/vr/ - Retro Games

[Anonymous No.6913702]

What do people mean when they say "this game hasn't aged well"? Can video games age? And why are some old games more palatable than others? Is it just dependent on what fads and trends are in vogue right now?

[Anonymous No.6913710]

they mean theyre bad at the game

[Anonymous No.6913718]

>>6913702
>>6913710
means the mechanics and systems the game used have been greatly improved, better alternatives exist, so the game doesn't have much to offer.

[Anonymous No.6913724]

>>6913702
I'm sure you remember at least a few games that people used to think were amazing but only because they were dazzled by then-cutting edge graphics or some other technological gimmick, or some gameplay innovation that was novel at the time, but which in retrospect were flawed and dull games made obsolete by newer games.

That describes 99% of the "classics" nostalgics like to gush over. It turns out the best retro games were often those that nobody thought to put on a pedestal back in the day because they were just solid good games and nothing more. Games like Spectrum Safari.

[Anonymous No.6913737]

>>6913702
It just glorified form of "game is shit".

[Anonymous No.6913739]

>>6913710
FPBP

[Anonymous No.6913817]

>>6913702
If you don't understand then you are functionally illiterate in English. If you don't go figure it out for yourself you're also lazy. Neither is anyone's problem but your own.

[Anonymous No.6913828]

>>6913724
This but fuck the speccy

[Anonymous No.6913836]

>>6913702
9/10 times it's because they're doodoo pants mmmmm lemmee sniff your doodooo yeah bud that's what i watnn ,,,,mmmmmm

[Anonymous No.6913887]

>>6913817
>If you don't understand then you are functionally illiterate in English. If
I've been thinking this. It's a figurative term and the only one people get hung up on here for some reason.

[Anonymous No.6913894]

>>6913718
This is the correct answer.
>>6913724
This is needlessly inflammatory, but also correct.

[Anonymous No.6913990]

>>6913702
what a peach

[Anonymous No.6914024]

>>6913702
whenever this type of person plays an older game and run into a feature of the game that they dislike or is just plain bad, they refer to it as "aged like milk" or "it doesn't hold up", but they don't consider that this bad feature of the game was considered bad even at the time of its release
a lot of older games do have hard-to-use and obtuse UI's and such, which is a cause of the limited technology at the time the game was developed, THAT is a feature of the game that is outdated, but the term gets misused alot when it comes to video games

[Anonymous No.6914028]

>>6914024
>but they don't consider that this bad feature of the game was considered bad even at the time of its release
Some things were not.

[Anonymous No.6914067]

I dont know why people say such awful things

[Anonymous No.6914071]

>>6914028
yeah i mentioned that alot of old video game UI's are outdated

[Anonymous No.6914157]

>>6913710
>they mean theyre bad at the game

[Anonymous No.6914202]

>>6913702
Standards change. Ever watch an old black and white movie from the 1940s and wonder why everyone is talking funny and unnatural? Humphrey Bogart was one of the best actors of his time and yet a performance like his would be unacceptable in a modern movie unless it was intentionally trying to mimic that style.

[Anonymous No.6914221]

>>6914202
>Humphrey Bogart was one of the best actors of his time and yet a performance like his would be unacceptable in a modern movie
The logical counterargument to that would be this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1cR-AW3Zf0

Listen to the entire song. Now, that's undoubtedly more popular and "acceptable" today than Mozart, but does that make it the superior product?

[Anonymous No.6914223]

they mean "this old classic game is not to my taste and instead of admitting as much (really not a shameful thing to admit at all), I'm just going to rationalize it as the game being bad now and everyone who likes it must be a nostalgiafag"

[Anonymous No.6914260]

>>6914223
Ah yes, I'm sure that the camera and movement controls of Mario 64 are just perfect and work well in every situation, and that the much smoother camera and controls incorporated into later games was just a result of shiggy being hit in the head causing brain damage.
Etc.

[Anonymous No.6914262]

>>6914223
That's not entirely true either. Even the most cynical contrarian shitposter would (internally) agree that some things have heavily improved over the years, especially in the realm of 3D games with controls and camera.

[Anonymous No.6914338]

>>6913702
It's like, why play SMB when SMW exists? This kind of thing.

[Anonymous No.6914359]

>>6914338
More like why play SMB when SMAS exists and is an objective upgrade in every way no matter how much that one tranny who posts that same low-effort infograph seethes.

