]

>>6736832
I should rephrase that: games CAN retrospectively become worse. However, some games, like Doom and Quake, still absolutely shit on modern titles due to how they lean into their artstyles and still have fast, smooth game play even today.

[Anonymous No.6736898]

>>6731723
This

[Anonymous No.6737131]

>>6731031
As I haven't played it before, I'd say a 5 as I'd at least give it a shot.

[Anonymous No.6737379]

>>6736838
That's aging well as opposed to aging badly. Sadly a concept that flies over the heads of a lot of retards who come to this board now.

[Anonymous No.6737408]

The quality of a game’s design does not correlate to its temporal state. It is exactly as it was when it was released as it is in the present. The only thing that can change is your opinion of the game.

[Anonymous No.6737447]

>>6737379
Did you read both posts, dumbass?

[Anonymous No.6737496]

>>6737447
Nope. I did now and that's decent, but honestly all these illiterate people whining about how they don't get the term for post after post got dull ages ago so I rarely did back any more.

[Anonymous No.6737828]

Some Video games are ageless due to their art design and story... These games usually lean into making the game run well on a variety of systems at the time of release, not just top spec... TIE Fighter, Rez, Homeworld, Doom, Indiana Jones Atlantis, and Diablo come to mind.

Some games are dated by grafix and gameplay, but their limitations are charming because they moved gaming forward in some meaningful way. Half Life, Deus Ex, Wing Commander, Commander Keen, Command and Conquer, StarCraft, the later King's Quests, are some examples

Then some are just "old" because they never were that fun, we just didn't realize it back then... Duke Nukem was "cool" for the wiseass humor, but seems meh and whatever now and Leisure Suit Larry was just cheap, stupid titillation.

So I consider games to slot into one of those three tiers and play/think about them accordingly

[Anonymous No.6738045]

>>6730992
They age but not in any way that changes gameplay. Socially they don't fit the same as they did. Hell, look at elvis movies, some are based in a campy fun type way, but no one is going to enjoy them like a fangirl/boy would have back when they were new.

Zoomies bitch and complain about bombing walls, high difficulty, lives, etc. The games didn't change, but they cant be experienced the same way as kids did back then. It's kind of this way with any medium, especially the pioneering times. A2600 is looked poorly on now by most zoomies, but back then it was good fun. If you got bored, you went outside and played baseball or whatever instead of whatever kids do now. Back then a game getting boring after 30 minutes wasn't a big deal as you had other stuff to do.

[Anonymous No.6738067]

>>6738045
>Hell, look at elvis movies, some are based in a campy fun type way, but no one is going to enjoy them like a fangirl/boy would have back when they were new

By comparison, look at the two ICP movies, Big Money Hustlas and Big Money Rustlas. Timeless classics, just as funny today as they were at release. ICP > Elvis

[Anonymous No.6738235]

>>6737408
This is true, i think a lot of the "aging" bs comes from the fact that we were much more tolerant of poor games back then. I remember loving bart vs the space mutants. It wasn't good then, but it was one of 4 games I had so I played it a lot. I have nostalgia for it, but when I tried to play it again a few years ago I said fuck it. It wasn't worth playing back then or now, but my nostalgia for it still exists.

[Anonymous No.6739176]

>>6737496
Fair enough, anon. Fair enough.

[Anonymous No.6739208]

>>6730992
>Let's settle this once and for all
kek. we will be fighting about this into 2050 and most likely further.

[Anonymous No.6739636]

>>6730992
If you can't understand the concept of something aging well or aging poorly, you must be dangerously autistic.

[Anonymous No.6739797]

>>6739208
But will we allow 6th gen consoles and games by 2050?

[Anonymous No.6739808]

Games don't age, you do.
Just because you used to have lower standards or made an error in judgment in the past doesn't mean the game used to be good but now it's not, it means your judgment used to be poor and has changed.

[Anonymous No.6739818]

>>6739797
No, you guys can have your own board and when the PS4 and Xbone crowd finally show up to shit up your board you will hopefully look back on this and go "wow, we were annoying"

[Anonymous No.6739881]

>>6739818
>you guys
I was making a joke you fragile little faggot.

