>You can't review it as if it came out today, you have

That's completely true though

Like movies for example.

Well, it's a necessary statement when fucking faggots insist that a game can "age" or that it "didn't age well".

Stop that shit, and so will the other.

>>381755079
>can't accept something as a product of its time
I bet you stand with all the leftist retardsclaims that we should forbid reading books from authors long dead because they were slightly racist.

>>381755207
But things can age. A game that had a new and exciting feature when it came out might not look as good now than it did then because other games since then have refined that feature and made it better.

>>381757590
That's just sheer retardation.

>>381757643
It's not my fault that you can't understand or give a reason against it

>>381755079
Well, you can't compare state of graphics between generations, and fidelity of sound capabilities pretty much plateau'd.
Other things are fair game.

>>381755079
>You can't review it as if
You can do what you want, but to me its like if someone went to Rome to look at an ancient architecture and started shitting on it because it wasn't good engineering by modern standards.

>>381757764
It may age, but the impact at its time doesn't change. It's irrelevant if Half-Life isn't up to today's standards as an FPS when it's impact at the time shaped the whole genre into something different. It's like trying to argue that Dante's Divine Comedy isn't the type of fiction people would read nowadays because it's reeeeeeeaaaaaaally fucking tedious, when it actually shaped the way the Italian language fucking works. (Though I'd argue that that shit is still better than 99.9% of the garbage that gets released today)

tl;dr: Your argument is fucking retarded and so are you.

The problem with that line of thinking is you're going to have to accept that nothing has any sort of value because it will eventually age. You may as well not like anything, because everything is going to get old and eventually just have no value.

>>381757432
Fuck off /pol/

>>381759112
I agree with you, I take into account the impact of the game at its time of release when i'm giving my opinion on it, but it very much does matter how the game plays today. Half-Life may have been a revolutionary game, but other games have since came along and improved on the formula that Half-Life put into place.

When someone is looking for a game to play, they don't want a game that was only fun 8 years ago, they want a game that's still fun today.

If it get's re-released you can. That is the publisher saying that it's worth the money in this day and age.

that's completely true though?

>>381758791
>but to me its like if someone went to Rome to look at an ancient architecture and started shitting on it because it wasn't good engineering by modern standards.

That's the thing, a lot of it is good by modern standards.

That said, one needs to consider the context of the game's release. OP's strawman isn't really on-point.

File: 1468094233354.jpg (11KB, 435x290px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 435x290px

>>381759718
/pol/ is in all of us

>>381759732
You can't retroactively make things bad, you can make subsequent things better and maybe braindead children raised by those subsequent improvements might have a hard time getting into your game, doesn't make it a bad game or less fun that it was 8 years ago.
I want to believe you're baiting, nobody can be this retarded or entitled to their shit sensibilities.

>>381759465
For me it's actually the opposite, we should try and enjoy things as they are now before they get old and decay. It's much like life, no matter what we're all going to get old and die, so why not try and enjoy the time you have?

>>381760018

I've always been pretty pessimistic, so I guess that's just my usual half-glass empty perspective of it

>>381759732
I can't even fathom the bizarre logic behind a game being fun 8 years ago but not today. Just seems like an attempt to justify terrible tastes.

>>381759983
You absolutely can retroactively make things look bad, that's how advancement works. Stagecoaches used to be one of the most popular modes of transportation, but then people started inventing trains and cars and planes, and now today most people can't fathom having to get around in something as slow as a cart being pulled by horses (despite the fact that those carts are the reason we now measure the power of our vehicles in horsepower).

>>381760241
After thinking about some of the old games that I like to play, you might be right. I still have fun with games like Doom and Duke Nukem 3D, but Half-Life just feels archaic to me despite it's prestige. I guess it does just come down to personal tastes, although I still believe that games that come out afterwards and improve upon the formula of that game can affect the opinions of someone who hasn't had previous exposure to that game.

>>381758791
people are still puzzled at the geometrical perfection of the pyramids.

Does no one fucking think in here?
What's the purpose of a review? To hail on the merits of a classic? Or to sell or not a product? Video Games are products like toothbrush, but instead of using it to clean your teeth you use them to entertain yourself, in a mechanical, emotional or challenging level depending on the game.
If the game is old enough to provide little entertainment because it's features are today outdated and inefficient (such as toothbrush that tastes bad) it holds less value and therefore aged bad.
Just try and emulate the very first Dragon Quest which is completely outdated in pretty much everything especially how obtuse it is to just interact with things having to scroll through menus for what's done with a simple button press today.

>>381761865
The first dragon quest is still a great game.

File: hplovecraft.jpg (35KB, 500x235px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 500x235px

>>381759936
>>381757432

>retarded neolibs get mad at Lovecraft's old racist works despite his mid and late career other than the slip up of Shadow over Innsmouth
>retarded /pol/tards get mad at Lovecraft maturing with his work and his statements against republicans and ultimately becoming a Roosevelt-supporting neosocialist.

Truly Lovecraft is the greatest of writers.

>>381761865
>What's the purpose of a review? To hail on the merits of a classic? Or to sell or not a product?
It really depends on how to approach the game, its like when people put shit like the Gameboy Tetris or Pong in a top 10 best games of all time list, they are historically important but very simple games and putting them next to more complex games always looks weird

In other cases you have older games that are very complex but harder to get into, which can be because the interface is not user friendly or the game does a shitty job at introducing you to its mechanics, which leads to the argument over whenever graphics matter or not

>>381761652
WE

>>381755079
>this old game is the GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME
>but you can't hold it to the same standards as recent games

Really etc etc.

>>381762090

>frightened
>greedy
>nostalgic

Sounds like /v/