[Anonymous No.6914442]

>>6914221
It not comparative like that. Casablanca is indisputably a better movie than the new Mulan but someone watching Casablanca and being put off by it's built in 1940s quirks can rightfully say "this film aged poorly" without necessarily saying its worse than something else. They're not saying its worse than Mulan, they're saying what made it acceptable or simply of the normal standard in the 1940s is now a liability in 2020 because of changed sensibilities. So no, Mozart is not worse than that song, but it has aged.

[Anonymous No.6914474]

>>6913702
The best example I always pull for the idea games not aging well is tank controls. It was obviously a decent idea for early 3D navigation, especially when there was one or zero analog sticks, but then we collectively realized that movement on one stick and camera control on another was much better.

[Anonymous No.6914526]

I don't really get the notion of things becoming better or more refined over time, and I say this as someone who never played a tank controls game until earlier this year. It's just "different" to me, like trying a different flavor of ice cream or something. It's the same thing with early FPS controls, like I had no issue adapting to System Shock, it just meant I had to learn a new way to move.

[Anonymous No.6914529]

>>6914526

congrats on the autism diagnosis

[Anonymous No.6914567]

>>6914474
Medal of Honor came out before that and featured that as one of the control schemes.

[Anonymous No.6914751]

>>6914474
Tank controls can work great but it usually requires a specialized setup like the double arcade sticks of Smash TV or the flight stick/trackball combo of The Grid.

[Anonymous No.6914794]

New standards can make going back slower or more tedious mechanics harder.
Playing Legend of Grimrock 2 isn't the same as playing M&M1.

[Anonymous No.6914810]

They mean "this game wasn't fun to me when it released, but my lack of exposure to good videogames at the time blinded me to the fact that I always thought it was shit"
Anyone using "aged" in any other sense is a moron. Games can't age.

[Anonymous No.6914890]

>>6914810
Its nice not having to shit outside anymore. It worked well enough but indoor plumbing changed society enough that using an outhouse aged poorly.

[Anonymous No.6914908]

>>6914890
No, the technology didn't "age". Outhouses, to use your example, weren't good when they were first implemented. They were a practical solution that worked well enough.

[Anonymous No.6914921]

>>6914908
They were good by the standards of the time since before that you had to dig your own shithole and cover it up. The innate qualities of the thing doesnt change but when people say something "aged" its a comparative statement. Everything ages when compared to the advancement of time.

[Anonymous No.6914931]

Shut up post more peach in swimsuit

[Anonymous No.6914939]

>>6914921
>They were good by the standards of the time since before that you had to dig your own shithole and cover it up.
You do understand an outhouse is literally just a box thrown up around a hole in the ground, right?
It's literally not a technological advancement, it's a graphical improvement at best.
And running plumbing predates outhouses by hundreds of years at the least.
So good job, you've just perfectly demonstrated how most people that use the term 'aged' are just decrying graphics that don't meet their standards regardless of the intrinsic capability of a given technology.

[Anonymous No.6914946]

>>6914939
Rich people had plumbing. Poor didnt. Universal indoor plumbing was a legitimate advancement. Maybe not technological but definitely infrastructural.

[Anonymous No.6914969]

>>6914931

[Anonymous No.6914972]

>>6914969

[Anonymous No.6914975]

[Anonymous No.6914981]

>>6914969
>>6914972
>>6914975
Finally. Thank you!

[Anonymous No.6915083]

>>6914975
This looks official. Nice!

[Anonymous No.6915094]

>>6914946
>Universal indoor plumbing was a legitimate advancement.
Yes, but that doesn't retroactively change the technological advancements (or lack thereof) in outhouses.
Old cars don't become retroactively "worse" because new cars are designed; they retain the exact same experience of riding/driving. If your experience in a new car is much better than in an old car, that's because that old car was ALWAYS kinda shit. The technology didn't age.

[Anonymous No.6915139]

>>6915083
It is. It's a render from the Mario And Sonic at the Olympic games.
Peach is canonically HOT.

[Anonymous No.6915153]

>>6915094
What are you not getting about it being comparative? Nobody is saying "it got worse", they're saying its worse in retrospect based on newer experiences. The physics of an old car may not have changed but the perception of what its like experiencing them sure as hell can. That's what people mean when they say something aged. They aren't saying the thing itself changed, they're saying the surrounding world and expectations did.

[Anonymous No.6915157]

>>6915153
Because the idea that old games are "worse in retrospect" pretty much correlates with the idea that there's no value in older games, or that you can't have a good experience with games that run below modern hardware or design standards.