[Anonymous No.6740236]

>>6730992
Yes, video games can age. Not LITERALLY, of course, in the sense that they degrade and rot or something, but they age in the sense that music ages, or old movies ages. Games that might have been appreciated at release for being good compared to their contemporaries might have been regularly outdone in every way later, and seen as pretty bad nowadays. I'd say Dune2 is a good example of this. Back in the day it was graphically impressive and offered a novel, interesting gameplay idea. People loved it, my uncle played it to death. These days, who the fuck wants to play an RTS where you can only move one unit at a time, and you have to click the interface buttons every time you want them to move? Nobody, since later games have improved on the genre to such an extent that we take the improved controls for granted, and it's painful to go back.

[Anonymous No.6740247]

>>6731723
Well of course there's not much aging between 2002 and 2017, video games were a mature and tested format by then. Aging is mostly a thing when comparing pretty early games to modern games, or possibly games that were made when a particular "design zeitgeist" (or whatever the fuck) was in effect, like the heavy use of bloom in the early 2000's when that was a new graphical effect.

[Anonymous No.6740248]

>>6739881
>fragile little faggot
You mean yourself?

[Anonymous No.6740251]

>>6730992
>once and for all

[Anonymous No.6740258]

>>6739808
I bet you are just amazed at the cinema of the early 1900's, and regularly play the shit out of Pong, since they are just as impressive to you as they were to people at release. No? It's because they are fucking aged. You think games exist in some kind of time vacuum? No, they have a release date and age, just as you have a birth date and age.

Pong used to be fucking amazing, and today it's not.

[Anonymous No.6740263]

>>6737408
And this is exactly what a game being 'aged' means.

>>6738235
That game sucked back then too though (I owned it).

[Anonymous No.6740264]

>>6740258
>Pong used to be fucking amazing, and today it's not
Spoken like a true little niglet that's never even played pong. Pong is KING SOUL.

[Anonymous No.6740271]

>>6740258
>I bet you are just amazed at the cinema of the early 1900's, and regularly play the shit out of Pong, since they are just as impressive to you as they were to people at release.
I don't know how you even came to this conclusion. You're basically making up an opinion and asserting it as my own without any basis at all.

>Pong used to be fucking amazing, and today it's not.
According to whom? Not me. When I first played Pong it was okay for what it was, my feelings on it haven't changed. It's still fun if that's what I want to play with someone for a few minutes and that's how it was when I first played it too. The only difference is that instead of the Atari version I might be playing in some chat window. The irony of your post being that the game in principle hasn't changed and neither have my feelings on it.

You might actually have autism considering how you're projecting shit on to people as if everyone thinks the same way as you.

Going off topic to cinema, I can say the same thing about Citizen Kane, I found it mostly boring, there's only 1 scene I actually like in it and that's about it. Just because others acclaim it to be some icon of cinema, I disagree. I'd honestly rather watch Nosferatu.

[Anonymous No.6740283]

>>6740271
>>6740264

Pong fucking sucks ass today, get a grip. If Pong never existed and you saw it released today, even as a free indie game, neither of you would give a single fucking shit about it, and if you claim otherwise you are both liars.

And stop pretending like you were a kid/teen in 1072 playing Pong for the first time.

[Anonymous No.6740286]

>>6740283
trying too hard mang

[Anonymous No.6740287]

>>6740283
Your whole argument is
>if you don't share my opinion you're a liar
You're either an idiot or you're trolling because you ignored the bulk of what I said. Reply seriously if you want a real response.

[Anonymous No.6740291]

>>6740271

Nosferatu sucks ass. Some old films can still hold up (I remember liking Shanghai express), but what you fail to realize is that those are examples of movies aging well. If you grew up in the 1930's you'd find a hell of a lot more movies that you liked a hell of a lot more than if you were to start watching random movies of random quality from the 1930's today, since at that time the movies were the peak of what you could expect acting- and effects-wise. Saying otherwise is just being either willfully ignorant or just plain deceitful.

[Anonymous No.6740294]

>>6740283
>Pong fucking sucks ass today, get a grip
Little do you know, little shit, that pong is the rawest and cleanest form of gameplay you can experience with a friend. The simple and pure gameplay cycle that can create some seriously fun times with friends is lost on you because today's era is obsessed with attacking all of your senses every single second because they're trying to target even the hardest of ADD children. Just look at FFXIV or PSO2. There is no need for that many flashy moves and sound effects popping out at every second. You have been jaded by today's industry.

