Dumb shit people on /v/ say

But video games do get old. A 10 year old game is older than a 3 year old game. You can't say they're the same age, or ageless.

I only see people shit on games like mario 64 and the sonic adventure games
where have you been browsing, OP?

>Graphics dont matter if the the game play is fun!

>>385580580
Feels like I see everybody shit on every older game I liked these days.

But games do age. Enjoyment is relative to your environment, if your environment improves, your threshold for enjoyment does as well. As games get better in various aspect, old games end up less enjoyable, as the standard for your enjoyment rises.

they do you fucking idiot. technology progresses. hardware and software show their age as that happens.

>>385580635
>the game is only worth playing if it runs on 4k and 60+ fps!

Games that are essentially tech demos age very poorly.

When Half-life 2 came out everyone was cumming their pants over how good it looked and how amazing the Source Engine was.

Now that the graphics are aged it's just another generic linear corridor shooter with some puzzles and a handful of interesting characters.

>>385580274
Why didn't you just say games age?

Why the fuck did you have to add do in the sentence? Now it sounds akward

>>385580871
That's just people getting caught up in the hype though
Going by that definition Mass Effect 3 managed to age poorly after a day

>>385580429
>>385580739
>>385580810
>>385580871
It's not the games that are aging. It's your standards raising. To fully enjoy an older game you have to set your standards to what it was at the time it was released.

taste is subjective, but i'll say yours is shit anyway because it's not mine

>>385581992
Yeah, except no. It's like early films, if you compare a silent era film to a current era film you wouldn't say "oh, our standards have just changed."

Technology changed, the world changed, people changed, and in all of that how we look at movies has changed. Some people love silent films, or early films with wooden acting. Some people love janky early polygonal games, but a lot of people would have issues returning to them.

>>385582309
90s video games are more like 70s movies, and by that I mean the greatest era and everything after is a significant downgrade.

>>385580274
>fun is just a buzzword

>>385582417
>greatest era
Sorry, but that's 80s movies.

>>385582585
Yeah, you might be right actually.

>>385581992
something being highly regarded by one periods standards but not by the following periods standards is the definition of aging in this context you idiot

>>385582417
That's just nostalgia fagging and I'm a huge nostalgia fag. Seriously, I've spent thousands so I can play old games in the best possible fidelity with Framemeister, SCART cables, etc.

If you took, say, Uncharted 4 back to the 90's and showed yourself when you were a little shit your interest in Earthworm Jim would change. Games are objectively better in basically every way at the moment. You could argue that there are downsides to the modern age with DLC, season passes, micro transactions, but overall basically everything is better.

>>385582775
The gameplay in modern games is completely boring, every game in any given genre plays exactly the same and even look the same for the most part. Its not at all unlike the modern film industry, zero creativity or originality.

>>385580274
>(Company) bonus

>>385582868
>He doesn't play Nintendo games

>>385583116
I do, but Nintendo has pretty much always been in their own bubble of existence (not that this is a bad thing).

>>385582868
The gameplay is functional. They're doing what works, because otherwise people will complain that it doesn't work.

>>385583308
Doing what works should be considered the bare minimum of quality, not the best recent games around.

>>385582868
That's, just like, your opinion man.

Seriously, most people who play games today have had long stents of not playing games at all. You hear about people taking 10 years off and what not, and coming back, so while it's not new and fresh to you and I, it's fresh enough so that big games still sell tens of MILLIONS of fucking copies. Compare that to a mere 15 years ago when hitting 1 million was an achievement.

It's more expensive to make games, so yes, game companies are getting cautious and are generously padding full priced games with micro transactions and DLC to take advantage of fans.

All of that said, if you could go back in time and see your 6 year old self and show him, say, Uncharted 4 he'd shit himself. Games are incredible right now, and if you picked even an incredibly mediocre title like Dynasty Warriors I love DW to the 90's your perspective of what a game is would change.

Is this 100% true for everyone? Of course not, I'm sure some people would go back to playing Super Mario World and be fine with life, but most people would have a glimpse of the future and just want more. I can't know this to be true, obviously, but I remember when Crysis came out, and people were shitting all over themselves and that was just a decade ago.

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with the statement. I prefer older games, but I think it's mostly because I'm bored of games in general in large part so nostalgia makes me remember when life wasn't painful to live.

>>385583420
Doing what works means the gameplay isn't supposed to be the focus of the game. It's supposed to work without getting in the way of the presentation of the game itself.

People tend to forget that "gameplay" is just a means of interacting. It's like complaining no one's reinvented the keyboard.

>>385583489
Not sure what my obsession is with Uncharted 4 and going back in time. Sorry for the autism.