[Anonymous No.6915202]

>>6914442
That was the style of moviemaking back then, doesn't mean that particular movie aged poorly. On the contrary, it's easily still one of the most watchable movies from the time period. "Aged poorly" should always be taken as a comparative statement, as in "compared to other games from the time". If the person just doesn't understand the era the work is from that is on them. They should get educated.

Of course movies are also a bad comparison because they don't "age" nearly as fast as video games do. Even the old black and white films still look "real" in a way that pixelly pacmen and space invaders don't, and the way you just passively watch them hasn't changed in a meaningful way, unlike the controls and UI's in video games.

It does make sense to me to say that most 3D games from the 90's didn't age particularly well - 3D was new(ish) and games were only just starting to find their footing in the third dimension, and the hardware wasn't really capable of running decent looking 3d graphics in real time, so most of these games come off as unrefined and amateurish compared to their 2D counterparts from the same era.

>>6914474
I do miss Gravitar/Asteroids style games. That's a sad casualty of "changing sensibilities" in control methods. Even Stardust has gone twin stick and that just isn't the same. RE style games don't really need rotational controls, that's where I agree with modern game design.

[Anonymous No.6915214]

>>6915202
>RE style games don't really need rotational controls, that's where I agree with modern game design.
Another pseudo-intellectual midwit filtered by tank controls.

[Anonymous No.6915215]

>>6915214
Go and actually try Gravitar, then come back and we can discuss who got filtered.

[Anonymous No.6915218]

>>6915215
Irrelevant, you're the retard that lacks sufficient IQ to play a game with tank controls.

[Anonymous No.6915223]

>>6915218
So you don't even know what Gravitar is, OK.
Resident Evil controls are babby shit compared to gravity games.

[Anonymous No.6915229]

>>6915223
Then why would you agree with the casualization of said RE controls?

[Anonymous No.6915237]

>>6915229
Because they don't add meaningful challenge, they just make the game needlessly less intuitive.
I never had a problem with playing them with rotational controls but they didn't really make the games any more fun or interesting either. It was just pointless obtuseness, unless you think "filtering casuals" is an end in itself.

[Anonymous No.6915243]

>>6915237
I've never played Gravitar, but isn't that exactly what you're talking about? An older game with controls that aren't immediately obvious to a newer generation?

[Anonymous No.6915268]

>>6915243
Nope, the inertia and gravity in those games are actual game mechanics, they're not just an intellectual challenge but also a tool you can use to your advantage, such as using inertia to strafe an enemy around a corner, shooting bullets in a ballistic arc over an obstacle or using a gravity source for a gravity assisted slingshot maneuver.

You can't really "use" RE's rotational controls for anything, you're basically just saying "hurr I can read perspective me smart" and pretending that alone adds value to the game.

[Anonymous No.6915279]

>>6915268
Then it was a retarded apples and oranges comparison to begin with. The only reason people complain about tank controls is because they're flat-out too stupid to operate them. They're the same kind of person who has to think for a few seconds about 'their right/your left'. God help you if you ever played a game like Etrian where you can press up and go south on the map depending on your orientation.

[Anonymous No.6915285]

>>6915214
>>6915218
>To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to play Resident Evil.

[Anonymous No.6915291]

>>6915279
No I just took offense with your assumption I don't understand how to play RE because I'm not "smart enough". I wasn't complaining about the rotational controls just saying they aren't needed for a game like that.

They do make thematic sense in a game where you fly a rocketship in space and they have a nice synergy with the rest of the movement mechanics in those games.

[Anonymous No.6915295]

>>6915285
If you're getting filtered by tank controls, yes. This goes back to OP's original point—faggots who are too stupid or unwilling to put up with older conventions will inevitably complain about them being 'poorly aged'.

[Anonymous No.6915306]

let me give you an example, from a game I'm playing right now.
>Final Fantasy for NES
>magic users can only learn 3 spells per spell level
>one you choose those 3, you can NEVER change
>Final Fantasy for GBA (FF 1&2: Dawn of Souls)
>still limited to 3 spells per spell level
>but now you can dump spells and buy new ones if you didn't like the ones you chose
>also when in towns you can hold B to run, makes doing the chores to go to the inn/equipment shops/spell shops much faster
just little quality of life things like that.
>inb4 HURR DURR EASY MODE, TRUE RETRO GAMERS LOVE INCONVENIENCE
if you want waste time and get stressed out playing a game, go ahead.