[Anonymous No.6740301]

>>6740286
>>6740287

You are the ones saying that

A. You were a kid/teen in 1972 and saw Pong for the first time at release

and

B. You were unimpressed by it

I don't belive this for a second. And if you WEREN'T a kid in 1972 seeing Pong for the first time, and instead were a kid in the 90's, then of fucking course you'd find the game to be 'meh', since it fucking aged, you were used to better stuff.

[Anonymous No.6740306]

>>6740294
What a load of shit. Maybe if you have a special interest in minimalism in all its forms, but for anyone else Pong is just way too primitive and simplistic to be fun for more than about five minutes tops.

[Anonymous No.6740315]

>>6740291
>Nosferatu sucks ass.
What does that say about Citizen Kane.
>Saying otherwise is just being either willfully ignorant or just plain deceitful.
You act like just because I picked one movie from the era that I'm suddenly defending all of the 30's.

>>6740301
>You were a kid/teen in 1972 and saw Pong for the first time at release
I never even implied this at all. I wasn't even alive in the 70's. The first time I played pong was probably 1997.

>You were unimpressed by it
So what? It's a simple concept for simple enjoyment. I don't need to be impressed by it to find it fun. More importantly it's a pure game as >>6740294 is saying. Much like with puzzle games like Puyo Puyo, Tetris, etc. the opponent matters a lot here.

>And if you WEREN'T a kid in 1972 seeing Pong for the first time, and instead were a kid in the 90's, then of fucking course you'd find the game to be 'meh', since it fucking aged, you were used to better stuff.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Being a child of the 90's I have to disagree with this. I had zero context of game history so it's not even applicable. What a retarded and arbitrary point. It's so context sensitive to the individual and their prior experience.

[Anonymous No.6740317]

>>6740306
>to be fun for more than about five minutes tops
Thanks for proving my point that you zoomies have literally no attention span anymore. I feel sorry for you all, really.

[Anonymous No.6740321]

>>6731031
I knew as soon as I saw this post that the contrarians would say 10 in order to not disprove their own biases.

[Anonymous No.6740324]

>>6740306
>Pong is just way too primitive and simplistic to be fun for more than about five minutes tops.
So what? That doesn't invalidate that it is in fact still fun to play for a few minutes. This is exactly how I felt about it originally and even said so already here >>6740271
>The only difference is that instead of the Atari version I might be playing in some chat window

Me and my friends would sit near our consoles with a slew of games and swap them around quickly. If you have 30 games that are fun for 5 minutes each, that's still 2 hours of fun. Minigame collections are a thing too.

You're going to try and discredit that something is good because of the portion?

[Anonymous No.6740325]

>>6740315
My point is:

If you were a kid/teen in 1972 you would have been impressed by Pong. It was new, fresh, exciting, at the edge of technology, it showed a glimpse of the future, what computer hardware could do for entertainment. But since you played Pong in 1997 you had already seen much better, Pong was nothing to you. This is because Pong had become aged.

When we use language we of course have to make sweeping generalizations to communicate ideas. I will grant that if you were born in a cave, never saw a video game or communicated to anyone else about games, and someone then showed you Pong and played with you, then you would probably be impressed by it. In that particular case, Pong would NOT have been aged for you personally. But since most people were not born isolated in a cave, we can safely say that for 99% of people alive today Pong is extremely aged, and not interesting as anything other than a historical artifact.

[Anonymous No.6740328]

>>6740324
>So what? That doesn't invalidate that it is in fact still fun to play for a few minutes. This is exactly how I felt about it originally and even said so already here

Yes, and you felt that way originally because the game was aged at the time you played it. You had seen much more advanced and impressive electronic entertainment already.

[Anonymous No.6740356]

>>6740325
>my point is *asserting how you think*
That's not a good point to make. You can't just tell me how other people think and think it applies to me or everyone. That's just generalizing. All I can do is tell you what I think and discuss that.
I was born in 92 but to a poor family, the Atari was my first game console so pong was likely one of the first games I played. I think I shared the same mentality of people of the era, it was like board games on the TV and that's cool. Even up to the point where I had an SNES I still played board games, and still do today. They may be simple but so what, they're still fun. I hold the same feelings for other games of the era. And am not magically blinded by some nostalgia either. Pitfall is another cool game I remember but most of the games on the Atari where shit. I remember thinking that then and it's not different today.

This notion of everyone having shifting opinions is dumb. Just because some have knee jerk reactions to new and trendy things doesn't mean everyone does. It being fresh or stale has no influence on my judgment and never has. Does it for some if not most people? Sure. But that doesn't make me a liar and doesn't give you the right to make sweeping statements for everyone else.

[Anonymous No.6740359]

>>6740328
>You had seen much more advanced and impressive electronic entertainment already.
That's wrong though. I hadn't.

Stop trying to tell me what my life was and how I felt about it. You're a fucking moron. Remember that time you thought you liked men? I do. It's okay because being born in the 80's it makes sense for you to think that way. See how much sense I'm making? This is what you sound like.

[Anonymous No.6740374]

it's galaxy brain hour on /vr/ right now

[Anonymous No.6740385]

>>6740359
Not him and I'm not reading further back than the last couple posts, but something aging badly doesn't necessarily mean it's not fun overall and certainly doesn't mean someone playing it for the first time might not enjoy it. Or vice versa for that matter.

You could boot up Street Fighter 1 and have a blast of an afternoon playing but it doesn't mean the game hasn't aged badly. Likewise you could play Street Fighter 2, not enjoy it but that wouldn't mean the game hasn't aged very well.

[Anonymous No.6740398]

>>6740385
>You could boot up Street Fighter 1 and have a blast of an afternoon playing but it doesn't mean the game hasn't aged badly.
I guess we disagree on the terms because that sounds like nonsense to me.

[Anonymous No.6740405]

When I think of games that aged poorly, Nintendo 64's library immediately springs to mind. I can't be the only one.

[Anonymous No.6740419]

>>6740398
Well you can disagree, but that's what the term means and it's a common part of English and discussion. I'm sorry if it's confusing to you but it seems obvious to me and I'm so bored of trying to explain it to those who don't get it.

[Anonymous No.6740429]

>>6740405
all the early 3d games are unplayable garbage that was only really notable because "wow! it's 3d!" 3d before 2008 while all the 2d stuff from the time everyone forced unplayable 3d garbage have aged much better than anything 3d

[Anonymous No.6740430]

>>6740398
Also keep in mind, this isn't a debate. If you don't get the term or like what it means, that doesn't matter. It is what it is and will always be used in many more places than video games.

[Anonymous No.6740431]

>>6740419
>it's a common part of English
It sounds more like a contradiction to me. You're implying something is a "blast" as if it's really fun but then saying it's aged "badly". To be pedantic about it, even without the quantifier, it makes little sense to imply that games can age since without one it implies they can age for worse OR better. The latter of which makes even less sense to me than the former.
They're perpetual, they remain the same. The wold around them changes but they don't.

[Anonymous No.6740442]

>>6740429
Not all 3d games aged equally badly. Daytona USA from the Arcades is a joy to play even today.

[Anonymous No.6740520]

>>6740431
>It sounds more like a contradiction to me.

I know, and that's why I think you're stupid. But like I say, I got bored of this years ago >>6731541 If you don't ever get it I don't care, just don't be surprised to be called ignorant lazy and illiterate when you bitch about common English.

[Anonymous No.6740536]

>>6740263
>And this is exactly what a game being 'aged' means.
No, not exactly. It means your opinion has changed. The game has stayed the same.

[Anonymous No.6740540]

>>6740520
You're using the term wrong but acting like it's the common usage. Being condescending about it won't change that fact. There's something very funny about trying to make claims of "common" English while trying to apply the term not only to a medium that hasn't even existed for 100 years yet, but also incorrectly. Your only citation being foreign to the topic as well doesn't really help your argument in the slightest. What a dumbass. But I'm guessing you're actually trolling considering the line you're skirting. It's hard to do that on accident.

[Anonymous No.6740574]

>>6731541
So I guess food is to /v/ what cinema is to /vr/. Something unrelated that brainlets use to draw poor analogies since it's the only way their words make any sense. Once you try to actually talk about games and the details of them, the whole thing breaks down.
>but apples rot, therefore games must rot too!
>but in cinema they say aged, and games are basically the cinema of today!

[Anonymous No.6740585]

>>6740574
If anything, games age more prominent that cinema does.

[Anonymous No.6740595]

>>6740540
>You're using the term wrong but acting like it's the common usage.

Absolutely wrong on both counts.

>>6740574
I'm sorry it confuses you this much but it's not my problem. Maybe do go to /v/ if adults talking is too upsetting.