[Anonymous No.6915313]

>>6915306
graphics are a whole different argument btw, but for me, I don't really care about graphics

[Anonymous No.6915323]

>>6915295
it is objective fact that "tank" controls suck ass and should not have been a thing once dual analog sticks were a thing.
looking at you, Armored Core.

[Anonymous No.6915326]

>>6915306
Being able to rework 'permanent' choices in JRPGs is a fine line. On one hand, it forces you to carefully consider all of your options, on the other, (older) JRPGs frequently don't tell you what an ability does, or outright didn't even program it correctly. I think we've hit a good medium where you can rework your choices, but it will cost you multiple levels or whatever.

[Anonymous No.6915331]

>>6915326
if it's a cost to rework, that's fair.
but if I fucked up on my choice, either I didn't know what I was doing, or accidental clicked the wrong thing, I don't want to have to start the whole game over, that's retarded.
the option to choose again should be there.

[Anonymous No.6915334]

>>6915313
Good thing the post you quoted didn't even mention graphics, you likely malfunctioning chatbot.

[Anonymous No.6915346]

>>6915334
when I hear people talk about "hasn't aged well", half the time they're talking about graphics, which are irrelevant to the gameplay
no ur a bot

[Anonymous No.6915362]

>>6915346
While you're mostly correct, you should've quoted the OP instead of some random post about FF magic levels.

[Anonymous No.6915365]

>>6915362
fuck OP and his coomer version of Princess Toadstool

[Anonymous No.6915373]

>>6915331
I'm honestly wondering which spell you chose/didn't choose that completely ended your run prematurely.

[Anonymous No.6915391]

>>6915157
Thats not what it means though. Today games universally let you save progress. On the NES you had several games that required complex passwords like Metroid and decently long games like Blaster Master and Mario 3 that had no saving at all. Back then that was a norm but it can be annoying to return to after getting accustomed to quality of life improvements like unlimited save files. Hence "it aged." What you're arguing is mostly semantics.

[Anonymous No.6915407]

>>6915373
Lock is bugged

[Anonymous No.6915408]

>>6915346
Its rarely about graphics. Its usually about framerate. People easily get irritated playing old 3D games running at 12fps.

[Anonymous No.6915410]

>>6915391
This is one of the rare instances were 'aging' actually means something, but even then it's because of technological/price-saving limitations, not because of some 'archaic' design philosophy. The original FDS Metroid had a save system, and SMB3 had the whistles explicitly as a way to quickly return to where you left off.

[Anonymous No.6915414]

>>6915391
no save/not even password can get fucked, I don't have the time for that

[Anonymous No.6915415]

>>6915407
'Lock' isn't a spell in FF.

[Anonymous No.6915417]

>>6915415
also known as Focus

[Anonymous No.6915425]

>>6915417
That's also not a spell in FF.

[Anonymous No.6915443]

>>6915425
I'm playing J famicom version patched with an English translation, and comparing it to GBA US version
1st level black mage spells: (the ones you can learn in the first town)
Fire
Lit/Thunder
Sleep/Slep
Lock/Focus

[Anonymous No.6915473]

>>6915443
Man, I completely forgot about that shit. Probably because it does absolutely nothing in any version of the game. In any case, you can't go wrong as long as you got Fire and Thunder, and even then, it's only your first magic level. It's not like you missed out on Haste or something.

[Anonymous No.6915481]

>>6915410
>but even then it's because of technological/price-saving limitations, not because of some 'archaic' design philosophy.
These are the same thing. Design decisions were always based on tech limits. Random encounters, enemy patterns, game length, even specific plot points were influenced by what the hardware could and couldn't do. Since one is the result of the other, its really the same sentiment of "the way this was done back then is no longer appropriate by today's expectations" whether its a purely tech thing like a save battery or the design choices that were a consequence of a tech thing like sprite limits.

[Anonymous No.6915496]

>>6915473
Temper not working really fucked the thief class because it was clearly meant to be the main benefit of the ninja upgrade.

[Anonymous No.6915498]

>>6915481
>Random encounters
This isn't due to technological restraints, though, and I'm sick of stupid people pretending like it is. Random encounters are the best way to gauge how 'survivable' a dungeon is for developers. If they can predict the average number of encounters that you'll face, they can adjust your resources accordingly. If they have a bunch of braindead Chuck-E-Cheese manikins running around that everyone easily avoids, they can't do that.

[Anonymous No.6915508]

>>6915496
Just play the PSX remake. It's literally the exact same game with bugfixes on the magic, and simple QoL like buying more than one potion, and saving AFTER the tent heals you to full.