[Anonymous No.6740660]

>>6740595
>Absolutely wrong on both counts.
Saying so, doesn't make it so. You've got no basis whatsoever, while what I said is true. The thing you cited doesn't even relate to games and is completely foreign. Films are not comparable to games, they have a single permutation and lack agency among other critical differences. In regard to actual time passing what even is the analog to something like speedrunning old games? Watching a film at 2x? It's ridiculous. It's comparing apples and oranges.

[Anonymous No.6740846]

>>6740660
>Saying so, doesn't make it so.

Accurate. But it's true either way. And again, I don't give a fuck that you don't get it and / or refuse to accept it. You are illiterate trash trying to limit the use pf language and I find it repulsive.

[Anonymous No.6740883]

>>6740846
Being ironic doesn't make it true either. It's also not a good joke. I'm not your therapist so you can take your insecurities about being illiterate to /lit/ instead of projecting them on to me. I wouldn't go as far as to call you repulsive, just wrong. Ironically, reading it over again would probably clear up why, if only you could.

[Anonymous No.6741430]

>>6740883
I'm not joking or being ironic about anything. I call people who don't understand English illiterate because it's an accurate description.

[Anonymous No.6741472]

>>6731031
I would but I wouldn't play it all fucking day.

[Anonymous No.6741916]

>>6741430
Except that it isn't accurate at all

[Anonymous No.6741918]

>>6740536
Yes. That is what aging in relation to non-physical things mean. Replace with 'dated' if it soothes your autism

[Anonymous No.6741925]

>>6740359
>I played Pong in 97 and it was the most impressive piece of digital media I had seen up to that point

tired_pepe.jpg

[Anonymous No.6741957]

>>6741916
It's completely accurate. That's English.

[Anonymous No.6742093]

>>6741957
The irony being that you 2 are talking to one another in text just adds more credence to the idea that you're being insincere are/or ignorant.

[Anonymous No.6742104]

>>6741925
You can misconstrue what was said but it's there for everyone else to see. I never made that claim. The fact that other technology was more impressive does not change the fact that I had played no other video games. A rocket ship is more technically impressive than any game I've seen to date. Does this somehow invalidate the technical appreciation I can have for games? Does the technical level of a game even matter in this context when we're talking about fun? Does another game being more fun somehow invalidate the fun of another or is it possible that you can like more than 1 game in more than 1 ways?

This whole tangent seems irrelevant. Simple games typically outlast anyway. I still play Tetris and variants of it today despite it not being a technical marvel as well as conceptually "dated". I still played Atari games when I had access to consoles and games that came after it. This notion that games age to the point where they're no longer good is ridiculous. If the game is good, the game is good. Pong being old and simple doesn't magically make it any less fun. Your opinion on it also doesn't influence my own. I'm not sitting here saying "well Anon doesn't like it, therefore I'm not allowed to".

>look Anon I know you said you had fun with it in the 90's but that's impossible because it came out in the 80's and everyone knows the shelf life of a game is 2 weeks. If you say otherwise you're a liar. I didn't have fun so it's impossible for you to have enjoyed it.

The only arguments I've heard so far are people calling me a liar, changing what I said to suite their stance, or trying to steer the argument away from video games into things like cinema, English, status quo of era, and other nonsense that has nothing to do with the fact that games are games that are unchanged and their age has no influence on their merit. It's either good or bad, fun or not. When someone presents this fact, it's disregarded without basis.
>no that just can't be true!
okay

[Anonymous No.6742105]

>>6742104
tldr lmao

[Anonymous No.6742108]

>>6742105
>2000 characters on a discussion forum
>too long
Not sure why you even posted that like this was your blog expecting me to care if you read it or not. Thanks for the heads up? I'm about to eat breakfast, did you want to know that?

[Anonymous No.6742134]

FUCK YOU

[Anonymous No.6742150]

>>6731767
>Game design doesn’t change linearly with time like bank account interest.
bank account interest isn't linear, it's exponential

[Anonymous No.6742159]

>>6731031
Fun fact, the governor or mayor or something of Jew York/Jew York City tried to outlaw games like that because gambling so that's why you see those warnings that the machine is not for gambling but just for fun. They would round up and destroy pinball machines. Now you can argue whether or not the mob owned those pinball machines and set them up everywhere for easy coinage or money laundering, but the machines themselves were obviously not for gambling.