[Anonymous No.6915518]

Zoomers seem especially concerned with shit being "dated" or "irrelevant", I've noticed.

[Anonymous No.6915545]

>>6915498
That makes no sense. Plenty of RPGs have had on-screen enemies and can just as easily be balanced. It just takes more work to make those changes than tweaking some numbers.

[Anonymous No.6915547]

>>6915518
>"dated"
I most often use it for games I used to like way back when but turned out to be worse than I remembered when I got back to them. I feel like I can use the word because I have actual memory of playing the games when they were new, so I can compare to how I experience them now.

Not really sure what it would mean coming from a zoomer. It's understandable they can't easily get into things that are older than themselves.

[Anonymous No.6915564]

>>6915545
There isn't a single JRPG that does symbol encounters well besides SMTIV/A. Which means there isn't a single retro JRPG that does them well. Which means that you're better off on /v/ if random encounters trigger you this much.

[Anonymous No.6915583]

>>6915564
A Chrono Trigger, Mario RPG, Lunar SSS contrarian on /vr/? Color me shocked.

[Anonymous No.6915607]

>>6915547
I definitely can tell the difference between a game I liked as a kid that is less fun to return to because my perspective changed (Tekken 1) and a game that I tricked myself into liking that in retrospect was never good even at the time (fucking Shadows of the Empire).

[Anonymous No.6915617]

>>6915583
Chrono Trigger has mostly scripted encounters, which are triggered by invisible loading zones. Try again.

[Anonymous No.6915620]

>>6913702
I only consider outclassed games to have "aged badly". Games whose concepts in both style and gameplay are done better and in great quantity by future games, to the degree where there isn't a good reason to revisit that one if you've played them all.

If another game has the exact same type of fun but better, with nothing positive that's missing, I would choose to replay that one 100% of the time and let the other gather dust.

[Anonymous No.6915773]

>>6915620
>I only consider outclassed games to have "aged badly"
Name them.

[Anonymous No.6915796]

>>6915773
King of Fighters 95

[Anonymous No.6915804]

>>6915796
I don't play fighters, but I was under the impression that fighting games peaked ages ago in mechanics, and every recent game is just propping up a corpse.

[Anonymous No.6915971]

>>6913702
same idot
same idiotic question
same idiotic answers
it's called an idiom. you should have learned that in school, unless you were a "special" kid

[Anonymous No.6916085]

>>6913887
They mostly get hung up on it on purpose. There was a time I tried to engage them earnestly thinking they were just ignorant or misinformed, but over and over they've shown that they actually don't want to try and understand. They don't like the term and definitely don't want to see anyone else use it. So they make threads like this to pretend like they're asking, but what they really want is a debate where they can complain about the term so much that no one will use it simply to avoid another drawn out conversation with an illiterate, lazy moron who's whole goal is to weaken the English language.

[Princess Sevenleaf No.6916217]

>>6914221
Yes.

[Anonymous No.6916440]

>>6915804
Your impression is incorrect.

[Anonymous No.6916645]

>>6916440
Yeah that's what happens when people base their impressions on pure ignorance and conjecture.

[Anonymous No.6917210]

>>6915295
Disliking an objectively shit-tier control method that should never be used to control anything but tanks or tank adjacent vehicles does not mean you were "filtered" by it. Tank controls were already fully blown the fuck out by 96 when SM64 showed what proper 3D character movement looked like. Face it, the prevalence of awful tank controls on the playstation were because we didn't get the dualshock until 98.

[Anonymous No.6917246]

>>6917210
Not him, but tank controls aren't bad by themselves if the game is properly designed around them, like TR or old RE. They only become a problem when they expect too much precision from you.

[Anonymous No.6917263]

>>6917246
I don't mind them in RE or jrpgs because the games asks for so little from the player when it comes to movement. TR is clunky garbage, and Tenchu is ruined by the tank controls which make you feel anything but ninja-like.

[Anonymous No.6917906]

>>6913702
Clunky controls/UI are the only things that can age a game IMO. Prove me wrong, I know you can't.

[Anonymous No.6917918]

>>6913718
/thread

[Anonymous No.6917980]

>>6917210
Ahh yes, because Resident Evil controlling like SM64 would have definitely lent itself to a tense, claustrophobic horror atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.6917985]

>>6917980
>horror games should have intentionally bad controls to create tension
fucking meme

Do you honestly imagine SH1 devs sitting down and saying yeah ok we'll go with tank controls because it makes it tough to turn around and fight back. They just didn't know better at the time, there's no grand vision to any of it.

[Anonymous No.6917998]

>>6917980
And yet REmake featured proper analog controls and captures said 'tense, claustrophobic horror atmosphere' far better than any prior entry. Hmm, almost like >>6917985 is 100% right and you're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.6918035]

>>6917998
REmake's analog controls make the game piss easy while also conflicting with the abrupt camera angle changes. They work decently enough, but that's an obvious far cry from the SM64 level controls you described.
Plus, the analog dualshocks didn't even exist when RE1 launched and tank controls were perfectly serviceable, which is why they were kept even in later games.
It's not a case where all horror games need bad controls (Silent Hill is a good example of a horror game that has straight up crap controls that aren't necessary), but when you give the player too much precise control it eliminates the sense of tension.

[Anonymous No.6918040]

>>6918035
>when you give the player too much precise control it eliminates the sense of tension.
You can always do the RDR2 thing where all animations are very long and ultra realistic. It's both immersive and creates tension.

[Anonymous No.6918062]

>>6918035
Stop calling tank controls bad. Stop pushing the narrative that RE has "shit" controls for the sake of horror.

RE games control perfectly and if you take the 10 minutes necessary to get a feel for the controls, there is no damage in the game that you can reasonably avoid taking.

[Anonymous No.6918087]

>>6918035
>REmake's analog controls make the game piss easy
If REmake is piss-easy, you must think 1-2-3 are baby-tier by comparison. It's significantly more difficult than the original trilogy.
>that's an obvious far cry from the SM64 level controls you described
You're being a disingenuous faggot. I didn't say that we needed triple jumps and wall kicks. I cited SM64 as the earliest example of masterfully done control in a 3D game, which stands in stark contrast to primitive tank trash.
>Plus, the analog dualshocks didn't even exist when RE1 launched
No shit, re-read my original post.
>tank controls were perfectly serviceable
Serviceable does not mean good.
>which is why they were kept even in later games
In reality, they were likely kept due to developmental inertia. 4 is really the only stand-out example of tank controls done right, and you trannies endlessly whine about that one.
>but when you give the player too much precise control it eliminates the sense of tension
Incorrect. You lose the sense of tension when the player doesn't feel vulnerable. You don't need to make them feel vulnerable by giving them shit controls, you make them feel vulnerable in a survival horror scenario by heavily limiting resources so that they need to actively evade and avoid enemies, rather than gunning everything down.

[Anonymous No.6918496]

>>6913702
it means they've played better and the old game seems bad in comparison.

[Anonymous No.6919075]

>>6913718
that is a cope if I ever heard one

[Anonymous No.6919083]

>>6914067
sigh.. video games.. i love.. video games

[Anonymous No.6919974]

>>6913702
games don't age. You simply have to put yourself in the mindset of the time in which the game came out. It's still the same game no matter if you play it now or in 3032. /thread

[Anonymous No.6920041]

>>6915295
>>6915323

Objectively bad according to who?

[Anonymous No.6920906]

>>6919075
>that is a cope if I ever heard one
cope is thinking all games are timeless masterpieces that can't age, means you have no taste and probably suck

[Anonymous No.6920910]

>>6920041
>objective according to who
not how objectivity works, genius, if someone says it's objective that means it's true in reality regardless of who says it!! THINK!

[Anonymous No.6921906]

Its a cope mechanisms

[Anonymous No.6921923]

>>6920906
/thread

[Anonymous No.6921934]

I don't really take people who use that phrase seriously because people say that about tank controls, I am what you consider peak cod kiddie age as I played the original resident evil in 2013 at the age of 15 and was able to not only understand tank controls, but understand that I was going to be shit at them for hours, and I still managed to have fun and a good time playing that "outdated" game 17 years after its initial release.

[Anonymous No.6921936]

>>6921934
Just read through the thread and mother fuckers are already having this argument, just proves my point I guess.

[Anonymous No.6922513]

>>6913718

[Anonymous No.6922532]

>>6914474
Turnrate and camera dolly speed still imposes tank controls for every game on console.
My perspective is from driving automobiles, where turnrate depends on skill and dexterity to some degree.

[Anonymous No.6922575]

>>6913718

this is where the thread should've ended.
no one plays Lufia 1, Streets of Rage 1 or Street Fighter 1 because their mechanics were supremely improved upon by the sequels and later games. Simple as that.

[Anonymous No.6922597]

>>6913718
>>6922575
winner