[Anonymous No.6742163]

>>6731031
1/10
I was always annoyed by pinball sections in vidya.

[Anonymous No.6742232]

>Let's settle this once and for all.

sure....

[Anonymous No.6742361]

>>6742104
The problem is that you are saying a thousand things and they all contradict each other

[Anonymous No.6743205]

>>6742093
Obviously he can understand English enough to reply but his goal is to weaken the language and restrict established meanings of words because he is too stupid and lazy to bother actually learning.

I may not be being very polite, but I am most definitely sincere and take this quite seriously. It's not hyperbole that I find his willful ignorance repugnant. This is a normal and well established use of the word and a point of critical discussion of old things. Hos goal is to make use of the term impossible because simply mentioning it will derail into having to spoonfeed what it means and then a debate because he doesn't get it.

To me that is blatantly unacceptable.

[Anonymous No.6743443]

>>6731031
>A GAME OF SKILL FOR AMUSEMENT ONLY.

Damn, if only people remembered these days what was common sense in 1931.

[Anonymous No.6743453]

>>6742159
That's funny, paying money to continuously play a difficult game where the odds are against you and you lose sooner or later is gambling by its very nature. Just gambling with the game and the arcade establishment who collects the coins, as opposed to games that are "casino-style" games.

[Anonymous No.6744001]

>>6743205
You can't just assert someone elses position for them like that, nor can you make such baseless claims. I continue to doubt your sincerity. The thing your doing reads as very purposful and ironic to the degree that it doesn't look like an accident.
You're talking about others trying to weaken the language while your last posts have been trying to do exactly that by tying into things outside of the actual topic of discussion. If it is sincere it's at the very least a dishonest tactic. Being rude is not an issue, being wrong is. To make the claim someone is too lazy while highlighting exactly what's wrong is highly ignorant and you're being too pompose by just disregarding it and failing to even acknowledge it.

I'm sorry but I don't believe you for a second considering where we are and what the thread topic is. It's more likely to be bait than anything else. It looks like you're just treading on patience for fun. Really hard to come to another conclusion after reading it all.

[Anonymous No.6744042]

>>6744001
I don't know what you think I'm being disingenuous about. It's a common term that people here complain about to the point that it derails any conversation using the term.

I'm not joking with any of this. I am dead serious, you people piss me off more than any of the other trolls here. You people are ruining the board because you're too fucking lazy to learn the language we're using.

[Anonymous No.6744050]

>>6744042
>I'm not joking with any of this. I am dead serious, you people piss me off more than any of the other trolls here. You people are ruining the board because you're too fucking lazy to learn the language we're using.
All I can do is ask you to reflect on your own statement here. You're asking people to adapt to your accepted standard as if it's the only one and asserting that anyone that deviates from this is a troll, while simultaneously complaining about language itself. The latter is pretty ironic but the more important thing to consider is the former, the mentality you hold. The clash with your own view is simply unbelievable to you to the point where you're willing to throw reason out the window and disregard everything said against it.
Hardly a discussion.

[Anonymous No.6744063]

>>6744050
>You're asking people to adapt to your accepted standard as if it's the only one and asserting that anyone that deviates from this is a troll, while simultaneously complaining about language itself.

God damn you're dense. I am complaining that you won't learn the language. That you want to reframe common English as "my opinion" so you can try and endlessly debate a meaning you for some reason can't understand is what is repugnant. It's not my opinion, it's established English. Again, none if this is a debate. That's the whole point.

I am done with this thread. Debate it amongst your circle jerk all you like, complain about the term being used and expect to be ridiculed as the illiterate moron you are.

[Anonymous No.6744090]

>>6744063
This is a master craft of a footgun. You backed everything so succinctly.
The juxtaposition of
>endlessly debate
and
>it's established English
specifically got me bad.

In the rare event you're serious, think about the irony in calling something establish, whilst in a debate about it, and also claiming it's not just your opinion, to the person you're disagreeing with. It's possible you're this dense, but I doubt it. Especially when capped with a backpedal.
>I'm being genuine I swear
To take a card from your deck; no fucking way.

[Anonymous No.6744091]

>>6743453
i'd say if there's a reason to play it on free-play mode, then it's more an entertainment medium than a gambling medium
that is, you get more from it than purely the chance of winning